Assam

Dibrugarh

CC/15/2014

SRI LUTAN VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, APDCL ,UAZ, DIBRUGARH - Opp.Party(s)

SRI BABBAN DUBEY

19 Mar 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is the permanent resident of Rajakhat, Lahowal. He is residing in the said place at his own house with his family member upon a plot of land covered by P.P. No.164, Dag No.490 for last 50 years. The complainant is the consumer of OP No.1 being Consumer No.20770 which was installed in the house of the complainant in the month of January, 2014. The OP No.1 after verifying all the documents installed the electricity connection in the house of the complainant. The complainant was paying regularly the bill amount and enjoying the facility of electricity. The complainant is also possessing the Possessory Certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East Revenue Circle and also possessed certificate issued by Sarkari Gaonburah certifying that complainant has been residing on a plot of land for last 40 years with his family members. The complainant is also possessing Ration Card issued by the Government of Assam, Voter I/D Card and PAN Card on the basis of the above resident. Later on, complainant was surprised when he received a notice from OP on 27.06.14 directing him to produce all the relevant documents in connection with his house and if he failed to do so, supply of electricity connection would be disconnected. After receiving the said notice the complainant appeared before the OP No.1 and produced all the relevant documents on 03.07.14. The complainant is a bonafide consumer and acquired right of obtaining electric connection in his house which he is enjoying for last six months. Presently, the complainant apprehend that power supply of his premises may be disconnected at any moment by OP No-1. The  complainant is enjoying the electric connection which is essential commodity for the life of an individual. The OP is determined to disconnect the electricity connection by violating the rules and regulations at the inspiration of vague complaint lodged by OP No.2 who has no right to raise any objection in this case. The complainant stated that the act of the OP is out and out deficiency in service for which the complainant suffer immense loss, torture and harassment and prayed to pass order directing the OP not to disconnect the power supply in the house of the complainant.

 

After registering the case, notice was  issued to  the OP No.1 who contested the case stating inter-alia that the case is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. Further, it is stated that the complainant has concealed the material fact. OP No.1 received a letter from one Mr. Washiur Rahman of Naliapool, Dibrugarh on 03.02.14 alleging that the complainant has been occupying his land illegally and the electric connection which he obtained in his illegal possession without having No Objection Certificate from Washiur Rahman being owner of the land, so he requested the OP to disconnect the said electric line. As such, the OP issued the notice to the complainant asking him to attend in the office of the OP No.1 with all the valid documents within seven days for its verification and regarding the possession. The OP No.1 further stated that while filing the instant case the complainant has  not impleaded the  necessary party i.e. Washiur Rahman in this case. The OP No.1 has not violated any statutory rules, regulation and procedure. The OP on receipt of the complaint by Washiur Rahman issued notice to the complainant to submit his documents regarding his land and it was responsibility and liability of the complainant to justify his possession over the land where the electricity connection has been obtained. Issuing of notice to the complainant on the basis of the complaint made by Washiur Rahman cannot be said to have violation of the rules and regulation. The OP No.1 has not committed any deficiency of service  and as such prayed to dismiss the case.

 

One Mr. Washiur Rahman was impleaded in this case as OP No.2 vide order dated 27.03.15 on the basis of his petition No.30/15. Subsequently, OP No.2 submitted his written statement stating inter alia that the complainant is not residing in his house with his family member standing upon a plot of land covered by PP No.164, Dag No.490 situated at Rajakhat of Lahowal for more than 50 years. The complainant is neither the owner nor occupier of any house of a plot of land in Dag No.490 covered by PP No.164. The complainant has failed to prove by producing any ownership documents. As per amicable family settlement of an area of land measuring 7B-1K-10Ls under Dag No.490 of P.P. No.164 fell into the share of pattadar No.2 Safidur Rahman. Sri Safidur Rahman during  his lifetime sold the aforesaid land to Mr. Harjit Singh and Amarjit Singh who mutated the same in their name. So, the entire land of Dag No.490 under P.P. No.164 sold to Mr. Harjit Singh and Mr. Amarjit Singh who are the owner of the said land and are possessing the same. The complainant by misleading the OP No.1 obtained the supply of electricity which he is not entitled to. Complainant is not residing in the aforesaid land for more than 40 years with his family. Thus, certificate and the documents produced by the complainant are forged and manufactured in collusion with the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East Revenue circle and Sarkari Gaonburah. Further, there is no rule that the Circle Officer can issue a possession  certificate as regard to the occupation of land. The certificate issued by Gaonburah is silent about Dag No. in which the complainant is residing. The complainant obtained the electric connection illegally by providing false, fabricated, manipulated and manufactured document by misleading the OP No-1. The complainant was in permissive possession of the house of Muzibur Rahman since deceased and after his death Md. Washiur Rahman and other legal heir and the said house is standing on land of Dag No.489. The complainant by misleading the OP showing ownership and occupation of land under Dag No.490 instead of showing Dag No-489. The OP No.1 without obtaining NOC from the lawful owner and without verifying the genuineness of complainant’s documents provided electric connection very illegally in the house of the complainant standing on land of Dag No-489. As soon as the OP No.2 knowing the illegal connection in the house of the complainant informed the OP No.2 to disconnect the electric connection which was immediately informed to the complainant by OP No-1. The complaint petition filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, vexatious to get the electric connection which he obtained illegally. He even did not implead Washiur Rahman as a party in this case. Hence, the case is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

 

In this case, complainant gave evidence by swearing affidavit and exhibited as many as 8 (eight) documents in support of his case. On the other hand, OP No.1 examined one Sri Rajib Kr. Gogoi and exhibited 1(one) document as  Ext-A. OP No.2 also examined one witness as DW-2 and exhibited as many as 16 (sixteen) documents to rebut his case.

 

Complainant and OP No.1 submitted their written argument.

 

      

  

   DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :

 

Upon going thourugh the evidence, documents and argument advanced by both the parties it reveals that complainant is a consumer of OP No.1 being Consumer No.20772 which was installed in the house of the complainant in the month of January, 2014. The complainant as Pw-1 in his evidence stated that the OP No.1 after verifying all the documents installed the electricity connection in the house of the complainant. Apart from this it appears that the complainant is regularly paying the bills of electricity consumption and enjoying its facility. Besides, it appears that the  complainant is possessing one Possessory Certificate dated 19.02.97 issued by the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh regarding the permanent possession of  Srimati Janki Devi, mother of the complainant under Dag No.489, P.P. No.164, as Ext-2. The complainant is also possessing one certificate issued by the village head regarding the possession of house and land of the complainant for last 40 years vide Ext-3. The complainant also possessed Ration Card (Ext-4), Voter’s I/D (Ext-5) and PAN Card (Ext-6) on the basis of the above residential address.  The complainant received the electricity connection from OP No.1 by producing the above documents.  Meanwhile, OP No.2 raised objection and sent a letter dated 03.02.14 to OP No.1 alleging that the complainant is occupying his land and had electric connection without his permission and without No Objection Certificate from him. As such, the OP No.1 issued a notice  vide letter dated 26.06.14 as Ext.A asking  the complainant to attend his office within seven days with all the valid documents for verification. Further, it appears that the complainant after receiving the said notice filed the instant case.

 

Now the point to be considered whether the complainant is an unlawful occupier and would not be entitled to claim supply of electricity as a matter of right ?   

 

The  OP No.2 as DW-2 stated that the complainant is neither occupier nor owner of any house standing on a plot of land under Dag No.490 covered by P.P. No.164. He failed to  produce any proof  of ownership of the land and produced the forged and fabricated documents in connection with this case. According to him complainant is not the owner or occupier of the land under Dag No-490. Late Muzibur Rahman, Safidur Rahman, Samsuzuha Begum and Shams Afroz were the original recorded pattadar in respect of Dag No.410, 471, 472, 473, 479, 489, 490,535,538,556 and 557 covered by one Periodic Patta No.164 of Lahowal Mouza. During Family Amicable Settlement 7B-1K-10Ls being entire land of Dag No.490 of P.P. No.164 came under the share of pattadar No.2 Safidur Rahman. However, Safidur Rahman during his lifetime vide Registered Sale Deed dated 30.01.01 and 01.02.01 sold entire land of 7B-1K-10Ls under Dag No.490, P.P. No.164 to two persons, namely Harjit Singh and Amarjit Singh who are presently possessing the said land after being lawful mutation.  As such, question of occupation by the complainant under Dag No.490 covered by P.P. No.164 does not arise. Hence the certificate dated 19.02.97 issued by Circle Office, Dibrugarh East Revenue circle and certificate dated 01.07.14 issued by Gaonburah is false and fabricated.

 

DW-2 further stated that OP No.2 Washiur Rahman, his brother Md. Izazur Rahman and two sisters Ruksana Begum and Farhana Rahman are the legal heir of Muzibur Rahman, since deceased who was lawful owner of a plot of land under Dag No.471, 472 and 489 covered by Periodic Patta No-164 of Lahowal Mouza which they have inherited from their father. DW-2 in his evidence admitted that complainant was in permissive possession/occupation of a house under Muzibur Rahman, since deceased and after his death  under Washiur Rahman OP No.2 and other legal heir and the said house is standing on land of Dag No.489. Whereas, the complainant misleading the OP No.1 showing ownership and occupancy of land under Dag No.490 very diligently  instead of Dag No.489 obtained the electricity connection without having any knowledge and NOC from the lawful owner.  The OP No.1 without verifying the genuineness of the complainant’s documents provided electricity connection illegally in the house of the complainant standing on a plot of land under Dag No.489 without having any NOC from him for which he lodged a complaint before OP No-1.

 

It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is not the owner of the plot of land occupied by him, but he is possessing the house since long back where he obtained electricity connection and claimed the same on the basis of  lawful occupier. Regarding lawful occupation is also admitted by the OP No-2.

 

In Black’s Law Dictionary, the word ‘occupier’ has been defined as an occupant and an ‘occupant’, in some dictionary has been defined to be person in possession.   The word ‘occupier’ and ‘occupant’ as defined in Black Law Dictionary are therefore  more relevant to be taken note of, in the fact and circumstances, of this case whether complainant is an occupier. The OP No.2 alleged that the complainant is not owner or occupier of the house where electricity connection was obtained. Therefore, it is to establish that whether petitioner is a lawful occupier or not. The complainant claim that he is occupying his house situated on the land under Dag No.490 under P.P. No.164. Whereas, the OP No.2 stated that the complainant mentioned Dag No.490 instead of 489. Besides, from the evidence of OP No.2 it is admitted fact that the complainant was in permissive possession of a house while his father Muzibur Rahman was alive  and after the death of his father complainant was under permissible possession of OP No.2 and other legal heir but the house standing on land of Dag No-489.  Since it is an admitted fact that complainant is in permissive possession in the land of OP No-2 but, in the complainant petition though the complainant mentioned Dag No.490 whereas complainant exhibited a document as Ext-2 a possessory document where Dag No. mentioned as 489 as said by OP No.2 possessed in the name of Smti. Janki Devi mother of the complainant from where it  reveals clear that complainant is under permissive possession and thereby lawful occupier of the house where electricity connection obtained. Under the circumstances, the fact remains clear that the complainant was in permissive possession of the house of OP No.2 since the lifetime of  mother of complainant where the electricity has been obtained. Further, had it been Dag No.490 the OP No.2 had not been contested because the said land was sold to other two persons. Anyway, the admitted fact need not be proved. Therefore, it is established  that the complainant is lawful occupier for more than 40 years under the permission of the OP No.2 and cannot be said that he is a trespasser. The complainant established that he is a lawful occupant of the house in question where the connection of electricity was provided.

 

As per the Electricity Law, an unlawful occupier would not be entitled to claim supply of electricity as a matter of right. The evidence adduced by the parties that the complainant is not an unlawful occupant of the premises where the electricity connection was provided. For getting electricity supply at his house the complainant has established that he is an occupier of the said house and fact is also admitted by OP No-2. The complainant is termed to be an “occupier” within the meaning of section 43 of the Electricity Act. It is settled principle that a person cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. Therefore, a person who is a trespasser cannot by continuing is trespass claim the character of an occupier and as such, he cannot be allowed to claim over supply of electricity U/s 43 of Electricity Act. But as in the instant case, as has been discussed above the complainant can be said as an occupier who is not a trespasser. As such, he is an occupiers and not trespasser.

 

From the discussions made above the complainant has right to claim electricity as an occupier U/s 43 of the Electricity Act, 2003 as such, this Forum, makes it very clear that the complainant’s right to have electricity in the premises occupied by him, so long he remains in the possession of the property in question because no one in the modern days can survive without electricity and therefore, right to electricity is also right to life and liberty in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Forum however, makes it once again clear that the order of electrical connection allowed to the complainant vide order dated 17.07.14 is made absolute till right, title, interest of the parties are determined by the civil court.

This case has been disposed off accordingly without cost.