THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8186 of 2011 Dated 29th March, 2011 Between: Peddy Reddy Ramakrishna Reddy and another …Petitioners And The Assistant Divisional Engineer (Operations) Sub-Division, APSPDCC, Mydukuru, Kadapa District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S.S.Bhatt Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri S.V.Ramana For Sri O.Manohar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in disconnecting the agricultural power connections of the petitioners bearing Nos.506228, in Survey No.1429, and 506229, in Survey No.2257, of Uppuguntapalli Village, Mydukur Mandal, Kadapa District, in pursuance of letter No.ADE/OSD/MDK/Sub- Engg/F./D.No.197/10, dated 13.11.2010, and letter No.ADE/ OSD/ MDK/ Sub-Engg/ F./ D.No.198/ 10, dated 13.11.2010, of respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners claim to be the owners of Acs.1.50 cents of land comprised in Survey No.1429 of Nandyalampet Village. They pleaded that they have dug two bore wells and obtained electricity connections from A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company, represented by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has issued two separate proceedings, dated 13.11.2010, calling upon the petitioners to produce the documents of title to show that their bore wells are situated in Survey Nos.1429 and 2257. It was further stated that if the petitioners fail to act in terms of the said directions, the electrical lines will be removed. As there was no response from the petitioners, respondent No.1 has disconnected the power supply on 14.11.2010, and on 15.11.2010, the petitioners caused a legal notice issued asserting that the bore wells are situated in their private lands and not in konda poramboke as alleged in the proceedings of respondent No.1. A reply notice was got issued by respondent No.1, wherein it is stated that the transformer was erected in Survey Nos.1871 and 1874 and that power supply was given in respect of the bore wells situated in konda poramboke. At the hearing, Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out the contradictions between the proceedings, dated 13.11.2010, and reply notice, dated 18.11.2010. I find some merit in this submission of the learned counsel because in the proceedings, dated 13.11.2010, it is mentioned that the bore well connections are situated in respect of Survey No.1429 and 2257 and that the land covered by those survey numbers is konda poramboke. However, in the reply notice given to the legal notice, it is stated that the transformer was erected in the land in Survey Nos.1871 and 1824, which is a konda poramboke. There is thus ambiguity in the stand taken by respondent No.1. It is the assertion of the petitioners that the bore wells are dug in the land comprised in Survey Nos.1429 and 2257, which according to them is a private land. As noted above, even though in the proceedings, dated 13.11.2010, a stand was taken that those two survey numbers cover konda poramboke, a different stand appears in the reply legal notice to the effect that the konda poramboke is situated in Survey Nos.1871 and 1824 and that the transformer and the connections were given in respect of those survey numbers. Unless these aspects are examined and a proper decision on perusal of the documents that may be filed by the petitioners is taken, the petitioners cannot be denied the power supply. In the light of these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (1) Respondent No.1 shall restore the power supply to the petitioners forthwith; (2) The petitioners shall make detailed representations to respondent No.2 along with relevant documents in support of their stand that their bore wells are situated in the private land in Survey Nos.1429 and 2257, within a period of four weeks from today; (3) If such representations are received within the stipulated time, respondent No.2 shall examine the same with reference to the revenue record and If there is any ambiguity, he shall cause a survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor and take a decision whether the lands, in which, the petitioners have sunk their bore wells are situated n the private lands or konda poramboke; (4) Respondent No.2 shall communicate his decision within one month of receipt of representations from the petitioners; (5) If the representations are not filed within the prescribed time, respondent No.1 shall be free to disconnect the power supply; (6) If respondent No.2 finds that the bore wells are situated in the private lands of the petitioners, respondent No.1 shall continue the power supply and on the contrary if the findings of respondent No.2 are to the effect that the land, over which, the bore wells are situated is a konda poramboke, the decision of respondent No.2 shall be communicated to the petitioners and thereafter, respondent No.1 shall be free to take action in accordance with law; and (7) If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision, if any, taken by respondent No.2, they shall be free to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate relief. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.10179 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th March, 2011 Note: Issue CC in five days. (b/o) VGB