A. Sivaperumal vs TANGEDCO and Others

R. Subbiah, J.—The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned communication of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Distribution, Town/ South/ TANGEDCO, Thoothukudi, dated 09.10.2012 in Ka.No.Vu.Se.Po/Vi/Na/The/Thu.Di/Va.Aa/Ko. Ka/Aa/No.202/12 and the consequential proceedings of the Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram, dated 13.03.2013 and for consequential direction to the Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram to register the documents produced by the petitioner in respect of Survey No. 641, Ottapidaram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Toothukudi District.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a resident of Keelamudeman Village, Ottapidaram Taluk. Earlier during 2001-2006, he had represented Ottapidaram constituency as its Member of Legislative Assembly. The petitioner owns several properties in Ottapidaram Taluk. The petitioner had purchased the property in Survey No. 641 admeasuring 15.71 acres and several other properties from one Mr.T.Ravi under a sale deed dated 28.02.2011 registered in Document No. 496 of 2011 on the file of Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram. Subsequent to the said purchase, the revenue records have also been mutated to his name and he was issued with a Patta bearing No. 3702 by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Ottapidaram for the properties purchased under above mentioned sale deed including 15.71 acres in Survey No. 641. It is further submitted that the vendor of the petitioner viz., Mr.T.Ravi had purchased the said property under an auction sale held in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, pursuant to the decree passed in O.A. No.99 of 2010 and he was issued with a valid Sale Certificate by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, dated 18.06.2010 in Sale Certificate No. 19/10. Subsequent to purchase of the said property from Mr.T.Ravi, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. In such circumstances, the petitioner had executed a General Power of Attorney deed in favour of his wife, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram on 13.03.2013 in respect of the said property situated in Survey No. 641. But, the Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram in and by the impugned order dated 13.03.2013 had returned the same directing the petitioner to obtain "No Objection Certificate" from TANGEDCO in view of the impugned communication received from Assistant Executive Engineer dated 09.10.2012. The said communication was also served on the petitioner by the Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram along with his order dated 13.03.2013. In the said impugned communication of the Assistant Executive Engineer, dated 09.10.2012, it is stated that Tmt. S.Indra, Proprietor of M/s. Madha Sea Foods in Door No. 4/4, Adhi Parasakthi Nagar, Thoothukudi was enjoying an Electricity Service connection No.RWEl0 and subsequently, it was found that she had committed theft of energy leading to a loss of Rs. 27,32,457/- and for such misconduct, the electricity connection given to her was disconnected and proceedings under Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act had been initiated to recover the said outstanding amount of Rs. 27,32,457/- together with interest of Rs. 57,01,459/- totaling to a sum of Rs. 84,33,916/- and therefore, the Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram, was requested not to register any document in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule in two items, since it was found that Tmt. Indra had alienated the first item of the property in February 2011. Several properties in two items were mentioned in the schedule in the said proceedings. The first item of the property seems to be the one where the said defaulter was enjoying electricity service connection. The second item of the property consists a total extent of 30.38 Acres situated across 12 Survey numbers in Survey Nos. 610, 620, 621/1A, 621/IB, 621/2A, 621/2B, 622/2C, 623/1, 624/1, 624/1A, 624/2A and 641. Insofar as the petitioner''s property is concerned it is in Survey No. 641 which consists of 15.71 Acres. Subsequent enquiry into the title of the property shows that the extent of 11.48 acres of the northern extent of the total extent of 15.71 acres was purchased by Mr. Murugan @ Murugaiah Pillai from Muthappa Pillai under a sale deed dated 23.10.1975 registered in Document No. 1280 of 1975. The said Mr. Murugan @ Murugaiah Pillai had in turn sold the said land of 11.48 acres in Survey No. 641 to Tmt.Indra under a sale deed dated 27.03.1976 registered in Document No. 282 of 1976. Thereafter, Tmt.Indra had sold an extent of 6 acres of land on the western side of 11.48 acres to Mr. Durairaj under a sale deed dated 02.07.1977 registered in Document No. 457 of 1977 and she had sold another extent of 3 acres of land in the southern extent of 5.48 acres in the eastern extent of 11.48 acres to Mr. Chithamparam Pillai under a sale deed dated 03.07.1978 registered in Document No. 819 of 1978. She had further sold the remaining extent of 2.48 acres of land in favour of said Durairaj under a sale deed dated 14.08.1980 registered in Document No. 325 of 1980. Thus under the above 3 sale deeds, Tmt. Indra had alienated the entire property purchased by her in 1976 and she had no interest whatsoever thereafter in respect of Survey No. 641. The 6 acres of land purchased by Mr. Durairaj on 08.02.1977 from Tmt. Indra was sold to Mr. Balasubramanian under a sale deed dated 09.05.1990 registered in Document No. 365 of 1990; Mr. Balasubramanian sold it to M/s. Chola Agro Industries, Chennai under a sale deed dated 28.03.1995 registered in Document No. 341 of 1995 and M/s. Chola Agro Industries had mortgaged the same with Indian Overseas Bank on 21.10.2002 and for their default, it was brought for auction sale through Debt Recovery Tribunal from where the petitioner''s vendor Mr. Ravi had purchased the same. It is further submitted that the three acres of land purchased by Chithamparam Pillai from Tmt. Indra under a sale deed dated 03.07.1978 was sold by him to Mr. Ramasamy Chettiar under a sale deed dated 05.05.1982 registered in Document No. 409 of 1982; Mr. Balasubramanian subsequently sold the same to M/s. Chola Agro Industries, Chennai under a sale deed dated 30.03.1995 registered in Document No. 354 of 1995; Mr. Chola Agro Industries had mortgaged the same with Indian Overseas Bank and for their default it was brought for auction sale through Debt Recovery Tribunal from where the petitioner''s vendor Mr. Ravi had purchased the same. Further, 2.48 acres of land purchased by Mr. Durairaj on 14.04.1980 from Tmt. Indra was subsequently sold to Mr. Vellaisamy under a sale deed dated 15.06.1988 registered in Document No. 510 of 1988 and he had in turn sold the same to Mr. Balasubramanian under a sale deed dated 26.02.1990 registered in Document No. 141 of 1990; Mr. Balasubramanian had alienated the same to M/s. Chola Agro Industries, Chennai under a sale deed dated 30.03.1995 registered in Document No. 359 of 1995 and they had mortgaged the same with Indian Overseas Bank and for their default, it was brought for auction sale through Debt Recovery Tribunal from where the petitioner''s vendor Mr. Ravi had purchased the same. Thus Tmt. Indra had no right or interest in respect of property in Survey No. 641 after her alienation on 03.07.1978, 14.04.1980 and 08.02.1977 respectively in favour Chithambaram Pillai, Durairaj and Durairaj under registered sale deeds. Since the said Tmt.Indra was found to have committed theft of energy leading to a loss of Rs. 27,32,457/- and she is liable to pay totally a sum of Rs. 84,33,916/- to TANGEDCO, the Assistant Executive Engineer has instructed the Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram, by the impugned communication dated 09.10.2012, not to register any document in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule, since the said properties were originally owned by Tmt.Indra. Pursuant to the said communication, the impugned order dated 13.03.2013 was passed by the Sub Registrar, Ottapidaram, directing the petitioner to obtain "No Objection Certificate" from the Assistant Executive Engineer. Aggrieved over the said communications dated 09.10.2012 and the consequential proceedings dated 13.03.2013, the petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition.

On appearance, the sixth respondent had filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the land in dispute bearing S.No. 641 measuring to an extent of 6.36.0 Hect or 15.71 acres of punjai land in Ottapidaram village, Ottapidaram taluk is covered under Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated by the fourth respondent for the recovery of Rs. 84.33 lakhs towards theft of energy by one Tmt.Indira, the previous owner of the said land. The fourth respondent vide his impugned letter dated 09.10.2012 has stated that the said land in S.No.641 of Ottapidaram village is one among the lands attached for the recovery of the loss of Rs. 84.33 lakhs towards TNEB by way of theft of energy and hence, he requested the sixth respondent not to register any documents in respect of the land in S.No.641 of Ottapidaram village. Accordingly, the General Power of Attorney document produced before the sixth respondent for registration was returned to the petitioner herein on 13.03.2013 with an endorsement to get "No Objection Certificate" from TANGEDCO authorities and produce the same for registration. Aggrieved against the said endorsement dated 13.03.2013 the petitioner has filed this writ petition. It is further stated that the petitioner had purchased the property in S.No.641 admeasuring 15.71 acres in Ottapidaram village which was already attached under the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of Rs. 84.33 lakhs from the previous vendor of the said land. Hence, the fourth respondent herein had requested the sixth respondent not to register documents in order to recover the amount due to TANGEDCO. Accordingly, the sixth respondent had returned the General Power of Attorney document presented by the petitioner directing the petitioner herein to re-present the same along with the No objection Certificate from TANGEDCO authorities and therefore, the order passed by the sixth respondent is bona fide and it is well within the ambit of law. If the petitioner had any grievance over the Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated by the TANGEDCO authorities, he ought to have approached the competent civil court but he has approached this Court without exhausting the alternative remedy available to him. Thus they sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the property was originally owned by the said Tmt.Indra she had sold the properties in the year 1977 itself. Whereas the electricity service connection was given to the said property on 24.02.1997 and theft of energy was found only on 26.04.2001 i.e., much after a period of 24 years from the sale of property. In such circumstances, the instruction given to the sixth respondent by the fourth respondent Assistant Executive Engineer vide communication dated 09.10.2012 is not legally valid and based on the said communication, the consequential impugned proceedings of the sixth respondent issued on 13.03.2013 has to be set aside.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent electricity board by relying upon a decision of this Court delivered in M/s. Omni Fusion Technologies Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Anna Salai, The Chief Engineer (Commercial), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and The Superintending Engineer, Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle, Pudukottai, submitted that it is the duty of the purchasers of premises to satisfy themselves that there are no electricity dues before purchasing the premises.

Heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.

Keeping in mind the submission of the learned counsels appearing on either side and on perusal of the entire materials available on record, I am of the opinion that in the instant case, the property was sold much earlier to the electricity service connection obtained by the said Tmt.Indra. In such circumstances, the respondent Electricity Board has no authority to give instructions to the sixth respondent not to register the document in respect of S.No.641 situated at Ottapidaram Village, Ottapidaram Taluk, Thoothukudi District, which was owned by the said Tmt. Indra 24 years back. Therefore, the communication sent by the fourth respondent to the sixth respondent dated 09.10.2012 is not legally sustainable. Hence, on the sole ground alone the said communication dated 09.10.2012 is set aside and the consequential proceedings of the sixth respondent dated 13.03.2013 is also set aside. It is pertinent to point out here that as per Rule 55 of the Registration Act the registering authority is bound to consider the objection only on the ground which is stated in the said Rule. Rule 55 does not provide enquiry by the Registering Officer with regard to the ownership of the seller. Therefore, the authorities concerned are bound to act only in accordance with the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Therefore, the sixth respondent is directed to register the sale deed, if the said document is otherwise eligible for registration and release the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

In the result, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.