Smti. Aparna Sarkar v. The Executive Engineer (Sa) And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WPA/220/2025 Smti. Aparna Sarkar Vs.
The Executive Engineer (SA) & Anr.
Mrs. Shipra Mondal ... for the petitioners Mr. S.C. Mishra ... for the respondents Mr. M.A. Sahil ... Advocate Commissioner July 14, 2025 [AKB] Item No.17 The petitioner has filed the application for grant of electricity connection in the government revenue land bearing Survey No. 747 area 200 Sq. mtrs. situated at Ramakrisnapur village, Hutbay, Little Andaman. Ms. Shipra Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has constructed a residential house in the said land and residing in the said land. The petitioner had applied for grant of electricity connection on 25.02.2025 through online, but authorities have not provided electricity connection. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.
During the pendency of the case, The Assistant Engineer, Electricity Department, Hutbay had informed the petitioner by letter dated 10.06.2025 that inspection carried out by Junior Engineer (RKPur) along with Assistant Engineer and found that the semi RCC dwelling house for
which encroachment connection was sought by the petitioner, the same dwelling house has an existing and active electricity connection vide A/C No.: Z6/99 released on 19.05.1992 in the name of Sunil Sarkar, i.e. the father in law of the petitioner.
Ms. Shipra Mondal has disputed the said report and submitted that the petitioner is not residing in the said house wherein electricity connection was provided and accordingly this Court has appointed Mr. M.A.Sahil, advocate as Commissioner for inspection of the premises on the following question:
(i) Whether the house of the petitioner and the house of the Sunil Sarkar wherein the electric connection being A/C No.:Z6/99 is provided is the same house?
(ii) Whether the house of the petitioner is separate then the house of the Sunil Sarkar?
(iii) Whether the house of the petitioner is having any electricity connection?
The Commissioner has submitted report after serving the copy to the learned counsel for the respective parties. The Commissioner has elaborately given the description of the houses situated in the said plot. As per the report it is found that in the said land there are three separate structures which is, one a dwelling semi RCC Tin structure, second a single storied semi RCC building and
third semi RCC Shed. The petitioner is currently residing alone in the dwelling Semi RCC Tin structure. As per the report it is found that the two electric meters installed in the entire suit land i.e. one meter being No. Z6/99 is in the name of Late Sunil Sarkar, the deceased former land holder in the single storied semi RCC structure and Z6/6009 in the semi RCC shed in the name of Gopal Sarkar i.e. the husband of the petitioner.
Now the petitioner has made out a case that the petitioner is having some family dispute and she is residing separately with her husband and as such she had constructed a house and applied for grant of electricity connection. In the writ petition no such case has been made out. The petitioner has simply made out a case that she has constructed a house and she requires electricity connection, but the authorities had not provided the electricity connection.
This Court finds that the petitioner has not come before this Court with the clean hand and not stated the actual facts as to how many structure are situated and how many meters have been provided in the structure. Though it is settled law by the Full Bench of this Court that illegal occupier is entitled to get the electricity connection unless the illegal occupier is evicted from the said premises with the due process of law. But in the present case this Court finds that one or the other family members are encroaching the land and making a construction and obtaining a
electricity connection. In this case the husband of the petitioner is also having the electricity connection and that has been suppressed by the petitioner. Only when this Court has called for the report and the report has clarified that the husband is having the electricity connection, the petitioner has changed her stand that she is residing separately due to the family dispute which is not acceptable before this Court.
Accordingly the application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
( Krishna Rao, J. )