Disposed¶43

Muthulakshmi v. The Special Tahsildar

Madras HC22 Jan 2026WP(MD)/1626/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Electricity service connection mandamus; TANGEDCO; Section 43 Electricity Act 2003; Article 226 Constitution of India; SC/ST assigned land; assignment patta 1998-2005; 30-year alienation restriction corrected to 10 years; G.O.(Ms).No.34 Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 13.01.2021; purchaser within lock-in period treated as encroacher not owner; no objection certificate by Special Tahsildar Adi Dravidar Welfare; Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District; writ disposed with direction to provide service connection if otherwise eligible.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to provide electricity service connections to the writ petitioners if they are otherwise eligible; writ petition disposed of with the above observations, no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶43

Muthulakshmi Vs The Special Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents/TANGEDCO are bound to provide electricity service connections to the petitioners for their houses in Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Circle, Tuticorin District, in conformity with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, notwithstanding that the petitioners purchased SC/ST-assigned plots between 2016 and 2021, i.e., before expiry of the original 30-year alienation restriction, and were proposed to be treated only as encroachers. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The Court proceeded on the clarification in G.O.(Ms).No.34, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 13.01.2021, whereby the condition of 20 years or 30 years stands corrected as 10 years, and noted that the petitioners purchased only after expiry of the 10-year period from the original assignment and that it is not in dispute that they belong to the SC/ST community.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

In that view of the matter, there cannot be any legal impediment for TANGEDCO in providing service connection to the writ petitioners.

¶39

Key takeaways

The respondents were directed to provide service connection to the writ petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), R. Vijayakumar, J. — W.P.(MD)No.1626 of 2026, disposed of on 22.01.2026. Fifteen purchasers of house plots (plot nos. 479, 489, 361, 362, 395, 129, 105, 466, 428, 480, 426, 482, 294, 223 and 323) in Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Circle, Tuticorin District, sought a mandamus under Article 226 directing TANGEDCO and the Special Tahsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) to give them electricity service connections in conformity with Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003, pursuant to their representation dated 18.11.2025. Their vendors, SC/ST assignees, had received assignment orders between 1998 and 2005 subject to a 30-year non-alienation condition; the petitioners bought between 2016 and 2021, within that period, and TANGEDCO declined to treat them as owners, treating them only as encroachers. Relying on G.O.(Ms).No.34, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 13.01.2021, which corrects the 20/30-year condition to 10 years, and noting that the petitioners purchased after expiry of the 10-year period and themselves belong to the SC/ST community, the Court held there could be no legal impediment for TANGEDCO and directed the respondents to provide service connections if the petitioners are otherwise eligible. No costs; connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 22.01.2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.1626 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.1298 & 1299 of 2026

¶6

Muthulakshmi

¶7

Kaleeswari

¶8

Muthuselvi

¶9

Saravanakumar

¶10

Veeran

¶11

Mahalakshmi

¶12

Rajendran

¶13

Saravanavadivu

¶14

Mahesh

¶15

Aribalan

¶16

Madsamy

¶17

Rohini

¶18

Rajagopal

¶19

Palraj

¶20

Paramasivan

¶21

... Petitioners

¶22

1/6

¶23

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

¶24

Vs.

¶25

The Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶26

The Assistant Executive Engineer, Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, TANGEDCO, Elayarasanandhal Road, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶27

The Assistant Engineer, Office of the Assistant Engineer, TANGEDCO, Opposite to New Bus Stand Elayarasanandhal Road, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District. ... Respondents

¶28

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of MANDAMUS to direct the respondents to provide the electricity service connection to the respective house of the Petitioners bearing the plot numbers 479, 489, 361, 362, 395, 129, 105, 466, 428, 480, 426, 482, 294, 223 and 323 situated at Pandavarmangalam Village, Kovilpatti Circle, Tuticorin District in conformity with the provisions of Section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and in the light of the representations of the Petitioners dated 18.11.2025 and consequentially to direct the 1^st respondent to issue no objection certificate for the grant of electricity service connection to the petitioners in the light of G.O.(MS)No.34, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 13.01.2021 within the period that may be stipulated by this Court.

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

For Petitioners : M/s.H.Jasima Yasmin for M/s.Ajmal Associates For Respondents : M/s.B.Saravanan Additional Government Pleader for R1 Mr.S.Deenadhayalan Standing Counsel for R2 and R3

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the Electricity Board to provide service connection to the writ petitioners based upon their representation dated 18.11.2025 and in the light of the G.O.(Ms).No. 34, Revenue and Disaster Management Department dated 13.01.2021.

¶34

The vendors of the petitioners who belonged to SC/ST were granted assignment orders between 1998 and 2005 with a condition that they should not alienate the property within a period of 30 years. However, the petitioners herein have purchased the property between 2016 and 2021. When they approach the TANGEDCO for service connection, the same has not been considered primarily on the ground that the petitioners having purchased the property prior to the expiry of 30 years period, they should only be treated as encroachers and they cannot be treated as owners of the property. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice

¶38

of the Court that the Government has clarified in G.O.(Ms).No.34, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, dated 13.01.2021, wherein the condition of 20 years or 30 years, would stand corrected as 10 years. Admittedly, the petitioners herein have purchased the property only after the expiry of 10 years period from the date of original assignment. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners also belong to SC/ST community.

¶39