IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26493 of 2008 Between: Bayaneni Venkata Srinivasa Rao … Petitioner And A.P. Southern Power Distribution Co., of A.P., Limited, Tirupati, Chittoor District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V. Bharati Counsel for the respondents: Sri T. Vinod Kumar for Sri O. Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26493 of 2008 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a Certiorari to quash letter dated 24.10.2008 of respondent No.3. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the property bearing H.No.7-143/A of Mudunuru. The petitioner claimed that he has succeeded to his adoptive mother by name Bayaneni Annapurnamma wife of Lakshminarayana through a registered Will dated 18.03.1994. The petitioner averred that the recitals of the said Will show that one Bayaneni Gopal Krishnaiah son of Bayaneni Basavaiah, the elder brother of his adoptive mother, has taken her to his village under the pretext of getting her treatment for eye sight and fraudulently got a registered document executed in his favour and that after being released from the custody of the said Gopala Krishnaiah, the petitioner’s adoptive mother filed O.S.No.43 of 2002 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada for cancellation of various registered documents including the document bearing No.2369 of 1883 in respect of the abovementioned property on the ground that the said documents were got executed forcibly by putting her under coercion and unlawful detention. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for release of electricity connection along with certificate dated 27.05.2008 issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Mudunuru Gram Panchayat to the effect that the house in question belongs to the petitioner. On the said application of the petitioner, the respondents have released the power supply. However, the power supply was disconnected under the impugned proceedings, wherein it is stated that the Panchayat Secretary in his letter dated 14.09.2008 has informed respondent No.3 that the property in question belongs to Smt. Bayaneni Jhansi Lakshmi and that he was cancelling his earlier certificate dated 27.05.2008 issued in favour of the petitioner. Following the said letter, the power supply was disconnected. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, the fact that the Panchayat Secretary has given letter dated 24.09.2008 cancelling his earlier certificate dated 27.05.2008, which prompted him to issue the impugned proceedings and disconnect the power supply is not disputed. In my opinion, when there is a serious civil dispute over the property in question, it is not desirable for the respondents to disconnect the power supply merely on the basis of the letter addressed by the Panchayat Secretary. While the petitioner is claiming his right under a registered Will, the opposite party is claiming title under a registered sale deed. The suit filed by the petitioner and his adoptive mother is stated to be pending. In these undisputed factual situation, it cannot be said that the petitioner is in unlawful possession of the house in question warranting disconnection of power supply. The respondents ought to wait till the adjudication of the dispute by the competent civil Court and take appropriate action depending upon the outcome of the civil suit. For the abovementioned reasons, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.34674 of 2008 and WVMP.No.683 of 2009 are disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 03.08.2010. ES