Chandran @ jayachandran Vs The Superintending Engineer

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the electricity service connection effected to the property of fourth respondent in Survey No.2/5B8 through the land of the first petitioner in Survey No.2/SB5 in A.Pudupatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶27

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Barathan For R1 – R3 : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The writ petitioner seeks a mandamus to the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the electricity connection given to the 4^th respondent whose property is situated in Survey No.2/5B8 as the line runs through the land of the 1^st petitioner in Survey No.2/SB5 in A.Pudupatti Village, Usilampatti Taluk, Madurai District.

¶30

The petitioners' case is that the 1^st petitioner had purchased the

¶31

lands measuring 4 ¾ cents out of 9 cents on the western side of Survey

¶32

Page 2 of 7

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.P.(MD) No.25008 of 2025

¶35

No.2/5B5 of the above referred village through the registered sale deed dated 18.10.1995. The 1^st petitioner had thereafter sold the entire extent of 4 ¾ cents to the 2^nd petitioner under registered sale deed dated 13.04.2007. Thereafter, the 1^st petitioner had purchased the subject property measuring ¾ cents which equals 327 square feet out of the 4 ¾ cents under a registered sale deed dated 06.08.2024.

¶36

The petitioners would submit that Pappapatti Road runs east to

¶37

west and the lands originally purchased by the 1^st petitioner measuring 4 ¾ cents was situated to the south of this road. After the 1^st petitioner had sold the aforesaid land to the 2^nd petitioner and repurchased an extent of ¾ cents, the property of the 2^nd petitioner is on the west and the property of the 1^st petitioner is situated on the east. The 4^th respondent has purchased the property in Survey No.2/5B8 measuring 5 cents to the south of the 4 ¾ cents belonging to the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd petitioner under a registered sale deed, dated 03.01.2024.

¶38

_________Page 3 of 7

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.(MD) No.25008 of 2025

¶41

The petitioners would submit that the 4^th respondent had applied for service connection from respondents 1 to 3, for which the petitioners have no objection. However, the respondents instead of drawing the line through the north-south pathway, has taken the line through the petitioners' property. The petitioners would submit that when there is a north-south pathway branching from Pappapatti main road reaching his property, the 4^th respondent has to take electricity connection only through the public pathway.

¶42

The joint patta standing in the name of the petitioner with reference to Survey No.2/5B5, has been cancelled by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai without notice to the petitioners and without taking note of the sale deed, dated 06.08.2024. Therefore, the 1^st petitioner has filed a revision before the District Revenue Officer, Madurai and the same is pending. The patta has nothing to do with the request to remove the electricity service connection. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶43

_________Page 4 of 7

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

W.P.(MD) No.25008 of 2025

¶46

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1

¶47

to 3 would submit that not only does the petitioner not have the locus standi since the patta standing in his name has been cancelled and the patta allotted in the name of new parties, but the sketch which has been provided by the official respondents would clearly show that the electrical pole has been drawn from the Pappapatti road through the pathway to the south of this road. This is the very same sketch which has been included by the petitioners in the typedset of papers filed by them along with the writ petition at Page No.83 which also reflects this pathway. The line has therefore been drawn only through the pathway. As on date, the pathway is not the exclusive property of the petitioners, but has been described as public pathway. Therefore, I see no reason to entertain the claim made by the petitioners in this writ petition.

¶48

It is needless to state that if the petitioners were to ultimately get the declaration that the land in question belongs to them, then they can re-agitate the request for removal of the electricity line.

¶49

_________Page 5 of 7

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

W.P.(MD) No.25008 of 2025

¶52