HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11306 of 2009
Date: September 24, 2014
Between:
Gosula Yadaiah .
… Petitioner And
1. The A.D.E. (Operations), APCPDCL, Hyderabad & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.11306 of 2009
O R D E R:
This writ petition was filed by a co-owner of land in Survey Nos.113 to 120 of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District. He says that the said lands are subject matter of dispute before various forums including this Court in W.P.No.20869 of 2006 and batch. There is a claim by the 3rd respondent and others with respect to ownership of the land. The 3rd respondent contends that the land is a Wakf land. The 3rd respondent opposed the application for grant of occupancy rights submitted by the petitioner and others under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act. A suit in O.S.No.639 of 2003 is also pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar, for injunction. It is the case of the petitioner that when the 3rd respondent was unsuccessful in various courts, he applied to respondents 1 and 2 for electricity service connection in respect of the land in Survey No.118 of Karmanghat Village which is in the physical possession of the petitioner. The said land is an agricultural land. But, showing the land in Survey No.115, the 3rd respondent obtained the said service connection. The petitioner lodged objection on 25.05.2009 before the first respondent seeking cancellation of the orders, but without responding to the said objection, the first respondent fixed the metre on the pole near the graveyard on 06.06.2009. Challenging the said service connection given to the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition was filed.
2. This Court, by order dated 10.06.2009, granted status quo obtained as on that date with regard to the said electricity service connection, as a result of which the 3rd respondent has been enjoying the benefit of electricity service connection.
3. The 3rd respondent was not served in the writ petition in spite of the order dated 29.04.2013 granting six weeks time, as a result of which the writ petition was dismissed as against the 3rd respondent.
4. It is apparent from the above facts that there are rival claims between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent in respect of the lands and various litigations are pending in various forums. The present writ petition is filed challenging the sanction of electricity service connection in favour of the 3rd respondent which respondents 1 and 2 might have granted after verifying the records and rules in force. This Court cannot interdict the action of respondents 1 and 2 when they have acted in accordance with law. In the absence of the 3rd respondent against whom the writ petition was dismissed, the rival claim of the petitioner cannot be adjudicated.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed without affecting the rights of the petitioner in respect of other pending litigations. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: September 24, 2014 BSB 8 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.11306 of 2009
Date: September 24, 2014
BSB