Harchand Singh son of Balkar Singh resident of Village Muradpur Bet, Tehsil & District Kapurthala.<br /> Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Punjab State Electricity Board, The Mall, Patiala, through its Chairman.<br /> 2. Sub Division Engineer, Operation PSEB, Sub Division Tibba, District Kapurthala.<br /> Opposite parties.<br /> Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Quoram : Sh.A.K Sharma President. <br /> Sh.Surinder Mittal,Member.<br /> Present : Sh.S.P. Singh Tandi counsel for complainant.<br /> Sh.P.S.Hanspal Counsel for opposite parties.<br /> JUDGMENT ( SH.A.K. SHARMA PRESIDENT.)<br /> Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by complainant Harchand 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 o 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 57K-14M 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.540 dated 3/3/2006 and the same was complied as per the requirementsof the aid letter. 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 ame 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.97/09853 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-297 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.97/59847 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.9289 dated 28.11.1991 and deposited Rs.120/- as ACD vide BA-16 No.541/11395 dated 28/11/1991. 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 21/4/2006 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.1142 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 25/9/2004 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 />