Dismissed

Asra Housing v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Dec 2022WP/6042/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged two petitions seeking cancellation of illegal power connections granted to Residents 6-13 by TSPDCL and other respondents, claiming the grant was arbitrary and on disputed land. The Court observed this was a civil dispute between parties regarding land title. Since service connections were granted decades ago and a specific purchase date was not cited in the writ, the Court

What did the court decide?

Writ petition against the non-cancellation of power connections and non-inaction of officers in cancelling them was dismissed without costs.

Asra Housing Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³³⁰²¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 6042 OF 202'l

¶6

Between:

¶7

Asra Housing, Rep. by Syed Sardar, S/o Syed Khasim, aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o Adityanagar, Toll Chowki, Hyderabad.

¶8

M.D. Ahmed, S/o M.D. Tajuddin, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.3-1-8/1, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District.

¶9

lmran Ahmed Shareef, S/o Moin Ahmed Shareef, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.N0.16-9457/A/3, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶10

Syed Akram Hussain, S/o Syed Wajid Hussain, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.no.1B-12-4191C1901, Block-C, Near Harmain Masjid, Hafez Bab Nagar, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad

¶11

Mohd Abdul Raheem, S/o Late Mohd Abdul Aziz, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.no.19-5-4821N1 , Najam Nagar, Kishan Bagh, Bashadurpura, Hyderabad

¶12

Gorige Kishtaiah, S/o Late Mallaiah, Aged about 42 years, occ. Business,R/ o H.No.,1-3-87/2, Anmagal, Hayathnagar Village, Hyathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

Gorige Suresh, S/o Late Mallaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.4-3-871 2, Anmagal, Hayathnagar Village, Hyathnagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶14

...pETrroNERS

¶15

AND

¶16

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Energy Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Managing Director-cum-Chairman, Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (TSPDCL), Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶18

The Chief Vigilance Officer, Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (TSPDCL), Office of Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

¶19

The Superintendent Engineer, Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (TSPDCL), Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

The Assistant Engineer, Telangana Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (TSPDCL), Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

H.Lakshman @ lzrail, S/o not known, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Real-Estate, R/o H.No.4-1-124, Ambedkar Colony, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶22

R.Chandraiah, S/o not known to the petitioner, aged about 37 years, PJo Plot No.301, Ambedkar Colony, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶23

B.Nagaraju, S/o not known to the^petitioner, Aged about 43^years, Rl/o H.No.4-12-124, Ambedkar Colony, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶24

K.Laxman, S/o not known to the^petitioner, Aged about 45^years, R/o Plot No.301 , Ambedkar Colony, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶25

l0.Jayarani Srinivas, S/o not known to the petitioner, Aged about 44 years, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶26

Renuka, D/o not known to the petitioner, Aged about 44 years, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Sudheer Kumar Colony Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶27

Uppala Laxmi, W/o not known to the petitioner, Aged about, 40 years, R/o Sudheeer Kumar Colony, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶28

Bal Raju, S/o not known to the petitioner, Aged about 47 yearc, Rio Ambedkar Colony, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.3 to 5 in noncancelling the illegal power connections Service Connection No. 623400429, 623400606, 623400755,, 623400553, 62341188, 62341063, 6235348, 6235219 on the respondent No.6 to 13 without having any right and without having any houses to them, basing on the representation of the petitioners for the land to an extent of Ac.O.24 gts-in Sy.No,64; Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and in violation of Principles of Natural .Justice and also in violation of Articles 1a, 19 (1) (g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Sth respondent to cancel the illegal power connections Service Connection No. 623400429, 623400606, 623400755, 623400553, 62341188, 62341 063, 6235348, 6235219 on the respondent No.6 to 13 without having any right and without having any houses to them, basing on the representation of the petitioners for the land to an extent ot Ac.o.24 gts in Sy.No.64, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Sth respondent to cancel the illegal power connections Service Connection No. 623400429, 623400606, 623400755, 623400553, 62341188, 62341063, 6235348, 6235219 on the respondent No.6 to 13 without having any right and without having any houses to them, basing on the representation of the

¶33

¶34

¶35

petitioners for the land to an extent of Ac.0.24 gts in Sy.No.64, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent No.2to5: SRl. R. VINOD REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.6to13:SRl. M. LAXMAN RAO The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.6O42 of 2O2L

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶40

".... to issue an order or direction more^particularlg one in the nature of Wft of Mandamus declaing the inaction of the respondenls No.3 to 5 in non-cancelling the tllegal power connection:; Seruice Connection No.6234O0429, 623400606, 623400755, 623400553, 62341188, 62341063, 6235348 and 6235219 on the respondents No.6 to 13 without hauing ang ight and wtthout hautng any houses to them, basing on the representation of the petitioners for the land to an extent of Ac.0.24 guntas in Surueg No.64, Anmagal Village, Hagathnagar Mand.al, Ranga Reddg District is highlg illegal and arbitrory and consequentlg, direct the 5h respondent to cancel the aforesaid iLlegal power connections Seruice Connections on the respondents No.6 to 13 and pass such other order or orders as thi.s Court deems fit and proper in the circamstances of the case.

¶41

Heard Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Energr appearing for respondents No.l and Sri. R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standir-rg Counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5 and Sri M. [,axman Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondenls No.6 to 13.

¶42

3 Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the Agricultural iand to an extent of Ac.O.24 guntas IN Survey

¶43

2 5r:, / lN.P.No.(fr41 o12021

¶44

No.64, Anmagal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They have purchased the subject land lrom its original owner through registered sale deed vide Doc.No.6651 of 1998 dated 17.12.1998. Recently, tl-re respondents No.6 to 13 approached the petitioners and demanded to sell the subject land to them at a cheaper rate and the same was denied by the petitioners, due to which, the respondents No.6 to 13 developed grudge against the petitioners and hatched a plan to grab the subject land illegally by trespassing into the subject land to occupy the same. The petitioners resisted the illegal actions of the rgspgqdents No.6 to 13, inspite of that the respondent No.5 colluded with the respondents No.6 to I 3 and granted pou,er connections without having any right or title over the subject property ald without having any houses in the name of the respondents No.6 to 13. The petitioners submitted application to the respondent No.5 to cancel the illegal power connection of the respondents No.6 to 13 but they did not initiate to cancel the illegal power connection. ln view of the same, the present writ petition is liled.

¶45

The learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that the respondents denied the allegations made by the petitioners and in paragraph no.2 of the counter clearly

¶46

3 5K.I W.P No.6U2 of 2021

¶47

I l

¶48

t I

¶49

mentioned about the date of sanction of power supply to the

¶50

respondents No.6 to 13 and the same is as follows:-

¶51

S.No	.ServiceNumber	INameof theC	onsumer	lDate^ofRelease
I	6234004()2	H.Lakshma	r-Rl	22-05-2(]10
2	62340061)6	R.Chandraiah	-R2	07-06-201t
3	6234007:;5	B.Nagaraju	R3	23-08-20t4 I
4	6234005r;3	K.Laxman	-R4	15-02-201t
J	6234011,98	JayaraniSriniva	s-R5	19-O9-2020 1
f.r	62340L063	Rcnuka	-R6	04- 10-20 r8 I
l	6235003,+8	UppalaLaxmi	-R7	oa-07-2009
tt	6235002t9	BalRaju	-R8	o1-05-2006 I

¶52

The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the service connection was provided to the respondents No.6 to 13 long back and the.y are residing in the said houses and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

¶53

Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties this Court is of the considered view that there is a civil dispute ltetween the petitioners and the respondents

¶54

4 5K. / w'.P.Nc.6042 ol2021

¶55

¶56

¶57

No.6 to 13. It is clear that the respondents No.6 to 13 obtained service connections in the year 2006 onwards, whereas the petitioners made application for disconnection of the service connection to respondents No.6 to 13 on lO.lO.2O2O and dispossess the respondents No.6 to 13 from the subject property. The petitioners have to approach competent Civil Court for declaration of their rights and title over the subject property, without approaching the competent Civil Court approached this court and Iiled this writ petition after a lapse of 16 years i.e., after providing domestic connection to the respondents No.6 to 13. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ IS dismissed. petition. Accordingly, the writ petition No costs.

¶58

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, in this writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶59

SD/- K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANI REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// (# SECTION OFFICER

¶60

To,

¶61

Two CCs to GP FOR ENERGY ,High Court for the State of Telangana,at Hyderabad [OUTI 2. One CC to SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI.M. LAXMAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD copies BM GJP gse

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711212022

ORDER

WP.No.6042 o1'2021

:=:<br>r€
\1 1H
$ [ ;nt iltl J
.l

¶67

DISMISSING TI-IE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

,-<L
'r7-'
(5''g

Asra Housing v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asra Housing v. The State of Telangana

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

Bhonagiri Venkat Kalyan Goud Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 3 others

A.Ramana Rao Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Limited and 3 others

M/s. Prestige Office Ventures Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

M/s Sreevatsava Builders Vs The Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana State Ltd.

M/s. B. Kumara Swamy Dalith (Sc) Labour Contract Vs The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution

Mohammed Javeed Vs The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company (Tsspdc) Ltd.