Counsel for the Parties:

For the complainant: Sri Kunal Kumar Behera, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.

For the O.P No.1: B.A.Khan, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.

For the O.P No.No.2: Self

For the Op No.3 & 5: Asst. Engineer, Lift Irrigation, Dharamgarh.

For the Op No.4,6,7 & 8: None

For the Op No.9: Sri N.R.Mishra, Advocate, Bhawanipatna.

                                                         JUDGMENT

The grievance of the complainant in brief is that the complainant in the year 2011-12 had applied to avail one deep bore well in her agricultural land in the village Temri before theOpp.Party No.4 and as per thedirection of the Op No.4 the complainanthad deposited Rs.20,000/-butthe Opp.Party No.4had not supplied any receipts to that effect. After deposit the Opp.Party No.3 to 8 survey the field and duly sanctioned for digging of the bore well.The Op No. 1 & 2 influenced the Op No.3 to 6and the deep bore well was dug in the land of the Opp.Party No.1. The petitioner made objection to the illegal activities and filed objection before the Opp.Party No.3, but it was in vain. After the diggingthe bore well the OP No.1 & 2 availed electricity through the Opp.Party No.9 but it is to be mentionedthatthough the electricity was connected to the premises of the Opp.Party No.1 butthe Opp.Party No.9 issued electricity bill in the name of the complainant without her knowledge. Since then, the Opp.Party No.1 & 2 were consuming energy and running the motor pumpto draw waterthrough the bore well and irrigating their land but they are neither sharing water with the complainant nor paying the electricity dues. The complainant is not availing with the supply of electricity but the Opp.Party No.9calculating arrearbills in the name of the complainant and compelling her to pay the arrear amountof Rs.12,750/- as on April,2018 which is completely illegal.Hence, prayed to direct the Op No. 3 to 8to digthe bore well in the landof the complainant andsupply of electricity connection in the name of the complainantand declared the bore well dug in theSchedule land B as illegal, direct the OP No.9 to settle the account running in the name of the complainant and further direct the OP No.9 to supplyelectricity in the name of the complainant after digging of the bore well in the Schedule Land A and direct the OP No.3 to 8 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-ascompensation for the loss sustained by the complainantand further direct the OP No.3 to 8 to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation. Hence, this complaint.

After receipt ofnotice, the O.P No.1 & 9 appeared through their advocatesandfiled written version. The Opp.Party No.2 on his first appearance date filed a timepetition and on subsequent dates did not appear and filed to file any written version. The Opp.Party No.5 – Asst. Engineer, Lift Irrigation Division, Dharamgarh appeared on 23.08.2018 and filedan Order of Hon’bleHigh Court vide W.P.(C) No.22054/2016and did not file any written version. The Other Opp.Parties have not appeared and failed to file any written version.

It is submitted by the O.P No.1 that he is the recorded owner of the land under Schedule “B”and the complainant is the owner of the Schedule A land. The Opp.Party No.2 influenced the Opp.Party No.3 to 7andthe alleged bore well was dug in the Schedule land “B” which is recorded inthe name of the Opp.Party No.1 but sine some years the Opp.Party No.2 had forcefully occupied the samefor which the Opp.Party No.1has took shelter of law forthe recovery of possessionover the same land from the Opp.Party No.2. The Opp.Party No.2 is using water and also selling the water to different people of the locality but not supplying water to the complainant nor to the Opp.Party No.1. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint petition filed against the Opp.Party No.1.

The Opp.Party No.9 submitted thatthe complainant herself had applied for the electrification to the Opp.Party No.9 and also paid theprocessing fee of Rs.500/-on 5.11.2012 and subsequently the Opp.Party No.9 inspected the field on 22.03.2013 andthereafterone agreement had been executed between the complainant and the Opp.Party No.9 on 18.11.2013 and after completion of all the formalities the line has been charged and one Consumer No.904001020421 has been allottedin her favour and the petitionerhas also paid the bill amount but when the complainantdid not pay the electric bill in subsequent times the Opp.Party No.9calculated the arrear energy bills in favour of the complainant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against the Opp.Party No.9.

The Opp.Party No.3 relied on documents like provision of power supply videProvision No.66/13/14dt.08.10.2013, electricity statement, copy of agreement dt.18.11.15 and oneaffidavit of complainant.FINDINGS

After perusal of complaint petition, written version filed by Opp.Party No.1 & 9we found that a strange case had come up before use for our consideration where allcontesting partiesseems to be carelessby one way or other.

The contention of the complainant is thatthe complainant had applied for a bore wellwhich was grantedbut the same was not dug in her land. According to Opposite Party No.9the complainant had signed the agreement and also had filed an affidavit that she hadagricultural land in her name vide Khata No.325 Mouza Temri to the extent of Ac.1.08 Decimal. After her marriage she is called Hema Patel andthat Ranjan Patel and Hema Patel are the same person. She had applied for power connection for the bore well and she was supplied with electric connection as Consumer No.904001020421.So as to why she was not vigilant when the bore well was dug toconfirm that the same was dug in her land.

The Opp.Party No.1 Ras Bihari Sha alias Sahu( As per affidavit) contended that he is the ownerof Schedule “B” Land mentioned in the petition where the bore wellis dugbut the Opp.Party No.2 isin physical possession of the same and using the bore wellfor his full advantage. Question is as to why he did not objectwhen the bore well was constructed in his land. The Opp.Party No.2 appeared in person and filed hazira but did not attended theForum subsequentlynor filed any written version.

We perused the document relied on by Opp.Party No.9. The permission letterfor supply of electricity is for three persons including the complainant. The permission did not disclose the plotand Khata number where the bore well are to be dug.Of course the Opp.Party No.9 as they have given power supply to the bore well , they are entitlefor allelectric dues arising out of the use of the electricity for the bore well. The Opp.Party No.9 hadentered into an agreement with the complainant on 18.11.13 in respect of power supply.

We found from the complaint petition and Vakalatnama of thecomplainant that the complainant has endorse her LTI where as in the agreement relied on by Opp.Party No.9 . The signature in the name of applicant in Odiya is available. So the contention of the complainant that the OP No.2 gotconnection in her name can not be outright disbelieved.

The learned advocate for the complainant argued that as the complainant is a rustic lady, other relative and co-villager were looking afterbore well matter for which she had no prior knowledge that the bore well was not dug in her land that is in Schedule ‘A’ land of the petitioner. We believed the version of the complainant asOP No. 1 also admitted in his version andargument that the bore well was dug inhis land(Schedule’B’) that is Plot No.117 Khata No.221. Further in the affidavit which is relied on by the Opp.Party No.9 alleged to sworn bythe complainant only Khata Number and Area 1.08 has been mentioned but no plotnumber has been mentioned.

So on the above reason we believed that either deliberately or as alleged by complainantdue to lack of proper identification of the landthe bore well has not been constructed in the agricultural landof the complainant. Hence, the petition is allowed on contest against Opp.Party 1,2 & 9 and exparte against other Ops in partand hence ordered.

                        The Opposite Party No.4 i.e. J.E, Lift Irrigation Division, Golamunda Block is directedto sanction a bore wellon a afresh application by the complainant with all required documentswithin one month of the above application and also directthe OP No.9to immediately disconnect the power connection to the alleged bore wellvide Consumer No.904001020421 and after verification ofcorrectness as to who is the exact owner of the plot where the bore well hasbeen dugrealize the outstanding dues from him. In the above peculiar circumstances no costorlitigation expenses has been awarded.

Pronounced in open forum today on this 19^th day of January,2019.

Documents relief upon:

By the complainant:

1. Copy of ROR  Vide Khata No.325 &   221– 2  Nos.
2. Electricity Bill  dt.11.05.2018
3. Copy of RTI application
4. Copy of Memorandum of Appeal to the First Appellate Authority

By the Opp.Party No.9:

1. Copy of Permission of power supply dt.08.10.2013
2. Electric Bill statement
3. Copy of agreement dt.18.11.2013
4. Cop[y of Affidavit given by the complainant.

                                                                                                                        President