High Court bench dismissed writ petition challenging rejection of power connection requests for borewells on Bhoodan land by TSSPDCL.
Petitioners granted liberty to avail remedies available under law against the letter dated 31.03.2016 issued to them.
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.
\
132521
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANAAT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAYOF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO:13'14?OF 20'!-E
Between:
...PETITIONERS
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Pe{ition under Article 226 ofthe constitutionof lndiapraying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavitfiled therewith,the High-Court lnay-be -_--=pleased to issue a writ, order or direclion,'more.p-irticularlya writ in thdTiatd?etf !#!!E writ of MANDAMUS declaringthe action of the 1st respondent i.e., the Assistant Divisional Engineer(operations) TSSPDCL,Ramayampet,Medak Districtin rejecting the requestfor power connectionto the petitionersfor energizing of bore.wells in Sy.No.266/,tat chittojipally Village,CheguntaMandal, Medak District videLr.No.ADE/Operation/Ramayampet F'No, D.No"l855' dated 31-03-2016 infavour of the 1st petitioner,Lr.l.lo.ADE/Operation/Ramayampet
F.No., D.No.1854, dated31-03-2016in favour of the 2nd petitioner' Lr' / No.ADEiOperation/RamayampetF.No., D.No.1853,dated 31-03-2016 in favour of the 3rdpetitioner, Lr.No.ADE/Operation/RamayampetF'No 'D'No"1852' dated Lr. 31-03-201 6 in favour of the4thpetitioner and No.ADE/Operation/RamayampetF.No., D.No.1856, dated 31-03-2016 in favour of the Sthpetitioner,on a letter from the 4th respondent terming the petitioners as encroachersas bad, illegal, arbitrary, opposedto law'
l.A. NO:1 OF 2016(WPMP.NO: 168070F2016)
Petition undersection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated in the affidavitfiled In support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto DIRECT the respondentNo.1 - Assistant Divisional Engineer (operations) TSSPDCL, Ramayampet,Medak District to grant power connectionfor running their borewells to cultivate the land admeasuringan extent of Acs'2-00 belonging to the1st petitioner,to cultivatethe land admeasuringan extent of Acs.2-00 belonging tothe 2n petitioner,to cultivate the landadmeasuringan extent of Acs.2-26centsbelongingto the 3rd petitioner, to cultivate the land admeasuring anextent of Acs.3.50 cents belonging to the 4th petitioner andto cultivate theland admeasuring an extent of Acs.3-50 cents belonging to the sth petitioner, situated in SyNo.266/1 at chittojipally Village, chegunta Mandal, Medak District,pending disposal of the mainWrit Petition'
Counsel for thePetitioner: SRI M.VIDYASAGAR
Counsel for theRespondentNo.1 to 3: SRI R.VINOD REDDY' SC FOR TSTRANSCO
Counsel for theRespondentNo.4: AGP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for theRespondentNo.5: AGP FOR ENERGY
The Court made thefollowing:ORDER
,
/
HON,BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLINANDA WRIT PETITION No.1 3442 of 2OL6
ORD ER:
Heard Sri M. Vidyasagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioners, SriR. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counse! forTSTRANSCO, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3,learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 andlearnedAssistant Government for Energy, appearing on behalfof respondent No.5.
7
D.No.1853, dated 31.03.2016 in favour of the 3'd petitioner, Lr.No.ADE/Operation/Ramayampet F.No., D.No.1852, dated 31.03.2016 in favour of the 4ti petitioner, and Lr.No.ADE/Operation/Ramayampet F. No., D.No.1856, dated 31.03.2016 in favour of the 5th petitioner, on a leLter from the 4s respondent terming the petitioners as encroachers as bad, illegal, arbitrary, opposed to law and pass such other order or orders as the Hon,ble Court may deem flt and proper."
-)
, I
they rely on irrigation forgrowing paddy. Aggrievedby the same, the present writpetition is filed.
"6. It is submitted that this Honorable Court has granted interim order dated 01.02.2016in W. P. No.1963 of 2016 has directedthe respondents to consider the requestof the petitioners forpowerconnections' The request has been considered and it isnot feasible to grantpower connection withoutthe approval oF the Tahsildar as the landin Sy.No.26611 is Bhoodan Land. Thepetitioners have been informed by letters dated31.03.2016 sent through registeredpost that thererequest to provide service connections havebeen rejected as there land cannot be identifiedand as the land in Sy.No.266/1is Bhoodan Land."
4
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
\
SD/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTAI{REGISTRARTz //TRUECOPY// ION OFFICER
To,
BSR qil-
.**""*
HIGH COURT
DATED: 08/11 12024
ORDER
WP.No.13442 of 2016
1 ,riaS TA r6:
(
q-
)
1 I FEB 2025 a
cO
* Dg S r)ar
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION,
WITHOUT COSTS (+tPIt; 1co+ty'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct TSSPDCL to restore power connections to petitioners whose land was identified as Bhoodan Land without identification.
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued against TSSPDCL for refusing power connections to Bhoodan land beneficiaries.
Whether respondents were justified in rejecting power connections on the grounds that land in Survey No. 266/1 is Bhoodan Land.
Kurma Lakshmi and others
Assistant Divisional Engineer, TSSPDCL, Ramayampet
Divisional Engineer, TSSPDCL, Toopran
Superintending Engineer, TSSPDCL, Sangareddy
Tahsildar, Chegunta
State of Telangana
SUREPALLI NANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
