THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.22338 of 2009 DATE:28.10.2009 Between: Y. Buchi Reddy ... Petitioner and The Divisional Engineer (Operation).A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd., Hyderabad and another ... Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.22338 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings No.ADE/OP/Dist.XX/Lal Bazar/F.No.Case/D.No.847/09 dated 17.09.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent disconnecting the power supply to his service connection No.AZ-36602, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to restore the power supply to his service connection. 2. According to the petitioner, he is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.Nos.395, 296, 397, 430 and 431 situated near Budevinagar, Venkatapuram village, Alwal, R.R. District. He submitted an application to the respondent authorities on 19.08.2009 seeking sanction of a single phase service connection. After considering the application and also collecting the requisite amount, the respondent authorities provided service connection bearing No.AZ-36602. While things stood thus, the 2nd respondent herein issued proceedings No.ADE/OP/Dist.XX/Lal Bazar/F.No.Case/D.No.847/ 2009 dated 17.09.2009 disconnecting the power supply to his service connection, basing on a false complaint of a third party against him. Immediately thereafter, he issued a legal notice on 21.09.2009 duly enclosing all the documents sought for by the 2nd respondent, seeking restoration of power supply to his service connection. But, so far the 2nd respondent neither gave a reply nor took steps to restore the power supply. Hence this writ petition. 3. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that one Y.Raja Reddy, who is brother of the petitioner, filed an application on 28.04.2004 for sanction of a service connection to the land in Sy.Nos.396 and 397. As he failed to produce the documents with regard to his ownership over the land in the said survey numbers, his application was rejected. Subsequently, on an application filed by the petitioner, power supply has been released to the same land on his furnishing indemnity bond . After release of power supply, one P.Narasimha Yadav gave a complaint stating that he has purchased the land in Sy.Nos.395, 396, 397, 430 and 431 by registered sale deeds. He also informed that a suit in O.S.No.224 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District regarding the said property, is pending. Having received the complaint, a letter was addressed to the petitioner asking him to furnish documents to establish his title to the said property. In reply thereto, he got issued a legal notice duly enclosing the relevant documents. On perusal of the same, it is found that the names of Y.Krishnareddy and others are shown in pattadar columns and the name of Y.Veera Reddy is shown as possessor and the partition deed produced by him is an unregistered document. The documents filed by said P.Narasimha Yadav along with the complaint show that he has purchased the property from Y.Krishna Reddy and others. Therefore, the power supply to the service connection of the petitioner was disconnected. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 5. From the above pleadings and also the contentions put forth by the counsel appearing on either side, it is clear that there is a partition suit pending between the petitioner and his brothers and the said suit has been instituted by the petitioner. It is not known as to how said P.Narasimha Yadav came into possession of the property in question. But, as per the counter- affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, said P.Narasimha Yadav purchased the property from the defendants in the said suit. In that view of the matter, this Court cannot decide the dispute between the parties and it is advisable that the petitioner approaches the very same civil court and file an application seeking impleadment of said P.Narasimha Yadav as defendant in the suit filed by him and seek for appropriate reliefs. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the civil court, where the suit filed by him is pending, and file an application seeking impleadment of said P.Narasimha Yadav as defendant in the suit and seek for appropriate reliefs. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 28th October, 2009 CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.22338 of 2009 (Disposed of) 28th October, 2009 CBS