Taken up through video conferencing.

1.      The learned proxy counsel is present for the petitioner, and requests for an adjournment. A letter dated 22.10.2021 has also been sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner to seek adjournment of three weeks, citing personal difficulty. On the previous occasion i.e. on 04.10.2021 the learned counsel for the petitioner had requested for an adjournment, submitting that the learned arguing counsel was not available. An adjournment was granted. However, today, again, an adjournment is being sought.

The learned counsel for the respondent is present.

The complaint was filed in 2013, the District Commission decided the case in 2014, the State Commission decided the appeal in 2014, the instant petition to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission was filed in 2015, we are now in 2021. A perusal of the proceedings before this Commission shows that the petition has been procrastinated in one way or the other for about 06 years now. Sufficient opportunity has been provided to the petitioner complainant. We do not deem it apt to delay the matter further.

2.      We have perused the record.

The revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 by the petitioner complainant against the respondent electricity distribution corporation in challenge to the Order dated 18.11.2014 of the State Commission in appeal no. 385 of 2014 arising out of the Order dated 06.03.2014 of the District Commission in complaint no. 16 of 2013.

The matter relates to an electricity connection for a tubewell on land recorded in the name of the gram panchayat.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 06.03.2014 allowed the complaint and ordered the opposite party electricity distribution corporation to release an electricity connection for the tubewell. It also awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation.

The electricity distribution corporation appealed before the State Commission.

The State Commission made a fresh appraisal of the evidence and allowed the appeal. It set aside the Order of District Commission and dismissed the complaint.

3.      The crux of the matter has been summed-up by the State Commission in para 7 of its Order, which is being reproduced below for ready appreciation.

A perusal of the Jamabandi (Exhibit C-3) shows that the land stands in the name of Murtarka Maalkan Hasab Rasad Rakba Khewatwar Wasideh and Budhdin son of Amaruldeen son of Jani, was only Gair Mourisi tenant. The land vests in the Gram Panchayat being Mustarka Maalkan and Gram Panchayat has already initiated eviction proceedings under section 7 of the Village Common Land Act. Besides, Civil Court is already seized of the matter. Therefore, it cannot be termed that the complainant is in rightful possession and therefore, cannot be entitled to have connection in this land. The District Forum fell in error in allowing the complaint and committed. Hence, the impugned order cannot sustain.

4.      The record of rights clearly shows that the subject land vests in the gram panchayat. It is common panchayat land, for the common good of the panchayat. The gram panchayat has initiated eviction proceedings against the complainant under the relevant revenue laws. Besides, a civil court is also in seize of the matter.

5.      It is manifest that the complainant is not in lawful possession on the subject land.

As such the electricity distribution corporation cannot be held to be ‘deficient’ or ‘unfair’ in not overlooking and in fact not furthering his unlawful possession on panchayat land.

6.      Learned counsel for the electricity distribution corporation submits that, with all responsibility, as per the rules applicable, an illegal occupant over panchayat land is not entitled to have any electricity connection for any illegally constructed tubewell thereon. 

7.      We have no hesitation in agreeing with the State Commission. We see no jurisdictional error, or a point of law erroneously ruled, or miscarriage of justice having been occasioned.

8.      The petition, being misconceived and bereft of worth, is dismissed.

9.      The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all parties in the petition as well as to their learned counsel immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.