Chintala Jyothi Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 in releasing electricity connection in favour of Respondent No.4 vide service No.021620983 in premises No. Plot No.252, Subhasnagar, Jeedimetla,Medchal Malkajgiri District, when the Respondent No.4 neither has title nor he is in possession, more particularly when the petitioner is the owner in possession as arbitrary, illegal, violative of article 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 not to provide electricity connection to the person having no title and possession.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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 grant interim directions directing the Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 to disconnect/rermove the electricity service connection granted in favour of Respondent No.4 vide service No.021620983, Unique Service No. 115323141 instatled in ltremises No. Plot No.252, Subhasnagar, Jeedimefla, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.M.R.VELU counsel for the Respondent Nos.l To 3: sRl N.SREEDHAR REDDY, sc FoR TGSPDCL

¶22

Counsel for tlhe Respondent No.4: SRI A.P.SURESH

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A YARA

W.P.No.31824 of 2O25

Date: LO.O2.2O26

Between:

Chintala Jyothi

... Petitioner

AND

Southern Power Distribution Company

¶33

of Telangana Ltd., Hyderabad and (3) others

¶34

...Respondents

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

Heard Sri C.M.R.Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner,^Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri A.P.Suresh, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶37

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶38

"...to issue a wrtt, order or direction more particularlg one itt the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 in relea.sing electricitg connection in fauour of respondent No.4 uide seruice No.021620983 in premises /Vo. PIof No.252, Subhasnagar, Jeedimetla, Medchal Malkajgiri Astrict, uthen the respondent No.4 neither has title nor he is in possession, more particularlg when the petitioner is the owner in possession as

¶39

2

¶40

arbitrary, ,legar, uioratiue of Articre 2r of constitution of India and consequentlg direct the respoident No.2 0nd. respond.ent No'3 not to prouide erectricity connection to the person hauing no title and possession and pass... "

¶41

Tee brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the residentiar plot bearing No.252, adnreasuring 260 square yards in Sy.No.3 r3/2 and 314/2 in Block No.9, situated at subashnagar, Jeedimetla, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, by virtue of registered sale deed dated 09'05'2t116 having obtained valid electricity connection to the said plot. when the vendor of respondent No.4 and others interfered with he:: possession, the petitioner filed o.s.No.7l of 2or9 for perpetual injunction on the file of the leanted Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at Medchal, along with I.A.No.24o of 2olg seeking r-emporarJr inj,nction. The rearned senior civil Jld,ge uid.e order dated 19.o2-2o19 in I.A.No.24o of 2org granted temporary injunction. Further, respondent No.4 has filed o.s.No.11o of 2olg against the petitioner's husband. Along with the said suit, respondent No.4 has filed I.A.No.39 4 of 2olg seeking ad interim tnjunction and the same was dismissed uid.e order dated 15.o9 .20t.o.

¶42

3

¶43

There is a serious dispute about the title as well as possession over the subject property and the sarne is sub-judice before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶44

In the present writ petition, the petitioner objected for grant of power supply to the said PIot No.262 in the n€une of respondent No.4 stating that an illegal connection is given to respondent No.4. ln that context, the petitioner has filed LT Registration Status at page LT of the material papers which show that 'rejected as land dispute'. Subsequently, a query has been raised as to how the official respondents have rejected the application of respondent No.4 in July 2025 for grant of power supply but granted the same in the month of September, 2025.

¶45

The official respondents have filed counter stating that they have granted another service connection in the name of the petitioner uide S.C.No.021613680, which was released on 25.03.2019 and that there is a small portion beside the premises of newly released service connection, which is in physical possession of respondent No.4 and based on the documents submitted by respondent No.4, power supply was released in his favour.

¶46

4

¶47

R:espondent No.4 has filed counter-affidavit contending that the petitioner is claiming title and possession on the basis of the fraudulent documents and in that connection, FIR was registered and af:er investigation, the Police are in the process of filing charge sheet.

¶48

B. Alter hearing the contentions of the respective parties, this Court isr of the view that there is a dispute of title and possession over the subject property between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and the matter is sub-judice before the learned Additional Senior C:ivil Judge, Medchal-Matkajgiri District. This Court, in writ jurisdiction, is not inclined to venture into the title or possession over the property in question and make an observation. Further, in the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents at paragraph No.S, it is stated that on physical verification of the premises, it is noticed that respondent No.4 is in possession of the subject t'roperty and that relevant documents r,r,ere also filed for releasing service connection.

¶49

In view of the physical verification allegedly conducted by the official rerspondents, this Court is not inclined to direct the official respondents to disconnect the service connection provided in favour of respondent No.4. However, during arguments, it is

¶50

5

¶51

I ,

¶52

ascertained that service connection to Plot No.252 is one of the grounds or basis for claiming possession over the subject property. Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, may not decide title and possession over the property in dispute on the basis of service connection existing in the name of either of the parties.

¶53

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶54

There shall be no order as to costs

¶55

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall

¶56

stand closed.

¶57

SD'.MOHD. ISMAIL
REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

OFFICER

To

One CC to^{SRI C.M.R.VELU, Advocate} [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI^{N.SREEDHAR REDDY, SC FO-R} loPUCl a: One CC to^{SRIA.P.SURESH, Advocate} [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies PSK.

BS

I

I

HIGH C,OUR

DATED:10102l,2026

u E