Azidul Hoque & Ors. v. BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd & Ors.

5. It is not necessary for this Court to go into the details of how the ownership of the said premises devolved on the Appellant. Suffice it to mention that the Respondent No. 1 and his mother filed a petition under Section 17 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act in the Court of the Rent Controller, Aurangabad, seeking directions on the Appellant to provide electricity connection at the said shop. xxx xxx xxx

9. It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment in the case of Real Anchors Projects LLP and Others Versus NCT of Delhi and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 114, and in particular, relies upon Paragraphs 2, 6 and 8, which are reproduced as under:

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners at petitioner No. 1-firm. It is submitted that respondent No. 3 is the owner of the subject premises and had initially granted lease hold rights to the petitioners upon the said property for residential purpose for a period of 03 years vide ‘Rent Agreement’ dated 10.07.2018, which was later extended upto 27.05.2021. Later, disputes arose between the parties and respondent No. 3 filed a civil suit being CS 203/2022 against the petitioners, inter alia, seeking possession of the subject premises, which is pending adjudication before the concerned Court.

6. There is no gainsaying that electricity is an essential service, of which a person cannot be deprived without cogent, lawful reason. It is well-settled that even if disputes exist as to ownership of the property at which an electricity connection is sought, the concerned authorities cannot deprive the legal occupant thereof by insisting that an NOC be furnished from others who also claim to be owners. Under a similar circumstance, where a request for supply of electricity connection was declined to a tenant by the authorities, the Supreme Court in Dilip (Dead) through Lrs. v. Satish, Criminal Appeal No. 810/2022 observed as under:- “It is now well settled proposition of law that electricity is a basic amenity of which a person cannot be deprived. Electricity cannot be declined to a tenant on the ground of failure/refusal of the landlord to issue no objection certificate. All that the electricity supply authority is required to examine is whether the applicant for electricity connection is in occupation of the premises in question. xxx The impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. It is however made clear that electricity supply granted, shall not be discontinued, subject to compliance by the Respondents of the terms and conditions of supply of electricity by the electricity department including payment of charges for the same.”

8. It is clarified that this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and shall not be construed as recognizing rights of any nature whatsoever, including either the tenancy or possessory rights of the petitioners with respect to the subject premises. The observations made hereinabove are prima facie and without prejudice to the dispute pending between the petitioners and respondent No. 3. It is clarified that no special equities shall flow in favour of the petitioners on account of this Court.

11. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioners herein are entitled for grant of a fresh electricity connection.

12. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1- BSES Rajdhani Power Limited submits that the impugned Letters are not rejection letters, but only deficiency letters, wherein, deficiency has been intimated by the respondent no. 1 to the petitioners.

13. He further relies upon the aforesaid Electricity Regulations, 2017, as relied upon by the petitioners, to submit that in the present case, proof of ownership would be necessary, since it has come to the fore that the area in question is a private land, and not a DUSIB land. For this purpose, he relies upon the judgment and decree dated 12th February, 2020, to submit that there is a decree against the petitioners in the present writ, wherein, there is a clear finding that the land in question is a private land.

14. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the applicants in CM APPL. 71590/2025, has handed over to this Court, documents with respect to the proceedings before the Trial Court in the aforesaid suit, which are taken on record.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants in CM APPL. 71590/2025, relies upon the affidavit of DUSIB to submit that it is the clear stand of the DUSIB that the land in question is a private land, and does not fall within the jurisdiction of DUSIB.

16. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants in CM APPL. 71590/2025 further submits that the aforesaid facts have also been taken note of by the Executing Court. He further submits that their application for impleadment be allowed, as they are the actual owners of the land in question and that there is a judgment and decree dated 12th February, 2020 in their favour.

17. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and having perused the record, this Court takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the applicants in CM APPL. 71590/2025, for their impleadment as respondent nos. 3 to 5, on the ground that the said applicants are the actual owners of the land in question and that there is a judgment and decree dated 12th February, 2020, in their favour. It is also to be noted that Execution Petition being EX. No. 176/2021, titled as “Shailesh Kumar and Ors. Versus Islam and Ors.” is also pending, having been filed by the said applicants.

18. Considering the submissions made before this Court and considering the fact that there is a judgment and decree in favour of the applicants in their favour recognizing their rights over the land in question, this Court considers it imperative to implead the applicants in CM APPL. 71590/2025.

19. Accordingly, the applicants in CM APPL. 71590/2025, are impleaded as respondent nos. 3 to 5, in the present writ petition. Let amended Memo of Parties be filed within a period of one week, from today. With the aforesaid directions, the application, CM APPL. 71590/2025, is accordingly disposed of.

20. This Court notes that the premise on which the present writ petition has been filed is that the petitioners are bona fide residents of the JJ Cluster in question, which is duly notified by the DUSIB.

21. This Court notes that though Jai Hind Camp, near Masoodpur Village, Vasant Kunj, where the petitioners are stated to be residing, is part of a notified JJ Cluster, however, the land in question on which the petitioners are residing, is not part of any JJ Cluster. The said land in question has been recognized by DUSIB itself, as private land. The submissions made on behalf of DUSIB, as filed before the Executing Court, are reproduced as under: “ ” ”

22. Perusal of the aforesaid submissions/affidavit filed on behalf of the DUSIB clearly shows that the land in question, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings, has been stated to be private land by the DUSIB. Thus, the land, which is claimed by the petitioners, cannot be considered to be part of a JJ Cluster.

23. This Court further takes note of the Electricity Regulations, 2017, relevant portions of which, are reproduced as under: “10. New and Existing Connections:- (1) General:- (3) Proof of ownership or occupancy of the premises:- Any of the following documents shall be accepted as the proof of ownership or occupancy of premises:-

(i) certified copy of title deed;

(ii) certified copy of registered conveyance deed;

(iii) General Power of Attorney (GPA);

(iv) allotment letter/possession letter;

(v) valid lease agreement alongwith undertaking that the lease agreement has been signed by the owner or his authorized representative;

(vi) rent receipt not earlier than 3 (three) months alongwith undertaking that the rent receipt has been signed by the owner or his authorized representative;

(vii) mutation certificate issued by a Government body such as Local

(viii) sub-division agreement;

(ix) For bonafide consumers residing in JJ clusters or in other areas with no specific municipal address, the licensee may accept either ration card or electoral identity card mandatorily having the same address as a proof of occupancy of the premises.

24. Perusal of the aforesaid Electricity Regulations, 2017, shows that proof of ownership or occupancy of the premises, is one of the conditions for grant of new and existing connections. It is only in cases where the residents are bona fide consumers, residing in JJ Cluster or in other area with no specific municipal address, that ration card or electoral identity card, is also considered and accepted as proof of occupancy of the premises.

25. However, in the present case, it is the clear stand on behalf of the DUSIB that the land in question is private land, and not part of any JJ Cluster. If that be the case, the petitioners herein cannot take benefit of Regulation 10(3)(ix) of the Electricity Regulations, 2017, and insist only upon submitting their Election ID Card as proof, instead of ownership documents.

26. This Court also takes note of the fact that there is a valid judgment and decree dated 12th February, 2020, passed by a Court of law, wherein, decree of possession has been passed in favour of the private respondents, i.e., newly impleaded respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein, thereby recognizing their private right over the land in question. Though appeals are stated to be pending against the said judgment and decree, however, this Court takes note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the newly impleaded respondent nos. 3 to 5 before this Court, that there is no stay with regard to the said judgment and decree dated 12th February, 2020.

27. Relevant portions of the judgment dated 12th February, 2020, passed by the ASCJ, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in CS 57058/2016, titled as “Sailesh Kumar & Ors. Versus Jamna & Ors.”, is reproduced as under: “1. In brief, case of the plaintiffs is that they are owners of the land admeasuring 29 bigha and 13 biswa in Khasra No.68, 84 and 85 Village Masoodpur, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The plaintiff no.1 to 3 have 1/4th portion i.e. 7 bigha and 8 biswa, plaintiffs no.4 to 7 have 1/48th portion i.e. 12 biswa, plaintiffs no.8 and 9 have 1/48th portion i.e. 12 biswa, plaintiffs no.10 to 15 have 1/48th portion i.e. 12 biswa, plaintiffs no.16 to 30 have 1/4th portion i.e. 7 bigha and 8 biswa in the said land. The names of the plaintiffs have been duly recorded in the Khatoni since 1984-85 till 2014. The suit land was in CS No.57058/16 Shailesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Jamna & Ors. Page no.12 of 16 possession of the plaintiffs and same was being cultivated individually with other co-owners prior to vesting of the land in Goan Sabha in

2004. Village Masoodpur was urbanized vide notification under Section 507 of the DMC Act, 1957 bearing no.TCO-82-47 dated 23.04.1982. The land of Village Masoodpur was acquired by Government in 1980 for DDA, however, the land of the plaintiffs in the aforesaid khasra numbers were left out from the said acquisition.

10. The plaintiffs have filed the revenue records in the form of Khatoni of Village Masoodpur, Vasant Kunj regarding Khasra no.68, 84 & 85 in support of their claim of ownership over the suit property. A perusal of the Khatoni Ex.PW1/2 substantiate the fact that name of the plaintiffs reflects in the column of Khatedar. After the order dated 04.02.2004 was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiffs have already applied for the mutation of CS No.57058/16 Shailesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Jamna & Ors. Page no.15 of 16 their names in the revenue records. All the evidence presented by the plaintiffs support their claim of ownership over the suit property and same is well documented. The plaintiffs have filed their complaints with police and other authorities regarding the illegal possession of the defendants over the suit property. The defendants have not been able to produce any evidence to contradict or rebut the evidence presented by the plaintiffs. The documents presented by plaintiffs remained uncontroverted and unimpeached. The averments made in the plaint have been duly proved by way of documentary evidence. The evidence is suggestive of fact that plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property of their respective shares as per the plaint and documents and defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property. The possession of the defendants over the suit property is illegal. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed and plaintiffs are entitled for decree of mandatory injunction against the defendants. The defendants are directed to vacate the suit property and hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.

28. This Court takes note of the submissions made before it that the stay order dated 19th July, 2025, as relied on behalf of the petitioners, was subsequently vacated, and that there is no stay pending in favour of the petitioners.

29. Thus, it is manifest that there is a valid judgment and decree in favour of respondent nos. 3 to 5, wherein, the said land has been recognized as private land and rights of respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein, have been recognized over the said land. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the petitioners are not residents of a notified JJ Cluster, and there is a judgment and decree, which recognizes the rights of respondent nos. 3 to 5 over the said land. Though an appeal by the petitioners against the said judgment and decree is pending, however, there is no stay in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, when the occupation of the petitioners is not recognized as legal and rights with respect to the said land have been recognized to be vested in respondent nos. 3 to 5 by a court of law, there is no occasion for this Court to grant any relief in favour of the petitioners for grant of an electricity connection.

30. The judgments, as relied upon by the petitioners, are clearly distinguishable and do not apply to the fact and circumstances of the present case. The aforesaid judgments pertain to case of tenants/lessees, who had validly been put into possession of the premises in question. Subsequently, disputes had arisen between the actual owner and the tenant/lessee. It was in those circumstances that prayers of the said tenant/lessee for grant of electricity connection were found to be feasible, and were accordingly granted in the said judgments. However, in the present case, the petitioners are not tenants/lessees, but rank encroachers, in view of the findings in the judgment and decree dated 12th February, 2020, which recognizes the rights of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 herein over the land in question, which has been recognized as private land.

31. Considering the submissions made before this Court, no merit is found in the present writ petition.

32. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. The pending applications also stand disposed of.

33. Next date of 22nd January, 2026, stands cancelled. MINI PUSHKARNA, J NOVEMBER 17, 2025