Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 2ND BHADRA, 1944 PETITIONER: SANJAY MITRA AGED 75 YEARS, SON OF LATE NIRODE BARAN MITRA, KALIDAS SINGHEE LANE, CULCUTTA REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SATYANARAYANAN SIVARAMAN, 482 MANDAKINI ENCLAVE KAIKAJI, SOUTH DELHI-110019 BY ADV JOMY K. JOSE RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PEERUMED, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531 2 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004 3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTIRCITY BOARD LTD, PEERUMED, IDUKKI, PIN - 685531 4 THE SECRETARY TEEKOY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686580 5 GEORGE POOVATHINAL, CHEMMALAMATTAM P.O, KONDOOR VILLAGAE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686508 6 JONSON POTHANAPRAKKUNNEL, THALANAD KARA, TEEKOYI P.O, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686580
7 SHIRJI THOMAS PURAPPANTHANATH, TEEKOYI P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686575 BY ADV SHRI.THOMASKUTTY M.A., SC, TEEKOY GRAMA PANCHAYAT SRI.JIMMY GEORGE - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:
i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any order or direction to the 1st respondent to disconnect the electricity connection granted to the 6th respondent with consumer No.1156124022584 ii) To direct the 1st respondent to report the illegality committed by the 5th respondent to the police without any further delay. iii) To issue such other appropriate order or direction as is deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner is alleged to have purchased 5 acres of land
in Survey No.2270/123 in Poonjar Nadubagam Village Re-survey No.381/62 in Teekoyi Village in Kottayam District as per the sale deed Ext.P2. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 are alleged to have committed serious fraud and forged various documents and there are civil cases with regard to the illegal encroachment and they have illegally obtained electric connection using forged documents. The fact came to the notice of the petitioner when the Panchayath and Village Officer was approached. It s contended that the respondent Nos.5 to 7 used forged ownership certificate to obtain the electric connection. Petitioner submitted a request to the respondents for removal of the connection but no action has been taken and therefore the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent - Electricity Board
submits that the private respondent had filed two civil suits bearing Nos.87/2002 and 132/2003 and both suits have been decreed vide judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007. Appeal
preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide judgment
and decree dated 26.03.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no building with number 103B in ward No.7 which has surfaced through the information obtained under the Right of Information Act.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
6. No doubt the information received under the Right to Information Act reveals that there is no building with number 103B
in ward No.7 wherein the electric connection has been issued. However, no material has been placed on record to establish the ownership of the petitioner whereas the private respondents have been able to obtain an injunction qua forcible dispossession in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (dead by LRs) v. M.Varadappa Naidu (dead by LRs) [2004 (1) SCC 769]. The said decree has obtained finality. In the absence of any ownership either by the petitioner or the private respondents, this Court cannot hold a roving enquiry in setting aside the forged documents purported to have been obtained by the private respondents through Panchayath. The remedy is to obtain a declaration qua title of the property as well as mandatory injunction under Sections 34 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by filing a suit of ownership and removal of the electric connection by impleading the proper and necessary parties.
No ground for interference is made out. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- AMIT RAWAL JUDGE nak APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19087/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE YOHANNAN DATED 20-9-2016 ISSUED BY NO.A-4413 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ONE AND SAME CERTIFICATE DATED 23-9-2016 Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM FOR ELECTRICITY CONNECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24-11-2021 Exhibit P6(a) A TRUE COPY OF TRANSLATION OF THE REPLY ISSUED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24-11-2021 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P8(a) A TRUE COPY OF TRANSLATION OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27-1-2022 Exhibit P9(a) A TRUE COPY OF TRANSLATION OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27-1-2022 Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31-1-2022 Exhibit P10(a) A TRUE COPY OF TRANSLATION OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 31-1-2022