IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 28298 of 2006(R) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ REETHA FRANCIS, D/O.ELIYAMMA, AGED 38, KACHAPPALLY HOUSE, VALLYAPPANPADY, U.C.COLLEGE P.O., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY. 2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH, SC, KWA FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 28298/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN BY THE COMMISSIONER. P2. COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE BY TRIAL COURT. P3. COPY OF THE VOTERS' LIST OF PARAVOOR ASSEMBLY. P4. COPY OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE R2. P5. COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE RESPONDENTS. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.28298 of 2006 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims that she is residing in the property belonging to her maternal grand father along with her family in building bearing Door No.12/428 in Ward No.2 of Karumaloor Panchayath, along with two daughters of marriageable age. The petitioner has not been favoured with a water connection even after several requests and demands made to the Water Authority. The ground on which the same is denied to her is that she had not proved ownership of the property. She is unable to produce proof of ownership because in respect of the property an appeal is pending as A.S.No.69/2006 before the Sub Court, North Paravur, in respect of dispute on title. According to the petitioner, it is not necessary that she should be the owner of the property for the purpose of granting water connection. She would submit that it is sufficient that she is actually the occupier of the property. 2. This is disputed by the standing counsel for the Water w.p.c.28298/06 2 Authority. Quoting Water Supply Regulation 1991 of Chapter IV of the Rules regarding water supply, the standing counsel submits that the petitioner has to produce an ownership certificate. But in the counter affidavit it is admitted that an application need be made only by the owner or occupier of the premises. The petitioner has now produced Ext.P3 voters' list, which, according to the petitioner, would go to show that the petitioner is residing in the building in question. In respect of electricity connection, the rules regarding granting of which are more or less identical to water connection, a learned Judge of this Court has in W.P(C).No. 28290/2006 directed to give electricity connection to the petitioner herself, if she is found to be in occupation of the premises, for which power supply is sought. Therefore, following that judgment I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: If the petitioner is found to be in actual occupation of the premises for which water supply is sought, the same shall be granted as provided under the Regulations. For that purpose separate certificate of occupation shall not be insisted upon and the Water Authority shall give connection relying on Ext.P3 w.p.c.28298/06 3 voters' list to prove her occupation of the premises. But it shall be open to the Water Authority to ensure that the petitioner is actually occupying the premises in question by making necessary enquiries in that regard. Water supply as directed above shall be given within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge