S. ARUN RAJ Vs. ANDAMAN AND NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Re: CAN No. 051 of 2020

(2.) The applicant has filed an application for application for leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 13th January, 2020. The applicant claims to be the recorded tenant of land bearing survey no. 290/2 area 0.68 hectare situated at village Pahargaon under Port Blair Tehsil, District of South Andaman. The applicant alleged that the order of the learned Single Judge in directing electricity connection to Shri. V.N.Govind, the writ petitioner ought not to have been granted in view of the fact that the applicant is owner of the property in question and without his consent the electricity connection ought not to have been given to the writ petitioner. This issue is no more res integra in view of the Special Bench judgment in Abhimanyu Mazumdar vs The Superintending Engineer (2011) 2 WBLR (Cal) 104 and another and similar connected matters all disposed of by the judgment dated 11th February, 2011 by the Special Bench of Calcutta High Court. The broad question that was considered by the Special Bench was whether a person who is an encroacher upon the land belonging to another without any right or permission conferred by such owner can be treated to the occupier within the meaning of section 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Special Bench upon noticing that in the absence of the definition of the word ‘lawful' in the Rules of 2006 the court should apply the principle of settled possession laid down by the Supreme Court to the phrase 'lawful occupier' appalling the rules for the purpose of implementation of object of the Electricity Act, 2003 to construe the same as a person in settled possession whose possession can be defended against the threat of disposition otherwise than due process of law given by the lawful owner. On such consideration we do not find and reason to interfere with the order under challenge.

(3.) The application being CAN No. 050 of 2020 accordingly stands dismissed consequentially the appeal being MA No. 032 of 2020 is dismissed.