logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2025 MHC 8326 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P.No. 48985 of 2025 & W.M.P.No. 54713 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
Parties : K. Kumar & Another Versus Revenue Divisional Officer Revenue Division Office, Chennai & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: V. Manohar, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 & R2, V. Jeevagiridharan, Additional Govt. Pleader, R3, L. Jaivenkatesh, Standing Counsel.
Date of Judgment : 16-12-2025
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226  -

Comparative Citation:
2026 AIR(Mad) 75,
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India

2. Catch Words:
- Writ of Certiorari
- Quash
- Appeal
- Electricity service connection
- Patta cancellation

3. Summary:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a writ of certiorari to obtain records and quash the notice dated 27‑11‑2025 ordering disconnection of electricity. The third respondent justified the notice on the ground of a patta cancellation based on a third‑party objection. The Court observed that the referenced earlier writ (W.P. 22634/2025) did not decide title or possession, rendering the respondent’s reliance on it a non‑application of mind. Since the patta cancellation is under appeal before the District Collector, the Court held that the electricity connection cannot be disconnected until the civil rights are finally determined. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to retain the connection pending resolution of the appeal.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Ceriorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 27-11- 2025 vide Ka.No.Uo.Po/E & Pa/Banunagar/File No.581 and quash the same.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of the third respondent dated 27.11.2025 intimating the petitioner that the electricity service connection will be disconnected within 30 days without any prior intimation to the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr.V.Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 and Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, learned Standing counsel for the third respondent and with the consent of all the learned counsel this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned Standing counsel for third respondent, on instructions, submitted that on the basis of the objection raised by a third party, the patta which originally stood in the name of the petitioner was cancelled and that was the reason for issuance of the impugned notice.

4. On a perusal of the notice it is seen that the impugned notice proceeds on the basis as if this Court decided in W.P.No.22634 of 2025 that the land does not belong to the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court the order in W.P.No.22634 of 2025 referred to in the impugned notice.

5. I have perused the order made by this Court in W.P.No.22634 of 2025 dated 25.06.2025. It is seen that the said writ petition has been closed on the basis that the representation of the writ petitioner has already been considered and order has been passed. This Court has not passed any order as to the nature of the possession or title. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the third respondent for disconnection of electricity connection by referring to said order is clear non-application of mind. This Court is of the view that mere cancellation of patta by the revenue authorities cannot be a ground for disconnecting the existing electricity connection. This Court is also informed that the order of the Tahsildar cancelling the patta is under challenge before the District Collector in appeal and in the appeal, the District Collector has sent a hearing notice and the appeal is still pending.

6. This Court is of the view that unless and until the rights of the parties are decided by a civil Court, the existing electricity service connection cannot be disconnected merely on the basis of revenue proceedings cancelling the patta issued in the name of the petitioner. As the proceedings of the Tahsildar is under challenge before the District Collector, until the rights of the parties are decided conclusively, the existing electricity service connection shall not be disconnected.

In the light of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the third respondent dated 27.11.2025 is quashed and the third respondent is directed not to disconnect the existing electricity service connection until the rights of the parties are decided conclusively. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal