Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2009
  6. /
  7. January

Alagiyanambi vs The Assistant Engineer

Madras High Court|02 December, 2009

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows:
The petitioner had purchased the land located in Survey No.171 at Megaraja Nagar, `C' Colony, K.T.C. Nagar Extension, Tiruneveli, on 26.4.2001. The petitioner had also put up a house in the said land. He had also submitted that the house tax was also paid by the vendor of the petitioner, in the year 2001. It is stated that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, has been claiming that the said property had been acquired and that it is in their possession from the year, 1992. However, no records are available with the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, in respect of the property in question. Thereafter, the petitioner had requested the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to grant Electricity Service Connection to his house for which the house tax has also been paid. However, the first respondent had rejected the request of the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the land, in S.No.171, having an extent of 0.81.50 hectares, in Kelanatham Village, K.T.C.Nagar, Tirunelveli District, had been acquired for the purpose of forming a Neighbourhood Housing Scheme for the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. The land acquisition officer concerned had passed an award, under two heads, in Block Nos.7 and 8, in Award No.2/95-96, dated 23.8.1995. The award amount of Rs.48,99,563/- had been deposited by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, for the acquired lands. The possession of the land had been taken, on 30.6.2003. The revenue records had also been changed in favour of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, on 31.7.1995. The petitioner, being a subsequent purchaser had encroached upon the land and he has been trying to put up constructions therein. He has also applied for an electricity service connection. In various writ petitions before this Court orders have been passed, rejecting the claims made by the petitioners therein.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board had also submitted that, since the land in question belongs to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the encroachers, like the petitioner, are being evicted. The constructions put up by the encroachers are being demolished. In such circumstances, the petitioner is attempting to establish his rights by requesting for electricity service connection to the illegal constructions put up in the encroached land, without even obtaining the necessary plan approval, from the authorities concerned. The learned counsel had further stated that most of the illegal structures have already been demolished. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed, as devoid of merits.
5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the first respondent, the first respondent is directed to grant temporary electricity service connection to the petitioner, as prayed for by him, under Rule 27 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004, after obtaining the necessary indemnity bond from the petitioner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the granting of electricity service connection to the petitioner, by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, will not confer any additional rights or interests in the property in question, said to be in the possession and occupation of the petitioner, nor would it stand in the way of the authorities concerned, including the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, to proceed against the petitioner, in accordance with law. The electricity service connection granted to the petitioner would be, purely temporary in nature. The writ petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No costs.
csh 1The Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, K.T.C.Nagar, V.M.Chathiram, Tirunelveli.
2. The Executive Engineer cum Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board Department, Tirunelveli Division, Tiruneveli-627 001.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Alagiyanambi vs The Assistant Engineer

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
02 December, 2009