High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 08 P&H CK 0033

SDO, (OP) Sub Division, UHBVNL vs Permanent Lok Adalat & anr.

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 August 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajan Gupta
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
8709 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 342 words
1.

Petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing order dated 02.01.2017, Annexure P-3 passed by authority below.

It has been urged before the court that before releasing new electric tubewell connection, it is mandatory that "No objection certificate" is given by the co-sharers, particularly if the jamabandi/girdawari indicates that land is in joint names.

2.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.

Brief factual background of the case is that respondent no. 2, an agriculturist by profession, having his land situated at village Ballah Tehsil Assandh District Karnal, applied for new electricity Tubewell connection before the petitioner-department. He submitted all the requisite documents for the same. However, petitioner-department raised an objection that respondent no. 2 had to obtain "No objection certificate" from other co-sharers of the land as the girdawari or jamabandi indicates that same was a joint land. Aggrieved, he filed an application under section 22-C before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Public Utility Services, Karnal. On the basis of

evidence on record, it directed the petitioner-department to release the tubewell electric connection to respondent no. 2 subject to completing all the formalities including indemnity bond within a period of one month. Dis-satisfied with the award passed by the authority below, petitioner has preferred the instant petition.

4.

It appears that respondent no. 2 is an agriculturist. As he has no other source to irrigate his land, he applied for electric tubewell connection.

Same was rejected by the petitioner-Nigam on the ground of non-availability of "No objection certificate" from the co-sharers. However, as per department instructions, clause 1.1.5 of sub-clause (b), if a new tubewell connection is to be released for a joint land, application form should be accompanied with "No objection certificate" from the co-sharers alongwith indemnity bond. In the instant case, respondent no. 2 has already furnished "No objection certificate" of some of the co-sharers. He is also ready to furnish the indemnity bond to the department. I find no infirmity with the

order. Petition is without any merit and is, thus, dismissed.