Allowed

Bethi Mallamma v. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Telangana HC21 Nov 2014WP/21771/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Electricity Department's action in sanctioning lines in disputed land without notice. Pending civil litigation regarding ownership, the court set aside the impugned order directing the department to issue notice to both parties before making a final decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceeding of the 5th respondent dated 23.07.2014 is set aside and notice shall be issued to both parties.

Bethi Mallamma Vs Northern Power… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

W.P.No.21771 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the proceedings vide letter dated 23.07.2014 in sanctioning of electricity lines and meter in favour of the 6^th respondent in the land of the petitioner in Survey No.350/C to an extent of 0.26 gts situated at Arepally Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set aside the same. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.350/C to an extent of 0.26 gts situated at Arepally Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District. It is stated that the total land in Sy.No.350 is 19.06 gts, situated at Arepally village, which belongs to three brothers by name Hanmandla Ramaiah, Hanandla Venkaiah and Hanmandla Dharmaiah, who are the sons of H.Rajaiah and the same was partitioned in between the brothers and later given sub-division numbers as 350/A, 350/B and 350/C. The land to an extent of Acs.5.19 gts was originally owned by H.Dharmaiah in three bits with an extent of Ac.1.00 gts, extent A.2.00 gts and extent 2.19 gts in Sy.No.350/C. The father of the petitioner purchased the land in Sy.No.350/C to an extent of Ac.3.00 in two bits i.e., Ac.1.00 gts and 2.00 gts bit, who executed a registered will deed dated 07.06.1986 in favour of the petitioner to an extent of 0.26 gts and he died on 24.09.1996. The name of the petitioner also mutated in the revenue records and also issued pahanies. The railway authorities acquired 0.06 gts of land and paid the compensation to the petitioner. It is stated that the land in Sy.Nos.350/B and 350/C are different land in different survey numbers. The 6^th respondent has not given any

¶5

measurement of the plot, the survey number in which it is located and unable to produce lay out in which he purchased the plots. 3. It is further stated that one H.Thirupati Reddy and others filed OS.No. 4 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar against the petitioner and the vendor of the respondent No.6 and others to declare him as owner of the Sy.No.350/A showing the land in Sy.No.350/C which belongs to the petitioner and the same is dismissed on 23.12.2010. Against the same, the said Thirupathi Reddy filed AS No.16 of 2011 on the file of Additional District Judge at Karimnagar, which was allowed on 26.04.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner and her son filed SA.No.755 of 2012 before this Court and this Court passed interim order on 05.03.2014 in SAMP No.1676 of 2012 granting status quo and the Second Appeal is still pending. It is stated that when MRO issued proceedings rejecting the application of the petitioner for mutating her name in the revenue records deleting the names of the vendor of the 6^th respondent and others, the petitioner filed appeal on 08.12.2008 before the RDO, Karimnagar, who directed the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the petitioner in Sy.No.350/C to an extent of 0.26 gts. Though the petitioner obtained permission for construction of house from the Grampanchayat vide proceedings dated 25.05.2011, she could not construct the same due to paucity of funds. However, the 6^th respondent, by suppressing fact of pending disputes, obtained permission from the Grampanchayat vide proceedings dated 13.05.2013. The 6^th respondent has also filed suit for injunction against petitioner and her son vide OS.No.312/2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge and the Court below passed the order granting injunction on 17.02.2014, aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed CMA No.17 of 2014 and the same is pending before the Senior Civil Judge. The District Panchayat Officer, upon an application filed

¶6

by the petitioner on 05.06.2014 against the 6^th respondent, after conducting detailed enquiry on 20.06.2014, cancelled the permission granted in favour of the 6^th respondent vide proceedings dated 24.06.2014. However, the respondents 1 to 5 have granted permission to the 6^th respondent for erecting the lines in the disputed land vide proceedings dated 23.07.2014 even though there is no permission for construction of house and S.A.No.755 of 2012 and CMA No.17 of 2014 are pending and even without giving any opportunity and without giving any notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

¶7

4. 6^th respondent filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stating that the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the disputed land. It is stated that he has purchased plots in Sy.Nos.350/B and 350/C situated at Arepally Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District by means of registered sale deeds from Hanmandla Venkaiah and Hanmandla Dharmaiah. It is further stated that the litigation in S.A.No.755 of 2012 pertains to Sy.No.350/A but not Sy.Nos.350/B and 350/C and the petitioner is claiming the land in Sy.No.350/C and pursuing her claim in respect of land in Sy.No.350/A. It is stated that against the proceedings of R.D.O, Karimnagar, dated 08.12.2008, one S.Sanjeva Swamy and others have filed a revision petition under Section 9 of ROR Act, 1971 before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar, who granted stay vide proceedings dated 28.01.2009 and the said revision petition is still pending before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar. It is stated that this respondent is not aware of the permission obtained from Grampanchanyat on 25.05.2011 for construction of house in the land in Sy.No.350/C. It is stated that the 6^th respondent has obtained permission for construction of dwelling house in the plots purchased by him in Sy.Nos.350/B and 350/C on 13.05.2013. When the petitioner

¶8

and her son are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the property in question, this respondent filed O.S.No.312 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar against petitioner and her son Sudhakar Reddy and the said Court has granted temporary injunction on 17.02.2014 and the same is still in force as on today. Against the same, the petitioner and her son filed CMA No.17 of 2004 and same is still pending on the file of the learned District Judge, Karimnagar. It is stated that the 6^th respondent has applied for electric lines and meter and that he has not received any proceedings with regard to cancellation of building permission from the Grampanchayat. It is stated that since the son of the petitioner being elected as Sarpanch, he is creating all sorts of hurdles on one or the other pretext with oblique motive and malafide intention. It is stated that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as the 6^th respondent has given undertaking to forego his rights in the event of losing his rights in respect of land in Sy.Nos.350/B and 350/C and prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶9

5. The petitioner also filed reply to the counter affidavit being filed by the 6^th respondent denying the averments in the counter affidavit and reiterated the averments in the affidavit filed in support of this petition.

¶10

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Vinod Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5 and Sri V. Ravi Kiran, learned Counsel for the 6^th respondent.

¶11

7. From above pleadings of parties and rival contentions of learned counsel, it is clear that there is a dispute with regard to identification and ownership of the property and civil litigation is pending before the Civil Court and this Court. The petitioner also pleaded that the Grampanchayat cancelled the permission granted to 6^th respondent for construction of dwelling house in the disputed land and the same is

¶12

denied by the 6^th respondent. In view of the same, the respondents 1 to 5 should have issued notice to petitioner and 6^th respondent before granting permission for laying of electrical lines in the disputed land.

¶13

In view of above facts and circumstances, the impugned proceeding of the 5^th respondent dated 23.07.2014 is set aside. However, it is open for the respondents 1 to 5 to take a decision after issuing notice to both the parties i.e., petitioner and the 6^th respondent, basing on the orders passed in civil litigation.

¶14

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶15

_______________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 21. 11.2014 kvs

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶17

W.P.No.21771 of 2014

¶18

Date: 21.11.2014.

¶19

kvs

Bethi Mallamma v. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bethi Mallamma v. Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Narsing Rao Vs Geetha Srinivasan

P. Ramanjaneyulu Naidu, Vs K. Kanna Babu

. Vs .

S.Kona Vijay Kumar Vs Sri Kona Srinivas

Dr.Muralidhar Rao Vs Smt.Bhagawati Devi

P. Ravi Varma Babu, Vs K. Santosh Rao