IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17971 of 2008 Between: Kondapalli Vasudeva Rao S/o Jaganadha Rao Kodad(V)&(M) Nalgonda District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Tahasildar Kodad (M) Nalgonda District 2 The Assistant Engineer A.P.C.P.D.C.L Kodad Nalgonda District 3 Kondapalli Raghunatha Rao S/o.Ranga Rao Burhanapuram area Khammam Town Khammam District ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for respondent No.2: MR S.V.RAMANA FOR MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for respondent No.3: None appeared The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 11-06-2008 passed by respondent No.1 and direct respondent No.2 to release the electrical connection to the petitioner in respect of his land in Survey No.167/5 of Gondriayala Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District. Heard Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.V.Ramana, learned counsel representing Sri O.Manoher Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, and perused the record. The application filed by the petitioner for release of power supply in respect of land in Survey No. 167/5 of Gondriayala Village, Kodad Mandal, Nalgonda District was referred by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 for his enquiry regarding the petitioner’s entitlement to release power supply in respect of the said land. In response to the said communication, respondent No.1 issued memo dated 11-06- 2008, which is in vernacular language, wherein he stated that since the entries in the revenue records were made in the year 1987, he has no jurisdiction to correct the entries and on this premise, he relegated the petitioner to the Joint Collector for filing appropriate appeal. The petitioner questioned this order of respondent No.1 besides seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to release the power supply. A person who is the owner of the property, or if he is not the owner, if he is in lawful possession of the property, is entitled to release of power supply. The issue as to whether a person is a lawful owner of the property or in lawful possession of the same thus squarely falls within the domain of the authorized functionary of the licensee, which is empowered to supply power to the consumers. In the instant case, evidently respondent No.2 is authorized to decide the said issue. At the most, he may seek the opinion of the revenue authorities, if any doubt arises as to the ownership of the property. Respondent No.1, who is the Tahasildhar, is not the authority whose opinion can be said to be conclusive or final. Therefore, the proceedings issued by respondent No.1 do not assume any significance at all. Independent of the said proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to persuade respondent No.2 to release the power supply to his agricultural lands by showing that he is either the lawful owner of the property or in lawful possession of the same, if he is not the owner. In this view of the matter, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for release of power supply for his agricultural lands and if the petitioner is able to produce the material before him to show that he is either the lawful owner or in lawful possession of the property, he shall release the power supply within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.23399 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 19th August, 2008 Note: Issue C.C in one week vrn