Writ petition challenging cancellation of tubewell connection due to incorrect land record in application. Court held quashing appropriate as petitioner now has interest, no objections were raised, and termination would be harsh.
Annexure P-10 is quashed and the respondents are directed not to terminate the tubewell connection.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P. No.12831 of 2010 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No.12831 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 18.05.2012
Avtar Singh
Petitioner
VERSUS
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others
Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:Shri Vipul Dharmani ,Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. P.S.Thiara, Advocate for the respondents
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.6.2010 (Anneuxre P-10) by which his tubewell connection is sought to be cancelled on the ground that he had applied for the said connection by appending the revenue record of Khasra No. 57//4/2 whereas he had no connection with the said land at the relevant point of time and he was owner of Khasra no. 57//3/2. On the aforesaid premises that it amounts to concealment of facts, the connection is sought to be cancelled.
The petition has been filed by elaborately giving the details of the land owned by the petitioner and it has been stated that the petitioner is owner of land comprised in Khasra no. 57//3/2 and he acquired a share in Khasra No. 57//4/2. He was a co-sharer in 57//4/2 as he had purchased 1 marla. It was contended by the petitioner that there was no intended concealment of facts and in fact the farad was wrongly attached of land comprised in Khasra no. 57//4/2 whereas tubewell was intended to be
C.W.P. No.12831 of 2010 (O&M) 2
installed in Khasra No. 57//3/2. In any eventuality, the petitioner has now become a co-sharer in the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 57//4/2 and he has been running the tubewell ever since the connection was granted to him, without any hindrance and without any objection from other cosharers.
On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that it would be extremely harsh if the tubewell connection of the petitioner is dis-connected on the grounds mentioned in communication/ notice dated 24.6.2010 (Annexure P-10). Concededly the petitioner has the said land in his possession and was entitled to a connection under the scheme pursuant to which such an application has been made. He however had sought the connection for the land comprised in Khasra no.57//4/2 in which he acquired some interest subsequently even though at that point of time technically it could be said that he was not entitled to get tubewell installed in the land which did not belong to him, but considering the fact that none of the co-sharers has objected to it and even otherwise he had acquired some interest in the said land, it would be unjust to terminate the arrangement at this stage on the grounds which are mentioned in Annexure P-10. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and Annexure P-10 is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed not to terminate the tubewell connection of the petitioner on the ground mentioned in Annexure P-10.
(Mahesh Grover) Judge
May 18, 2012 rekha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's tubewell connection can be cancelled due to a discrepancy in the revenue record attached at the time of application.
Whether terminating the connection at this stage would be unjust considering the petitioner's subsequent interest in the land and lack of objections from cosharers.
Avtar Singh
Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala
Mahesh Grover
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
