AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
Petitioner, Om Prakash Sharma has preferred this writ petition with a prayer that Respondents be directed to connect the electricity connection of the Petitioner''s house forthwith.
From the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that the Petitioner is residing in Plot No. B-202 situated at Laxminarainpuri, Surajpole, Jaipur, which was in the name of Dhanna Lal, who is said to have been expired on 14.10.2007. Electricity and water connection bills were being issued in the name of Late Shri Dhanna Lal. It is stated that after the death of Late Shri Dhanna Lal, the Petitioner is living in the disputed house as an owner.
From Para No. 4 of the writ petition, it appears that one Rajendra S/o. Late Shri Dhanna Lal, who inducted his name in the electricity bill, after death of his father, did not deposit the amount of bill, therefore, electricity connection of the plot in question was disconnected.
learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is residing in the disputed house and he used to deposit the amount of electricity bills, which were being issued in the name of Late Shri Dhanna Lal, therefore, Respondents could not have disconnected the electricity connection of the plot in question.
learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that Late Shri Dhanna Lal executed one unregistered Will in favour of the Petitioner in respect of plot in dispute and he is enjoying the plot in question as owner, therefore, the Respondents may be directed to connect the disconnected electricity connection of the plot in question immediately.
I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioner and also examined the document annexed with the writ petition.
From the pleadings of the writ petition, it appears that there is a dispute about ownership of the house in dispute. The Petitioner is claiming his ownership on the basis of so-called unregistered Will, whereas one Rajendra, natural son of Late Shri Dhanna Lal, is claiming his ownership of the house in dispute. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner was asked to show any receipt having paid the amount of rent for the period, Late Shri Dhanna Lal was alive, but he is unable to produce the same, therefore, it cannot be presumed that he was earlier tenant in the disputed house.
There are disputed questions of facts involved in the present writ petition, which can be decided only on the basis of proper evidence. In these circumstances, present writ petition cannot be entertained. The Petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of filing civil suit or raising dispute before Settlement Committee of the Respondents.
In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.