WP/27291/2005 of Mullapudi Surya Rao, Vs The Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra on 29 December 2005

ORDER:

The petitioner submits that he being the kartha of the undivided jointfamily having several agricultural lands in Kalavalapalli and Chikkalavillages of Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari Ditrict and fiveagricultural service connections were installed bearing ServiceNos.140, 86 and 898 at Kalavalapalli village and Service Nos.332and 458 at Chikkala village. While so, the petitioner partitioned theproperty between himself and his three sons, namely,Srimannarayana, Murali Krishna and Srinivasa Rao vide partitiondeed dated 25.8.2004 registered as Document No.3858 of 2004 inthe office of the Sub Registrar, Nidadavole. It is stated that pursuantto the partition deed necessary mutation and revenue entries arerecorded by the revenue authorities and title deeds have also beenissued to the respective parties. It is stated that by virtue of the said partition deed the lands in which S.C.No.86 of Kalavalapalli villageand S.C.No.332 of Chikkala village are fell to the share of one of thesons of the petitioner namely Muralikrishna and the lands in whichS.C.Nos.140, 898 and 458 of Chikkala are with the petitioner. Whileso, the respondents issued a show cause notice dated 19.3.2005calling upon objections as to why the three service connections maynot be disconnected. The petitioner filed objections and in fact filedan application for transfer of the said two service connections infavour of his son by paying the necessary fee. But the saidapplications dated 23.3.2005 and 19.7.2005 have not beenconsidered so far by the respondents.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned StandingCounsel for the respondents.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, when thelands were partitioned among the joint family members and eachmember is living separately for all practical purposes, it cannot betreated that the three service connections belong to the petitioneralone ignoring the partition deed and the mutation of their in therevenue records. The said transfer applications filed by the petitionerare returned by the 2nd respondent by proceedings dated 16.8.2005informing that they would be considered only on receipt ofinstructions from the higher authorities. Therefore, I am of the opinionthat there is no justification on the part of the respondents in returningthe transfer applications. If any application is filed, it is the duty of therespondent to consider and dispose of the same in accordance withthe relevant provisions of the Electricity Act and the Rules madethereunder. Accordingly, the 2[nd] respondent is directed to receive thetransfer applications, which are sought for transfer of serviceconnections by virtue of partition deed and consider the same inaccordance with law. Till then, the respondents shall not take anycoercive steps of disconnection of the said agricultural serviceconnections.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

________________

(V.ESWARAIAH, J.)

29.12.2005

Note: Issue copy by tomorrow.

B.O.

kpr