1. Petitioners claim to be the joint owners and possessors of land admeasuring Acs.2.39 guntas in Survey No. 105 Part at Kompally Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, having acquired the same under registered sale deeds executed in their favour by Sri Katari Venkata Ramaraju, S/o late Katari Subba Raju and another, and that an undivided one-sixth share was earlier sold in favour of Smt. Y.D. Sriveni, W/o Sri Y.S. Dharma Reddy. They assert continuous, peaceful and exclusive possession of the entire scheduled property, including the 1/6th share, since about 2000, and that they constructed a compound wall around the entire property and operate a commercial marriage hall therein under the name and style of “KVR Convention.”

                  1.1. Petitioners say that despite their exclusive possession and long-standing use of the premises (including electricity service connections already standing in their name under Service Nos. 060104237 and 060113962), Y.S. Dharma Reddy, who is the father of Respondents 4 and 5 and nephew of Petitioner No.1, began demanding additional consideration. On 29.07.2022, they unlawfully trespassed into the scheduled property with local anti-social elements, broke a portion of the compound wall and attempted forcible possession. Petitioner No.1 therefore, is stated to have lodged a complaint before Petbasheerabad Police Station on 30.07.2022, which resulted in registration of FIR No. 617 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 IPC; a counter-complaint by Y.S. Dharma Reddy led to FIR No. 618 of 2022 for offences under Sections 447 and 506 IPC. Aggrieved by the trespass and threats, Petitioners instituted O.S. No. 144 of 2022 (Declaration of Title and Perpetual Injunction) before the II Additional District Judge’s Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri and obtained an order of status quo on 10.02.2023. Respondent No.4 (the daughter of Y.S. Dharma Reddy) also instituted O.S. No. 541 of 2022 before the II Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri, where I.A. No. 837 of 2022 for interim injunction was dismissed; these proceedings show that title and possession are sub judice in civil courts and, in the Petitioners’ submission, the dispute cannot be unilaterally determined by administrative authorities.

                  1.2. Petitioners state that notwithstanding the pendency of civil litigation and the existing connections in their name, Respondents 4 and 5 applied to Respondent No.2 for non- domestic and commercial electricity connections in respect of the same property under Registration Nos. NR10722794503 and NR10722794484 (and connection numbers referred to as 10722794503 & 10722794489 in the record). Petitioners are stated to have submitted detailed representation dated 02.01.2023 objecting to any new connection and drawing attention to the pending civil suits and their possession, but were informed by the electricity authorities that connections would be issued unless there was a court order to the contrary.

                  1.3. Petitioners explain that they filed Writ Petition No. 289 of 2023 on 03.01.2023 challenging the grant, but the Registry raised a maintainability objection because the writ was filed the next day after the representation without giving the authority reasonable time; on 04.01.2023 the Court upheld the objection and granted liberty to re-approach after 15 days or upon any adverse order. Petitioners caused a legal notice to be issued on 04.01.2023 asking the official Respondents not to grant any power connection without disposing of the representation of 02.01.2023, and the legal notice was duly served.

                  1.4. Despite that legal notice and pendency of representations, Petitioners allege that on or about 06.01.2023 at approximately 3:30 AM, Respondents 4 and 5, with staff of Respondents 2 and 3, clandestinely entered their premises and installed new electricity meters and service connections inside the building. Petitioners hence, filed Writ Petition No. 1380 of 2023 which was disposed of by order dated 30.10.2023 with categorical directions to Respondent No.2 to issue due notice to all the parties, afford them a fair and reasonable hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order on the objections raised in the representation dated 02.01.2023. Instead of complying with the same, the matter was improperly delegated to an Assistant Divisional Engineer who purportedly lacked authority to adjudicate sensitive disputed questions of title and possession; that officer passed the order dated 21.12.2024 rejecting Petitioners’ objections in a perfunctory, mechanical manner without dealing with core contentions such as absence of physical possession, lack of demarcation, pendency of civil suits and the fact that the alleged entitlement was only an undivided share.

                  1.5. Since the Court’s directions were not complied with, Petitioners initiated Contempt Case No. 1059 of 2024; this Court, by order dated 28.03.2025, held that the earlier directions had not been complied with and directed Respondent No.2 to personally hear Petitioners and pass a fresh order after considering the original representation dated 02.01.2023, the supplementary representation dated 30.03.2024 and the documents annexed thereto. Notwithstanding that specific direction, it is alleged, Respondent No.2 passed a non-speaking and evasive order dated 16.06.2025 impugned in this Writ Petition which merely relied on the existence of a registered Gift Deed in favour of Respondents 4 and 5 and summarily rejected Petitioners’ objections without analysis. Petitioners contend that the Gift Deed at best conveys an undivided 1/6 th share and does not confer exclusive possession of any identifiable portion because no partition by metes-and-bounds or court decree has been effected.

                  1.6. Petitioners assert the legal proposition that a mere electricity connection cannot confer title or exclusive possession and claim that connection in the present case was obtained only to fabricate evidence of possession and facilitate forcible dispossession. They emphasize that Respondents 4 and 5 have not shown any construction, identifiable demarcation or legitimate use that would justify a separate connection; on their own showing they claim only an undivided 1/6th share, and there is no documentary proof of oral partition or of any exclusive entitlement to a distinct portion of the land.

                  1.7. In support of their challenge, Petitioners rely on the Electricity Act, 2003 and the Supply Code framed thereunder, submitting that the distribution licensee must ensure that an applicant is the owner or lawful occupant of the premises before releasing a service connection. They allege that the official Respondents failed to exercise due diligence and did not verify whether Respondents 4 and 5 had exclusive title or possession over any specific portion; the official respondents allegedly ignored pendency of O.S. No. 144 of 2022 and O.S. No. 541 of 2022 and the status-quo order dated 10.02.2023, thereby acting arbitrarily and contrary to statutory obligations.

                  1.8. According to Petitioners, the timing, manner and secretive late-night installation of meters (about 3:30 AM on 06.01.2023), failure to dispose of their representation dated 02.01.2023 and the subsequent non-speaking orders dated 21.12.2024 and 16.06.2025 indicate a colourable exercise of statutory power, collusion between official and unofficial respondents, and mala fides intended to create false evidence of possession. They allege, the unofficial respondents are politically and financially influential and have contacts with anti-social elements, and that the electricity department’s actions were not bona fide administrative acts but were undertaken to further private designs. Grant of a second service connection to the same premises, when electricity supply already exists in the name of Petitioners disrupts their long-standing possession, invites confrontation and breaches public peace, and amounts to constructive deprivation of property in contravention of Article 300-A of the Constitution. State instrumentalities like TSSPDCL cannot lawfully facilitate or endorse one private party’s attempts to assert possession without judicial adjudication.

2. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, the Assistant Divisional Engineer stated that petitioners have given the representation not to issue new service connection in favour of Respondents 4 and 5 as there is a family dispute pending in O.S.No. 144 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Medchal and also FIR Nos. 617 and 1048 of 2022 have been registered on the file of P.S. Petbasheerbad. It is stated, on the other hand, Respondents 4 and 5 have made Applications for release of new Service Connections on 29.12.2022 along with documents i.e. gift settlement deed in their favour with regard to property in question. Therefore, the Service Connections vide SC No. 060118169 and 0601 18170 were released on 05.01.2023 after verification of the documents.

                  2.1. It is also stated, in Writ Petition No. 1380 of 2023 this Court directed respondents to dispose of the complaint made by petitioners after providing them reasonable opportunity, accordingly, a hearing was conducted on 12.12.2023 and parties were directed to submit their written replies along with copies of relevant documents; as the parties did not submit their replies, a second hearing was conducted on 30.03.2024 in the office of the Divisional Engineer wherein the parties were once again requested to submit copies of documents. Though petitioners filed their written objections, they did not file any supporting documents, hence, a speaking order was passed on 21.12.2024 rejecting their representation, however, pursuant to the direction in Contempt Case No. 1059 of 2024, this respondent again issued notices to petitioners and Respondents 4 and 5 and after taking into consideration the objections filed by them and their counsel and also on considering the documents, issued the impugned proceedings.

                  2.2. It is also stated that as per the affidavit of petitioners, there are civil disputes inter se petitioners and Respondents 4 and 5 in respect of property in question; they are only concerned as to whether power supply released in favour of Respondents 4 and 5 was in tune with the provisions of the Electricity Act and Regulations made thereunder or not. The impugned order clearly states that power supply was released based on the documents filed by Respondents 4 and 5 and on being prima facie satisfied that the order of injunction that was passed by the Court below in favour of petitioners was after release of power supply in favour of Respondents 4 and 5, as such there is no illegality in the same.

3. In the counter filed by Respondents 4 and 5, it is stated, their mother purchased an undivided 1/6th share out of Ac.2-39 gts. in Sy.No.105/part, Kompally village, through a registered sale deed from K.V. Rama Raju and D. Swathi and subsequently executed two registered gift deeds in their favour. Petitioners also purchased adjoining properties in the same Sy.No.105/part. It is stated, they were granted two electricity connections under USC No.114025331 and USC No.114025330, bearing Consumer Service Nos. 060118169 and 060118170, on 05-01-2023, and they have been regularly paying bills. It is stated, petitioners claim to have submitted written objection dated 02-01-2023 requesting revocation of these connections, asserting that his mother executed an unregistered agreement of sale dated 17-10-2003 in favour of the 1 st petitioner. In response to direction in Writ Petition No.1380 of 2023, the 3rd respondent, after issuing notice to both the parties and hearing them passed order dated 04-07-2024, dismissing petitioners’ objections on the grounds that they produced no supporting documents, whereas the respondents submitted registered documents and the encumbrance certificate.

                  3.1. It is stated further, despite the order in Writ Petition No.1380 of 2023, the electricity authorities illegally disconnected respondents’ power connection on 21-11-2023; they issued a contempt notice on 25-11-2023 and filed RTI Applications seeking reasons; lodged complaints, hence, their electricity connection was restored the next day on 02-12-2023. Petitioners thereafter filed Contempt Case No.1059 of 2024 which was disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to rectify the mistake in implementing the earlier order, but the order dated 21-12-2024 was not brought to the Court's notice.

                  3.2. It is further stated that their mother filed a police complaint alleging that petitioners forged the unregistered agreement of sale dated 17-10-2003. This was registered as Crime No. 937 of 2023 of Petbasheerabad Police Station, for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 387 and 506 read with 34 IPC. During investigation, the agreement was sent for FSL examination, and the report dated 10-09-2024 confirmed that the document was forged. On this basis, respondents contend that petitioners have no title over the property as they failed to produce any other document before the official respondents or before the Court except the forged agreement of sale.

4. Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel representing Sri Dishit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel for Respondents 4 and 5.

5. Petitioners initially filed Writ Petition No. 1380 of 2023 questioning the action of Divisional Engineer and the Assistant Engineer, Operation, TGSPDCL, Komaplly in granting power supply in favour of Respondents 4 and 5 wherein this Court directed the 2nd respondent i.e. Divisional Engineer to provide reasonable opportunity to petitioners and Respondents 4 and 5 and consider the objection petition/ representation of petitioners dated 02.01.2023 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. In compliance with the said direction, petitioners’ objections were considered and order was passed on 21.12.2024. Complaining the said order was not implemented, petitioners filed Contempt Case No. 1059 of 2024 which was disposed of by order dated 28.03.2025 directing the Divisional Engineer to rectify the mistake occurred in implementing the order dated 30.10.2023 in Writ Petition No. 1380 of 2023.

6. Pursuant to the said order, hearing was conducted on 12.12.2023 and the parties were directed to submit their written replies along with copies of relevant documents; as the parties did not submit their replies, a second hearing was conducted on 30.03.2024 in the office of the Divisional Engineer wherein the parties were once again requested to submit copies of documents. From the counter of Respondents 1 to 3, it is to be seen though petitioners filed written objections, they did not file any supporting documents, hence, a speaking order was passed on 21.12.2024 rejecting their representation. However, complaining that the speaking order dated 21.12.2024 was not in compliance with the directions of this Court, petitioners filed Contempt Case No. 1059 of 2024 wherein respondents were directed to rectify the mistake occurred in implementing the order in Writ Petition in four weeks. Thereafter, notices were issued to petitioners as well as Respondents 4 and 5 and after taking into consideration the objections filed by them and their counsel and also on considering the documents, the impuigned proceedings were issued.

7. In the impugned order, it was recorded that the records of the office revealed that based on the registered gift deed, Respondents 4 and 5 have made Application seeking power supply in respect of land admeasuring Acs.2.39 guntas in Survey No. 105 (P) at Kompally Village which prima facie shows that Respondents 4 and 5 are owners of the above property, as such power supply was released in their favour on 05.01.2023. It is further observed that though the competent civil Court allowed I.A.No. 222 of 2022 filed by petitioners in O.S.No. 541 of 2022 while dismissing I.A.No. 837 of 2022 filed by Respondents 4 and 5, has not decided the title to the property, as such, Respondent No.2 cannot either disconnect or dismantle the Service Connections of Respondents 4 and 5 which were provided based on their prima facie title to the property, as per Clause 5.2.2 of General Terms and conditions of supply, therefore, the representations dated 02.01.2023 and 30.03.2024 were rejected. Further, it is also noted that while submitting the representation dated 02.01.2023, petitioners have not submitted any supporting documents and while issuing the legal notice on 05.01.2023 also, no supporting documents in proof of their possession of property were submitted, hence, based on the prima facie material filed by Respondents 4 and 5, power connection was granted.

8. This Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned, as petitioners failed to furnish the relevant documents in support of the claim at the time of hearing. The Writ Petition is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.