IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION Nos.4941-4942/2018 (GM – KEB) BETWEEN:
1. SRI RAMESH S/O LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 2. SRI S.R.SHOBITH S/O SRI RAMESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT SANTHEBACHAHALLI VILLAGE SANTHEBACHAHALLI HOBLI KRISHNARAJAPET TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571436. …PETITIONERS AND:
[BY SRI PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMBIGI, ADV. FOR SRI RAMAKRISHNA.M., ADV.] 1. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SESCOM, KRISHNARAJPET-571426 MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER [V] OFFICE OF THE SESCOM AND PALANA SUB-DIVISION KRISHNARAJPET-571426 MANDYA DISTRICT.
3. SRI DEVARAJ S/O LATE NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT SANTHEBACHAHALLI VILLAGE SANTHEBACHAHALLI HOBLI KRISHNARAJPET TALUK-571426 MANDYA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT ANNU BHARDWAJ, ADV. FOR SRI HARIKRISHNA.S. HOLLA, ADV. FOR R-1 & FOR R-2; SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADV. FOR R-3.] THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION TO THE PETITIONERS’ FARM HOUSE AT Sy.No.187/3DP4 AT SANTHEBACHAHALLI VILLAGE AND HOBLI, K.R.PET TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioners have sought for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to restore the electricity connection to the petitioners’ farm house at Sy.No.187/3DP4 at Santhebachahalli village and Hobli, K.R. Pet Town, Mandya District.
2. This Court by an order dated 18.08.2018, has observed thus:
“Sri M.T. Nanaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the farm house at Sy.No.187/3DP4 at Santhebachahalli village and hobli, K.R. Pet Town, Mandya district [hereinafter referred to as ‘the farm house’]. Therefore the present writ petitions are filed for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to restore the electricity connection to the farm house.
2. Per contra, Smt. Anindita Chakraborty, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submits that Annexures- R1 to R8 of her statement of objections depict that the 3rd respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the farm house. She further submits that though the 2nd respondent issued an Endorsement as per Annexure-E dated 11.1.2018 stating that the documents of the property are in the name of the 3rd respondent and therefore the temporary electricity connection cannot be given to the petitioner, the same is not questioned.
3. In view of the controversy between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to inspect the spot and restore the electricity connection to the farm house, whoever may be in possession of the same.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not present before the Court today.
Post on 21st August 2018. If on that day, counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 fail to appear before the Court, this Court will summon the concerned Executive Engineer to be present before the Court.”
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed an affidavit of Sri.Harish Kumar.H., Executive Engineer, K.R. Pet, Mandya District along with the mahazar report. The said affidavit reads thus:
“1. I submit that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court vide its order dated 18/08/2018 I along with Mr.Krishna.S.V., Assistant Executive Engineer, visited the spot and met Mr.Ramesh, the Petitioner herein and his family members and conducted mahazar. A copy of the mahazar report is produced herewith.
2. I submit that as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court I have restored the electricity to Sy.No.187/3DP4 pending disposal of the original suit pending on the files of The City Civil Judge, Krishnarajapet bearing O.S.No.418/2017. It is further submitted that we have not assigned the meter to any person but only to the said property.
3. I submit that the Electricity bill has been computerized and therefore, we cannot generate bill unless the name of the holder is mentioned in the bill. Since the electricity has been restored to the property without name, the Respondent No.1 seeks further direction from this Hon’ble Court as to whether the bills can be issued in the name of petitioner pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Wherefore, I pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to give further directions regarding the regularization of the meter.”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would submit that the affidavit and the mahazar report now submitted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are contrary to the endorsements at Annexures-C and E dated 15.06.2017 and 11.01.2018 respectively. No notice was issued to respondent No.3 regarding the spot inspection and accordingly he strongly opposes the affidavit and report submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and disputed the possession of the petitioners over the property in question.
5. It is ex-facie apparent that it is an inter se dispute relating to the property in question amongst the petitioners and the respondent No.3 and O.S.No.418/2017 is pending on the file of the City Civil Judge, Krishnarajapet relating to the property in question. In the circumstances, the electricity connection to the farmhouse in the property in question being restored by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 18.08.2018, the same shall be subject to the result of O.S.No.418/2017. However, regarding the possession aspect which has been reported as per the mahazar report cannot have any bearing in as much as the proceedings pending before the Trial Court relating to the dispute between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3. It is only for the time being, the bills shall be raised in the name of the petitioner regarding the installation in question and the same shall also be subject to the result of O.S.No.418/2017 pending before the Civil Court.
6. It is further made clear that the Trial Court shall proceed to conclude O.S.No.418/2017 without being influenced by any observations made in these writ petitions. Whatever the arrangements made herein are temporary in so far as the restoration of electricity to the property in question, not conferring any right of possession to establish the title and interest. The said factual aspects necessarily requires to be adjudicated and finalized only after a full-fledged trial.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, writ petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE NC.