State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pspcl And Anr. vs Satgur Singh on 2 March, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.164 of 2014
Date of institution: 16.11.2015
Date of Decision : 02.03.2015
1. Punjab State Power Supply Corporation Ltd., The Mall, Patiala through
its M.D.
2. Asstt. Executive Engineer, (SDO), PSPCL, Sub Division (rural)
Sunam, Tehsil & Distt. Sangrur.
.....Appellants/Opposite Parties
Versus
Satgur Singh s/o Balwant Singh s/o Misra Singh r/o Kahal Patti, Village
Chhajli, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur through his Special Power Of
Attorney And Real Brother Beant Singh s/o Balwant Singh s/o Misra
Singh r/o Kahal Patti, Village Chhajli, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.
........Respondent/Complainant
First Appeal against order dated 02.01.2014 of District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri. Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member
Shri. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellants : Ms. J.K. Gurna, Advocate For the respondent: Ms. Nidhi Garg, Advocate Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties (in short "OPs") against the order dated 02.01.2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur, (in short District Forum) vide which complaint filed by respondent/complainant was allowed and OPs were directed to split the electric connection bearing Account No.CON-233 in two of 10BHP each and to install accordingly in the fields of the complainant and Beant Singh, respectively.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant Satgur Singh s/o Balwant Singh is residing in Californea (USA) and therefore, he filed complaint before District Forum under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OPs, through his special power of attorney and his brother Beant Singh. It was pleaded that a domestic family partition took place between the real brothers i.e. Beant Singh and the complainant Satgur Singh during the lifetime of their father, Sh. Balwant Singh. The memorandum of partition was prepared on 19.03.2007 and the same was incorporated in the revenue records. Accordingly, the mutation was sanctioned in the name of the parties as per the partition deed and since then they are in possession of their respective shares of land. An electric connection of 20 BHP, bearing connection No.CON-233, was already installed in rectangle No.118/119, which fell in the share of Sh. Beant Singh, after the said partition. Thus, there was no electric motor in the share of land measuring 96 kanals owned and possessed by complainant. The complainant applied for an electric connection of 20 HP to OPs in his share of land under the family partition scheme of splitting of the existing agriculture connection, as per circular No.38/2003, (SR No. 36.2) and further deposited Rs.4500/- with the OPs, vide receipt No.9674 dated 18.05.2010. He also executed all documents as required by the OPs, including the affidavit of his brother. However, OPs sent a letter dated 2.6.2010 intimating him that his case did not fall under the family partition without assigning any reason. His power of attorney visited the office of OP No.2 a number of times and requested for the release of the connection but it did not give any satisfactory reply. Alleging non release of connection a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum, seeking direction to the OPs to release his connection of 20 HP as per circular 38/2003 in his name in his fields. Costs and compensation were also prayed.
3. Upon notice, OPs filed joint written reply in which it was denied that any domestic partition took place between the complainant and his brother Beant Singh. It was, however, admitted that an electric connection, bearing No.CON-233 of 20 HP, was running in the name of Beant Singh and that the complainant applied for splitting of the said electric connection as per circular No.38/2003, along with documents and deposited Rs.4500/- vide receipt dated 18.05.2010. After receipt of said application, clarification was sought from Sr.XEN Suburban Division Sunam, who, vide its letter dated 31.05.2006, replied that the case of the complainant did not fall within the category of domestic partition between brothers. Rather, the record showed that it was only a case of exchange of land between brothers. Therefore, his application was rightly rejected and he was informed accordingly vide letter dated 02.06.2010. Denying all other allegations, dismissal of the complaint with cost was prayed.
4. Parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents before the District Forum, which after going through the same, allowed the complaint in aforesaid terms.
5. Aggrieved by this order the OPs has come up in appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum has not gone into the question of applicability of the circular, in question, on the basis of evidence. It was submitted that the alleged partition deed (Ex.C-5) cannot be said to be a genuine partition as it did not contain the details of khewat, khatauni and khasra numbers of the joint family land which was allegedly partitioned through the said partition deed. Moreover the partition deed was also not registered in revenue record as required. Perusal of mutation No.11777 (Ex.C-13) shows that the same was sanctioned on the basis of "exchange deed" and not on the basis of "partition deed" as has been alleged by complainant. Even the death certificate of the father of the complainant was not produced. It was further submitted that in case a partition took place on 19.03.2007 in presence of their father, then why a need arose on 26.03.2007 to exchange the land just seven days after alleged partition of land. Further, there is no indication either in the memorandum of partition or in exchange deed as to what was the particular khasra number in which electricity connection was existing prior to exchange of land between the brothers.
6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that learned District Forum, reached the correct conclusion after appreciating the evidence on record. There was no merit in the appeal and same be dismissed.
7. We have thoroughly gone through the pleading of the parties and carefully perused the evidence on record and heard the submissions made by learned counsels on their behalf.
8. Admittedly, the complainant applied for a tubewell connection in his name in his share of land with OPs on 18.05.2010 under family partition scheme as per circular No.38/2003 and deposited Rs.4500/- vide receipt No.9647 dated 18.05.2010. However, his request was declined by OPs vide letter dated 02.06.2010 (Ex.R-2) on the ground that the case of complainant did not fall under the family partition category.
9. Commercial circular No.38/2003, dated 09.06.2003 (Ex.C1) on the basis of which connection was applied by complainant provided as under:-
Sub: Splitting of Agricultural Load as per S.R.36.2. The matter regarding splitting of AP loads in case of genuine family partition/division of land cases was considered and it has been decided that splitting of tubewell connection may be allowed to avoid hardship to the farmers in case of family partition with the following terms and conditions:-
I. The splitting of existing AP connections into two shall be allowed only on genuine family partition duly registered in the revenue record to be produced in the concerned operation sub division.
II. The priority shall be admissible once only during the life time of a person. III. The priority shall be admissible only to those who own land in their names and splitting shall also be allowed in the name of members of joint family before partition.
IV. The priority is admissible up to the stage of issue of demand notice. V. The priority shall be allowed by Sr.XEN. ASE/OP VI. The connection released under this priority shall not qualify for sale, lease and transfer of connection or change of name for five years from the date of release of connection.
VII. The differential of ACD on the basis of prevalent rates would be charged from the consumer to whom connections are allowed after splitting. VIII. The differential of service connection charges shall be charged from all consumers to whom connection is allowed after splitting at the latest prevalent rate or actual cost of splitting whichever is higher. IX. The splitting of AP load shall be allowed from one connection to two on genuine undisputed partition of land authenticated with the relevant revenue record for tubewell loads of 10BHP and above.
10. To support his contention, complainant attached the copy of the family partition deed dated 19.03.2007 as Ex.C-5 and a copy of the agreement dated 26.03.2000, (Ex.C-6) affecting the exchange of land between the complainant and his brother Beant Singh. Apart from these, affidavit Ex.C-7, was given by complainant deposing therein that after the family partition, the area of rectangle No.118/119 had gone to the share of his brother Beant Singh, and in exchange land located in rectangle No.281 had fallen in his share. It was further deposes in said affidavit that 20 HP electric connection, bearing No. CON-233, had also fallen in the share of said Beant Singh, and that there was no tubewell connection in his share of land in rectangle No.281. Similarly another affidavit (Ex.C-8) was filed by said Beant Singh, stating therein that after the partition and exchange of land, area of land under rectangle No.281 has gone to the share of the complainant as also that the existing tubewell connection No.CON- 233 of 20 HP had fallen in his share.
11. OPs, vide their letter dated 02.06.2010 (Ex.R-2) conveyed to the complainant that his case did not fall under family partition category as it was a case of only exchange of land between brothers and not a case of a genuine family partition. He was advised to get the refund of the security amount deposited by him. A careful perusal of the circular No.38/2003 (Ex.C-1) reveals that splitting of existing AP connection into two is to be allowed only in case of genuine family partition duly registered in the revenue record to be produced in the concerned operation sub division. It is observed that the partition deed (Ex.C-5) is only notorized but same is not at all registered in revenue record as required. Otherwise also Ex.C-5 does not seem to be genuine family partition deed as it does not specify the khewat or khasra numbers which were jointly held by the family before partition and khasra number falling to the share of the respective parties. Moreover, the jamabandi of year 2000-01 (Ex.C-11) and jamabandi of the year 2005-06 (Ex.C-12), proved by complained himself, reveals that the land was not at all held jointly prior to alleged partition. Rather specific khasra numbers were exiting in the name of Satgur Singh and Beant Singh in Ex.C-12 and Ex.C-11, respectively, even prior to the year 2000-01. Moreover, in the exchange deed (Ex.C-6), which was executed on 26.03.2015, just after one week of alleged partition there is no mention of the said partition deed. Through the said exchange deed, specific khasra numbers of land already held by brothers in their individual names since 2000-01, were exchanged. The contention of complaint the said partition deed is duly registered in revenue record is found to be false. The mutation No.11777, was approved by Tehsildar on 01.04.2007 on the basis of exchange deed Ex.C-6 and not as per partition deed Ex.C-5 as alleged by complainant. It is, therefore, established that said partition deed was not only not registered in the revenue record but same cannot be termed as genuine. Rather, same is a created document only to avail a new connection under the family partition scheme.
12. It is further noticed that as per the own admission of complaint, the electric connection No.CON-233, is existing in the rectangle No.118 and 119, though no specific khasra number has been mentioned. This connection after exchange of land, fell in the share of Beant Singh. Now complainant wants a new connection in his land falling in rectangle No.281. Apparently these two pieces of land, located at two different places, are not contagious. Thus, existing tubewell connection was not catering the need of both these blocks. Apparently the complainant wanted a new connection in the land block situated at a distant place in rectangle No.281 which was not earlier being fed by existing tubewell. Such a connection cannot be covered under family partition scheme.
13. During the course of arguments, Learned Counsel for the OPs, produced a copy of commercial circular No.43/2007, dated 20.08.2007, vide which said commercial circular No.38/2003 dated 09.06.2003 was withdrawn and to avoid hardship to the farmers, the priority for the release of one tubewell connection to each legal heir under genuine family partition/division of landed property as a result of family partition under provisions of Land Revenue Act 1887 or as a result of inheritance (ESR 13.06.11) was allowed by relaxing ban imposed on the issuance of demand notices under this priority. Thus, the splitting of existing connection into two was discontinued with effect from 20.08.2007 and only priority for release of new connection to legal heirs under genuine family partition was to be allowed vide CC No.43/2007. But in the present case complaint is not the legal heir of Beant Singh, who is the holder of existing tubewell connection. Evidently, such a connection can only be allowed to legal heirs after the death of the owner of the tubewell connection. Thus, the complainant was not entitled to avail a connection under family partition scheme either as per CC No.38/2003.
14. In view of the above discussion, it is to be held said that OPs have rightly disallowed the release of new tubewell connection in the name of complainant as he did not fulfill the conditions mentioned in CC NO.38/2003 as well under CC. No.43/2007. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the OPs is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently the complaint filed by the complainant dismissed.
15. The arguments in the case were heard on 19.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
16. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period because of the heavy pendency of the court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (SURINDER PAL KAUR) MEMBER March 02,2015 PK/-