G. AMIRTHALINGAM Vs. JUNIOR ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. N.P. Kumar learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner; Mr. M. Varunkumar learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. K. Selvaraj learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 7.

(2.) THE petitioner prays for a direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to remove the HT Line Connectin No: 441 120, 376, 377, 378, 379 and 380 from the petitioner's wall. According to the petitioner, he is residing at No: 3/5 Pavadai Thoppe, Mel Krishnapuram, Ambur, Vellore Distirct and has service connection from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board through the 1st respondent to his house. As he and his family left for his field house for some time for agricultural work, the respondents 3 to 7, with the help of the 1st respondent, have installed the meter and main bok to the service connection No: 441-120, 376, 377, 378, 379 and 380 in the wall of petitioner's house without consent and without verifying the ownership of the wall. As per the rules, the meter box and main box has to be fixed only in the wall of the house to which service connection is to be given. Petitioner states that, on his return from the farm house, he noticed that the service connection to the house of the respondents 3 to 7 was taken through his house without his consent and the meters and the main box were fixed in the wall of his house. Petitioner approached the 1st respondent and requested him to shift the service connection as his family members and the petitioner suffered an electric shock. In this regard, petitioner has sent a letter dated 9.3.2011 to the 1st respondent. As the 1st respondent did not reply, petitioner sent another letter on 22.08.2011 to the District Collector, Vellore. Thereafter, the 1st respondent replied by stating that after verifying the records, he will take necessary action. Subsequently, the 1st respondent gave a reply that the connection was installed after verifying the records without conducting any enquiry about the ownership of the wall and by that act, the respondents had violated the rules. On information obtained through the R.T.I. Act on 04.11.2011, the petitioner states that without the V.E.O. Certificate the service connection was given for respondents 4 to 7. Petitioner sent a letter dated 02.02.2012 to the 2nd respondent pointing out the defects and requested him to take necessary action on his complaint. As no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner sent another letter to the 2nd respondent on 05.03.2012 which was replied on 04.04.2012 wherein it was mentioned that respondents 3 to 7 have given an undertaking that the wall belongs to them and no enquiry is necessay. It was also stated that after obtaining the legal opinion, necessary action will be taken. Even after this, as there is no action the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) THE property mentioned in the Schedule A has been allotted to the share of the writ petitioner's father and his brothers and the property mentioned in Schedule B has been allotted to the share of the father of the Respondents 3 to 7 namely Puniakote Mudaliar and his brother Murugesa Mudaliar and Kailaya Mudaliar. By partition deed dated 26.09.1962 as Document No: 1753 before the Sub Registrar, Ambur, Vellore District, the father of the respondents 3 to 7 namely Puniakote Mudaliar, his brother Murugesa Mudaliar and Kailaya Mudaliyar have also entered into a partition and thereby front side of the B Schedule in the partition deed dated 20.03.1953 has been allotted to the share of the father of the respondents 3 to 7 and rear side of the B Schedule property has been allotted to Murugesa Mudaliar. It is submitted that as per the partition deed dated 26.11.1952 and registered on 20.03.1953 and partition deed dated 26.09.1962 the property allotted to the respondents 3 to 7 is as follows :