Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Angrej Singh against opposite parties i.e. PSEB, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman and also through its Sub Division Engineer, Operation PSEB Tibba District Kapurthala seeking direction against them to issue permanent tubewell connection in his name on the basis of temporary connection as per policy of the Board and also monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 2. In nutshell the facts in the complaint are that complainant has possessory right over land measuring 15K-16M situated in revenue estate of village Muradpur as per Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 as fully detailed in para-1 of the complaint. He applied for electric motor connection for irrigation purposes and opposite party No.2 issued temporary electric motor connection in his name. It is further averred that civil litigation was pending before Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh regarding ownership of the land and the same has been remanded to Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Punjab, Jalandhar and same was still pending. . He also applied for regular electric connection on the basis of temporary connection already issued by the opposite party Board. It is further alleged that opposite party No.2 issued demand notice bearing No.458 dated 3/3/2006 and the same was complied as per the requirements of the said letter/demand notice. It is further averred that after issuance of the said demand notice, he approached opposite party No.2 many a times for regularization of his electric motor connection and he even filed affidavit duly attested by the competent authority that if any decision regarding ownership of abovesaid land goes against the complainant then complainant will not claim any relief regarding electric connection from the opposite party Board.. He also alleged discrimination against the opposite party in respect of issuing of permanent electric connections meted out to him when one Udham Singh,, Bakshish Singh and Iqbal Singh were granted permanent electric connections standing on same footing as they are. Therefore, complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for which he is entitled to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 3. Opposite parties appeared and controverted allegations of the complainant and resisted his claim. Preliminary objections have been raised that complaint i s not maintainable and complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, main thrust of the defence plea of the opposite parties is that complainant is not the owner of the land for which he intends to get tubewell connection in dispute. As per Electricity Supply Regulation No.13.5.2, the priority is admissible to the person who owns land in his name but as per revenue record produced by the complainant, the land in question is Shamlat Deh and belongs to the Gram Panchayat. This fact is admitted that that temporary tubewell connection was released in the name of complainant in the year 2005 for the paddy season only. Complainant was granted temporary tubewell connection for 5BHP vide SCO No.15/59853 dated 17/6/2005 for a period of three months only on complying with the formalities and on deposit of Rs.7500/- vide account No.T-215 dated 17/6/2005 and later on test report and as per the policy of the Board the connection was disconnected on 30/9/2005 vide PDCO No.15/59847 dated 17/6/2005. It is further pleaded that earlier complainant applied for 3 BHP permanent tubewell connection under general category vide application and agreement form No.9494 dated 11.3.1992 and deposited Rs.120/- as ACD vide BA-16 No.312/60 dated 11/3/1992. As per CC 9/2006, PSEB decided to regularize the temporary connections under priority into permanent connections subject to the conditions that the applicants have otherwise registered their applications with the Board for the release of regular tubewell connection under general or any priority category upto 31/5/2005. A notice dated 3/3/05 was served upon the complainant to register his option for regularization of temporary tubewell connection into permanent tubewell connection and in compliance to the said notice, he registered his option on 23/5/2006 and submitted a duly attested affidavit that he would get permanent tubewell connection after completing all the formalities and would submit the latest Fard Jamabandi of the land owned by him. The ownership of the land was condition precedent to get regularized the temporary tubewell connection on priority into permanent connection. The documents produced by the complainant regarding ownership of the land were scrutinized and it was found that complainant was not the owner of the agricultural land in which he intends to get tubewell connection under priority. Hence a notice No.1141 dated 1/6/2006 was served upon the complainant in this respect. Complainant admitted that he is only in cultivating possession of the land and is not the owner of the land where he intends to get permanent tubewell connection and further made request for release of permanent tubewell connection. His request was however, forwarded to Senior Executive Engineer, Sub urban Division Kapurthala vide memo No.2024 dated 24.7.2006 and after examining the documents, it was decided by the Senior Executive Engineer vide memo No.8088 dated 24/8/2006 that tubewell connection under priority cannot be released to the complainant as he was not the owner of the land in his name. He was given opportunity to submit proof of his ownership of land in which he intends to get the tubewell connection but he failed to do so and as such tubewell connection under priority cannot be released to him as per policy and rules of the Board.. This fact is not disputed that one Udham Singh, Bakshish Singh and Iqbal Singh furnished the revenue record showing their ownership of the lands in which they intended to get tubewell connection under priority and tubewell connections were released to them as per rules and provisions of the Board. On the other hand Baldev Singh, , Mohinder Singh, Rattan Lal also applied for tubewell connections and filed fabricated copies of jamabandi showing themselves to be the owners of the land belonging to Gram Panchayat. Opposite party PSEB Tiba vide memo Spl.1 dated 24/8/2004 requested Tehsildar Kapurthala for verification of the Fard Jamabandi who vide report dated 25/8/2004 intimated that as per revenue record, Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat is the owner of the land. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties so as to entitle the complainant to the reliefs claimed.<br /> 4. In support of his version Harchand Singh complainant has produced in evidence affidavits Ex.CA and CB and documents Ex.C1 to C6.<br /> 5. On the other hand opposite parties produced in evidence affidavit and documents Ex.R1 to R22.<br /> 6. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused ocular as well as documentary evidence on the record. . Learned counsel for complainant has vehemently urged before us that refusal of the opposite party Board to issue permanent tubewell connection on the basis of temporary connection already installed in his name as per policy of the PSEB amounts to deficiency in service against which he is not only entitled to release of permanent tubewell connection but also monetary compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. On the other hand it has been counter argued by learned counsel for the opposite party that complainant is not entitled to release of permanent tubewell connection on account of his failure to fulfill eligibility condition regarding ownership of the land wherein he sought for release of permanent tubewell connection and as such there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.<br /> 7. We have considered rival contentions of counsel for the parties. We find merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the complainant. These broad facts are not disputed that earlier complainant obtained temporary tubewell connection for five BHP for a period of three months in June 2005 after completion of various formalities vide Ex.R5 to R8 and as per policy/rule of the Board, same was disconnected on 30/9/2005 as per PDCO dated 17/6/2005. This fact is also not disputed thatearlier complainant applied for three BHP tubewell connection under general category vide A & A Form No.9494 dated 11.3.1992. As per CC 9/06, PSEB decided to regularize the temporary connections under priority into permanent connection subject to the conditions that applicants have otherwise registered their applications with the Board for the release of regular tubewell connection under general or any priority category upto 31/5/2005. A notice dated 3/3/2006 was served upon the complainant to register his option for the regularization of temporary tubewell connection into permanent tubewell connection. Complainant submitted affidavit vide Ex.R7 alongwith application Ex.R6 that he is lawful occupation of Panchayat land (Shamlat Deh ) as per entries in the Revenue record.. It is however, pleaded by counsel for the opposite party that since ownership of the land was condition precedent to get regularized the temporary connection under priority into permanent tubewell connection vide Regulation No.13.5.2, so the document produced by the complainant regarding ownership of the land had not established his ownership of the land in which he intended to get permanent tubewell connection under priority . Therefore, his request for permanent tubewell connection was rightly declined as per rules. He has also justified release of permanent tubewell connections to Udham Singh, Bakshish Singh and Iqbal Singh as they were proved to be owners of the land wherein they intended to get tubewell connections as per rules and regulations.. On the other hand claim of Baldev Singh, Mohinder Singh and Rattan Lal who applied for tubewell connections under Ex-serviceman priority category and furnished false and fabricated revenue record by showing themselves to be owners of the land belonging to Gram Panchayat/Shamlat Deh. Hence the applications of above persons were rejected by the opposite parties vide memoes dated 28/2/2005 and criminal case was also registered against them at PS Kotwali Kapurthala It is evident that earlier Angrej Singh complainant was given temporary tubewell connection in 2005 and that he was asked by the opposite party Board to produce requisite documents of ownership of the land. However, Angrej Singh vide affidavit Ex.CA stated that there was some dispute regarding ownership of the land as tyhe same has been shown to be Shamlat Deh in the column of ownership as per copy of the Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 produced in additional evidence but he has been in continuous cultivating lawful possession. No doubt, perusal of the Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 and entries in Khasra Girdawri for Sauni-2005 and Hari crop of 2006 indicate Angrej Singh son of Saun Singh is recorded as gairmarusi tenant in the land described as Shamlat Deh Hasab Rasad Khewat as per entry in ownership column Ex.C1 However, cultivating possession of land by him cannot be termed as illegal possession unless lawfully evicted from the land in due course of law. This Forum is seized with the matter only regarding release of permanent tubewell connection and eligibility of the complainant for the same in the light of Regulation No.13.5.2 which lays down only that the priority is admissible to the person who owns land in his name in which he intends to get tubewell connection but does not debar person specifically having no title in the land. This Forum is not to determine the ownership of land which is already pending litigation beween complainant and Gram Panchayat. Be that as it may, non release of the electric connection in the absence of proof of ownership of land but otherwise in lawful occupation of the land by the complainant does not dis-entitle him to the connection though he cannot claim priority for the release of permanent tubewell connection over and above the owners -applicants registered in the book of PSEB for releasing the permanent connections. Reference has been rightly made by counsel for complainant to case of Hon'ble State Consume Commission reported as PSEB v. Rattan Chand 2003 (III) CLT 205.<br /> In the ultimate analysis of aforesaid discussion we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to issue permanent tubewell connection subject to priority of other owners-applicants for grant of permanent tubewell connections recorded in their register. Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- as monetary compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.1000/- payable within one month from the receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Let certified copies of judgment rendered be supplied/despatched to the parties without any unnecessary delay and thereafter file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : ( Surinder Mittal ) ( A.K. Sharma )<br /> 13.5.2008 Member President.<br />