Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN 19- A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshal Road),
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Phone : ++91-044-2841 1376 / 2841 1378/ 2841 1379 Fax : ++91-044-2841 1377
Email : [email protected] Web site : www.tneo.gov.in
BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, CHENNAI
Present : Thiru. A. Dharmaraj, Electricity Ombudsman
Appeal Petition No.47 of 2014 Tmt.M. Madavi, W/o.T.Marappan, 195, Kollapatti Animoor Post, Tiruchengode, Namakkal Dist. : Appellant (Rep by Thiru. T. Marappan) Vs. The Superintending Engineer, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, K.N.Colony, Udayapatti, Salem-636 014. : Respondent (Rep by Thiru. S. Nagarajan, AEE/O&M/Vembadithalam)
Date of hearing : 10-9-2014
Date of Order : 19-12-2014
The appeal petition dated 15-7-2014 filed by the Appellant was registered as
Appeal petition No.47 of 2014. The above appeal petition came up for final hearing
before the Electricity Ombudsman on 10.9.2014. Upon perusing the appeal petition
of the Appellant, counter affidavit of the Respondent and after hearing both the
parties, the E.O. passes the following order:
Order
1.0 Prayer of the Appellant :
The Appellant prayed to direct the TANGEDCO to approve the agricultural
service connection shifting proposal based on the sale deed without insisting the
secondary computer patta document.
2
2.0 Brief History of the case :
2.1 The Appellant requested for shifting of the agriculture service connection
bearing No. 04-481-008-60 available in the existing well at SF.No.2/4A in
Selliampalayam village of Salem Taluk to the Bore well at S.F.No.23/2A1A1 in
Kannagagiri village of Sankari Taluk stating that there is no water in the existing well
and plenty of water in the borewell in SF.No.23/2A1A1.
2.2 The Appellant filed her petition dt. 24-4-2014 before the CGRF to order
shifting of the Agricultural service connection. The CGRF in its order dt 18-6-2014
has dismissed the petition stating that the Appellant has not furnished the computer
patta for both the lands and also not produced any records for agricultural activities
in the well of the existing service connection. Aggrieved by the order of the CGRF,
the Appellant filed this appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman.
3..0 Order of the Forum :
3.1 The forum issued its order on 18-6-2014. The relevant para of the order is
extracted below:
“kDjhuç‹ nfhç¡ifÍ«, v® kDjhu® v®thJiuiaÍ« gçÓè¤j‹
mo¥gilæš Ï«k‹w« Ñœ¡f©lthW Miz tH§F»wJ.
ä‹ Ïiz¥ò cŸs »z‰¿‹ r®nt v©.2/4A (giHaJ 2/4) -¡F fââ
g£lh rk®¥Ã¡f¥gléšiy. ä‹ Ïiz¥ò Ïlkh‰w« nfhU« r®nt v©.23/2A1A1 -
¡f fââ g£lh rk®¥Ã¡f¥gléšiy.
ä‹ Ïiz¥ò cŸs »z‰¿‹ r®nt v©.2/4A ml§fèš gæ® fz¡F
F¿¥Ãl¥gléšiy.
vdnt ä‹rhu thça éÂfŸ, k‰W« jäœehL ä‹rhu xG§FKiw Miza
éÂfë‹go étrha ä‹ Ïiz¥ò v©.481-008-60 I Ïlkh‰w« brŒa ÏayhJ vd
k‹w¤jhš c¤juÎ tH§f¥gL»wJ.”
4. Contention of the Appellant:
4.1 She applied for the shifting of agricultural service connection available in her
land SF No.2/4A(old No.2/4) of selliampalayam village, Salem Taluk bearing
S.C.No.04-481-008-60 of selliampalayam distribution, vembadithaalam section on 7-
6-2012/20-7-2012 and the same was registered on 4-10-2013. After a period of
3
about six months, certain clarifications were raised vide letter dt.5-4-2013 of
AE/O&M/Vembadithaalam for which she has submitted the required documents and
clarification on 22-4-2013 subsequently again vide letter dt.5-6-2013 of
AE/O&M/Vembadithaalam certain clarification were sought for which also she has
submitted clarification and supporting documents on 23-7-2013.
4.2 Based on the above, field officers have inspected the two S.F. Nos. viz., 2/4A
(old No.2/4) existing well land and 23/2A1A1 (old No.23/A1A) proposed bore well
land and submitted their inspection report to SE/Salem EDC/Salem for favour of
approval. But the proposal of shifting of Agricultural service connection No.04-481-
008-60 was rejected by SE/SEDC/Salem vide letter dt. 7-1-2014 with various
reasons and the same was communicated to her by AE/O&M/Vembadithaalam vide
letter dt.25-3-2014.
4.3 The CGRF has ordered that computer Patta in respect of SF Nos. 2/4A (old
No.2/4) and 23/2A1A1 (old No.23/A1A) were not submitted and also Crop details
not mentioned in the VAO adangal report for 2/4A land hence, Agricultural shifting
proposal was not approved. In this connection, she submits that to ascertain the
ownership of any land, the land, registration document (sale deed) is the primary
document based on which only revenue authorities make entries in the computer for
Patta. “A” register etc., details to create secondary document. But due to unknown
administrative/other reasons in the Revenue department, details in the village
records in respect of the above said subdivided S.F.Nos. are not entered in the
computer of Taluk office. Hence she could not produce computer patta for the above
said SF Nos. More over crop details in the Adangal report of VAO is changing every
month / quarter/ half year/year wise but it is not a permanent one in respect of any
agricultural land. When there is no water in the land, how one can raise crops?
Only rain fed crops such as maize, groundnut etc can be sown.
4.4 Sale deed (Primary document) may be taken into consideration for the
approval of his agricultural shifting application please, for doing agriculture activity
which is the main source for the living of any human.
4.5 In this connection, she hereby submits that she has purchased the existing
well land SF No.2/4, Selliampalayam Village, Salem Taluk an extent of 2.32 acres on
25/2/2008 with Agricultural service connection No.04-481-008-60 and the same was
made name transfer to her name on 21/7/2008. Further she has also purchased the
proposed borewell land earlier to the above SF No.23/2A1 (50% Share) of
4
Kanagagiri village, Sankari Taluk on 14/7/2006 vide document No.2243/2006 along
with nearby land areas.
4.6 Moreover, as she was in need of money for her family expenses,
subsequently she sold a portion of the existing well land S.F.No.2/4 of
Selliampalayam village to others. Due to this sale, the land in SF No. was further
subdivided into 2/4A, 2/4B etc., and 2/4A being her property about 90 cents as per
village records. But the same has not been entered in the computer records of
Salem Taluk office. She has represented many times to VAO but the same was not
carried out till now. The reason could not be ascertained. Hence she could not able
to produce the computer patta for SF No.2/4A (old No.2/4).
4.8 Similarly, proposed bore well land SF No.23/2A1A1 (old No.23/2A1 A)
Kanagagiri village, Sankari Taluk, a portion of the land was acquired by National
High way Authority of India (NHAI) for National Highway 47 (NH 47) expansion work
(4 lane) during 2009 and hence the SF No.23/2A1A was further subdivided into
23/2A1 A1, and 23/2A1 A2, as per village records, the part 23/2A1 A1 being her
remaining part of her land and the same has also not been entered in the computer
records of Sankari Taluk Office. Hence she is not able to produce the computer
patta for SF No.23/2A1 A1 (old No.23/2A1A).
4.9 At this juncture she hereby further submit that registration document (Sale
Deed) is the primary document for assessing the ownership of a particular land and
also to know the extent of area the particular owner has got as her share. But the
revenue document ie computer patta will not reveal the extent of area the every
pattadar has got. But it will show the list of land owners in a particular survey field
number. Moreover inclusion of land owner name in a particular survey number is
being done by revenue authorities based on a registration document only but not by
any other mode. Hence she strongly point out that registration document is the only
document to prove the ownership of any land.
4.10 A former has to wait for about 20-25 years to get new agricultural service
connection under normal category. About 21 months have completed, since the date
of registration of request of shifting, but no solution has been found so far. If there is
any ambiguity in taking any decision, the matter would have been referred to Head
Office / TNERC for getting clarification to serve the farming community.
4.11 If it is possible to get the agricultural connection as of other category services
such as commercial, domestic, industrial etc., she would not have come for the
5
shifting of his agricultural connection. It normally takes 20-25 years to get
agricultural connection. Hence she is fighting for the past 21 months, with the
TANGEDCO / Revenue authorities to solve the issue and get the shifting of
Agricultural service connection done. But nothing has been solved. She wanted to
do agriculture to produce milk, vegetables etc., for the people and for herself.
5.0 Contention of the Respondent:
5.1 It is true that petitioner has requested shifting of agriculture service connection
No.04-481-008-60 available in the existing well at SF No.2/4A in Selliampalayam
Village of Salem (TK) to the Bore well at SF No.23/2A1A1 in Kanagagiri village of
Sankari (TK) stating the reason that there is no water in the existing well and plenty
of water in the bore well in SF No.23/2A1A1, Kanagagiri village to which the service
is requested to be shifted based on the sale deed without insisting the computer
patta.
5.2 The well in which existing agricultural service available is having no water and
found dry. The land surrounding the existing well were converted into plots and sold
to several persons. Hence it is confirmed that there was no agricultural activities in
the SF No.2/4A, Selliampalayam village served by service connection No.481-008-
60.
5.3 As far as the instructions of TANGEDCO is concerned agricultural services
were given only to irrigate the land served by the service, where as in this case the
land to be irrigated by the service has been converted into plots and sold. Therefore
the petitioner has no rights for the ownership of the service.
5.4 Moreover the Borewell in survey No.23/2A1A1 of Kanagagiri village to which
the service has to be shifted is having adequate water resource and 0.0948 sq.m.
patta land available in the name of Thiru T.Marappan and Tmt.M.Madhavi. In the
averments of the petitioner, she primarily stated that the request made by her was
not considered by the CGRF because she has not produced computer patta for the
land at SF No.2/4A in Selliampalayam Village as well as 23/2A1A1 at Kanagagiri
village. In this regard it is respectfully submitted that CGRF has ordered so, not only
for producing computer patta but also considering the facts of non ownership of the
land to be irrigated at SF No.2/4A at Selliampalayam Village and there is no
agricultural activities in the above said land and as per the existing instructions that,
the agricultural services in the wells are to be dismantled permanently when the land
6
to be irrigated are converted into house plots and found no agricultural activities.
Eventhough all these matters are discussed in the CGRF in their order, the
petitioner has suppressed wilfully in her petition.
5.5 The S.F.No.2/4A is having an area of 63Mx27M only, and it was 137M away
from the well and 22 feet x 16 feet size foundation was available inside the 63M x
27M land and having no agricultural activities.
5.6 Also in the adangal dated 10-5-2012 issued by the VAO/ Vembadithalam, for
the agriculture service connection No.481-008-60 obtained in SF No.2/4A (old SF
No.2/4), it was mentioned as kinaru-I, 5 HP EMP-1, “manai nilam” and the adangal
dt.16-4-2013 issued by the VAO for the same SF No. 2/4A (old SF No.2/4) as
“pagam veetu manai, kinaru-1, 5 HP, EMP-1” so in both the adangals the VAO has
not mentioned anything about the agricultural land at SF No.2/4A.
5.7 The CE/Planning in his letter dt. 20-9-2008 has given instructions as “ÃçÎ
mYty®fŸ j§fŸ gF¡F c£g£l étrha ä‹ Ïiz¥òfis MŒÎ brŒJ Å£L
kidfshf kh‰w¥g£LŸs ãy§fëYŸs étrha ä‹ Ïiz¥òfis thça
éÂfë‹go (Clause 33(4) of TN Electricity Distribution code) ãuªju ä‹ J©o¥ò
brŒÍ«go nfhu¥g£LŸsJ”
5.8 Moreover in the said portion of the 90 cents of lands (which is said to be the
agricultural land by the petitioner) belonging to petitioner, it is confirmed that there
also no agricultural activity. The land shown by the applicant’s representative, which
is said to be agricultural land is having the area 63mx27m only. And the said
63mx27m portion is 137m away from the well therein a 22 x 16 feet foundation laid
portion is also available. Further it is a recorded fact that the petitioner has
purchased the said land in SF No.2/4A which was already converted into house plots
by the previous owner of the said land on 25-2-2008 and immediately sold the plots.
That is within 15 days, she sold the portion of the land in SF No.2/4A as house plot
to Thiru T.Ganesan, S/o.Thiruvenkadam and the same was registered at
Magudanchavadi sub-registrar on 10-3-2008 vide document registration
No.1036/2008. In this document in page No.4, it is recorded that 0.94.0 hec i.e. 2.32
acre of SF No.2/4A, Selliampalayam village agriculture land was converted into
house plot. So it is confirmed that the entire land with the agriculture service
connection was converted into house plots and further a house plot layout for the
2.32 acre also enclosed in the document No.1036/2008. In that document
7
Tmt.M.Madhavi (Petitioner) had also signed. Therefore the purchase of land in SF
No.2/4A (old SF No.2/4) by the petitioner is not for agriculture use.
5.9 Though the facts are as above, now the petitioner is trying to retain the said
agriculture service connection in SF No.2/4A (old SF No.2/4). selliyampalayam
village by shifting to another SF No. in another village which is against the
instructions of CE/ Planning vide Lr.No.SE/RE&I(D)/EE/RE/A1/F.Doc./D.1519/11
dt.1-12-2011.
5.10 Therefore, TANGEDCO prayed that, the decision of the CGRF may be held
since CGRF have considered field facts viz, i) area covered by the agricultural
service connection number 481-008-60 were converted in to house plots and sold to
some persons, which is an evident that, the petitioner has no rights over the service
at present. ii) land converted into house plots as well as portion belonging to
petitioner have no agricultural operation. And documentary evidences, chitta and
adangal issued by the revenue authorities, wherein it has been stated that the area
surrounded by the well portion were converted into house plots and CE/Planning in
his letter dated 20-9-2008 has stated that “ÃçÎ mYty®fŸ j§fŸ gF¡F c£g£l
étrha ä‹ Ïiz¥òfis MŒÎ brŒJ Å£L kidfshf kh‰w¥g£LŸs
ãy§fëYŸs étrha ä‹ Ïiz¥òfis thça éÂfë‹go (Clause 33(4) of TN
Electricity Distribution code) ãuªju ä‹ J©o¥ò brŒÍ«go nfhu¥g£LŸsJ”.
6.0 Hearing held by the Electricity Ombudsman
To enable the Appellant and the Respondent to putforth their arguments in
person, a hearing was held before the EO on 10-9-2014. Thiru T.Marappan
represented the Appellant and Thiru S.Nagarajan, AEE/O&M, Vembadithalam
represented the respondent and putforth their arguments.
7.0 Argument of the Appellant:
7.1 Thiru T.Marappan putforth his arguments on behalf of the Appellant. He
reiterated the contents of the Appeal petition.
7.2 He argued that though the Appellant sold some portion of her lands as plots,
there is no layout approval for the above and has retained most of the balance site
and hence argued that the arguments of the respondent, that the Agricultural service
connection at a site where the agricultural lands are converted as plots can not be
8
accepted and it is not an approved layout. He also argued that Agricultural activities
are still their showing the crop as corn in the adangal dt. 10-7-2014 issued by the
VAO. The appellant has also furnished a written argument on the hearing date. The
following are the contention of the Appellant.
(i) 'As submitted in the CGRF petition, she has purchased the S.F.No.2/4 in full an extent of (0.94. Hectares) 2.32 acres on 25.02.2008 as agricultural land with the Agricultural service connection No.60 and the same was subsequently made name t r a n s f e r to he r name on 21.07.2008. Further as she was in need of money for her family expenses she sold certain portion of the said land to others with the pathway rights only. Subsequently some of the purchasers have enrolled as joint patadar in patta no. 61 of S.F.No.2/4 but one person has subdivided his portion of land. Hence the S.F.No.2/4 was subdivided into 2/4A and 2/4B (other person). About 90 cents of agricultural land is available for her in S.F.No.2/4A out of 0.91 hectares jointly with other purchasers. In computer Patta No.61. S.F.No. should has been entered as 2/4A instead of 2/4. But the land was not converted into plots, because if any land is declared as converted into house site / plot, it has to be approved by the Directorate of Town and country planning (Technical approval), Govt. of Tamil Nadu and local Panchayat with the all the roads and 10% of area for park gifted to local Panchayat, then only that land is called as house site area. But her land is not the above said type of category but sold certain portion to others with pathway rights only. She has not made any gift settlement to local panchayat in the form of roads, park etc. Hence her land is not said to have been declared as converted into house site. Moreover, having accepted that well is having no water and found dry, how one can do agricultural activities? No. one Can do. Hence, she strongly submit that she has full rights for the ownership of the agricultural service for which land ownership VAO certificate for 90 cents of unsold land is submitted herewith.
(ii) she has purchased 50% share of properties in the following S.F.Nos. of kanagagiri village.
Total Extent
Acre Cent
23/2A1 A1 - 0 40
23/2A1 BI - 0 01 23/2A1 B3 - - 0 28
24/2A 2 11
24/ IA - 1 00 42/1 - 0 65
4 45
Vide document No.2243/2006, dated 14.07.2006and the remaining 50% share belong to her husband Mr. T. Marappan. Out of 40 cents of land (proposed bore well land) in S.F.No.23/2A1 Al in computer Patta No.305 SF No. should have been entered as 23/2A1 A1' instead of 23/2A1 A2. During 2009, NH 47 land acquisition about 0.0652 sq.m (16 cents) of land was acquired, denoted as 23/2A1 A2 and remaining 24 cents of land denoted as 23/2A1 Al belong to her jointly with her husband as per village records for which certificate from VAO / Revenue inspector is submitted herewith for the discrepancy in the computer Patta. Hence, total extent of 4 acres and 45 cent of land as above is available for agricultural activity for the proposed bore well for which shifting of agricultural service is requested. (iii) The unsold area of agricultural land is about 90 cents out of 2.32 acres of land purchased for which VAO certificate is enclosed. Even though the unsold land portion of the petitioner is away from the well both the well and land are contiguous with each other and there will not be
9
any problem in water transportation if the water is available in the well. In respect of 22 ft x 16 ft sized foundation, she hereby submit that she has started creating foundation for construction of farm house / shed about 2 years back so as to provide rest room for the agricultural labourers coming for farming activity and as to for the storage godown to store agricultural produce. Subsequently as the well got dried. She has dropped the proposal of construction of farm house and applied for shifting of service connection. iv) A revised vAO adangal certificate for SF No.2/4A issued on 10.7.2014 for pasali year 1423 with details as kinaru -1, 5HP, EM-1 kattidangal, payir – cholam is submitted herewith for your kind perusal. With reference to clause 33(4) of TN Electricity Distribution Code, the licensee can terminate the agreement of a consumer at any time by giving one month’s notice if “ The consumer has violated the terms of the agreement” or the terms and conditions of this code or the provisions of any law relating to the agreement including applicable Acts and Rules under the Act and “other orders from time to time. . . Accordingly as per clause 33(1) of TN Electricity Distribution Code, All intending consumers shall execute an agreement governing the supply of electricity in the form prescribed at the time of paying the security deposit and service connection charges. . .. . “Incase of LT agriculture and Industrial service ” the agreement shall be in form 7 in annexure III and In the form 7, under clause(1) conditions of supply, it has been stated as the conditions if any imposed by the licensee based on the directions of the commission shall bind the consumer. Under clause (9) termination of agreement (2 paragraph), it has been stated as “ the licensee can terminate the agreement at any time by giving one month’s notice if the consumer has violated the terms of the agreement or the terms and conditions of the Distribution Code or provision of any law relating to the agreement including the applicable acts and rules and “other orders issued by the Commission from time to time”. Under clause 11, applicability of acts and regulation it has been stated this agreement shall be read and construed as subject in all respects to the provision of the applicable acts and regulations as noted in Distribution Code and supply code and of any modification or reenactment thereof for the time being in force and the regulations for the time being in force there under so far as the same respectively may be applicable and subject to the conditions of supply approved from time to time by the Commission. Under clause 13 general it has been stated as the other conditions of supply in this agreement are also subject to any revision that may be decided by the licensee as per the directions of the Commission from time to time. From the above said TNERC Distribution Code provisions it is evident that only the orders of the licensee (TANGEDCO) based on the directions of the Commission shall only bind the consumer but any other orders without the directions of TNERC shall not bind the consumer. Moreover,, in clause 33(4) of TNE Distribution Code it has been stated as “ and other orders from time to time” whereas in Form7 LT agreement for industrial/agricultural services under clause 9 termination of agreement it has been stated as and other orders issued by the Commission from time to time amended as per Commission’s notification No.TNERC/DC/8-8, dt.8.2.2008 (wef 27.2.2008) which the Commission has not taken note of the above said amendment for clause 33(4) of TNE Distribution Code. v) Moreover, in the said CE/Planning letter dt.1.12.2011, the points 1 and 2 are contrary to each other. 1. Shifting of existing agriculture service connection may be permitted only if the existing and proposed location of the land and well/borewell are having agriculture operations. 2. The shifting of agriculture service connection may be considered in case of dryness, insufficient water and due to water pollution in the existing well/borewell. On plain reading of the above two points, a question arises that having admitted for shifting under point 2 category due to dryness, how one can show the agricultural operations in the existing land as required under point 1 category ? Similarly, how one can show the agricultural operations in the proposed land when there is no power supply to lift water from the well/borewell.
10
vi) Direct the TANGEDCO to approve the proposal of shifting of agricultural service connection No.481-008-60 as it normally takes 20-25 years to get agricultural connection. Under normal category, without insisting for compuer patta, keeping in view of the 12.5.2014 dated Draft amendment to the TNE Distribution Code and Supply Code to agricultural category proposed by TNERC.
8.0 Argument of the Respondent :
8.1 Thiru S.Nagarajan, AEE/O&M Vimbadithalam attended the hearing on behalf
of the Respondent. He reiterated the contents of the counter.
8.2 The AEE argued that there is no agricultural activities in land where the
service connection is available and the lands are converted as plots. The AEE also
citing the sale deed executed by the Appellant argued that in the sketch enclosed
with the sale deed executed in favour of Thiru T.Ganesan, the land was divided into
number of plots. Further the Appellant herself has stated that the lands are divided
into house sites (kid ãy§fshf Ãç¤J é‰gid brŒtš) in the above document.
Hence argued that the Agricultural land is converted into house site plots and hence
the agreement for the Agricultural service has to be terminated only.
8.3 The AEE also argued that a small portion with foundation alone done is now
with the Appellant. Hence the service is not to be shifted but cancelled only.
8.4 Citing the Adangal, the AEE argued that the VAO has recorded as ghf« Å£L
kid. Hence he argued that the land is layout only and not an agricultural land.
8.5 The AEE also argued that the patta, chitta adangal are necessary to
substantiate the ownership of the lands.
9.0 Written argument of the Respondent :
9.1 The Respondent has furnished his additional particular vide letter 13-10-
2014. The arguments furnished in the above letter is furnished below:
9.2 The petitioner Tmt.M.Madhavi W/o.T.Marappan had purchased the
Agriculture land measuring 2.32 acre at SF.No.2/4, Selliyampalayam village/salem
for a value of Rs.3,12,500/- from one Tmt.J.Kanchana W/o.Jagadesan on 25-02-
2008 and was registered at Magudanchavadi sub registrar office vide document
No.797/2008.
9.3 Immediately the said entire agriculture land was converted into 62 house plots
with different measurements by providing pathways from the said plots without
obtaining any approval from the concerned panchayat.
11
9.4 Subsequently after 12 days from the date of purchase of said land the
petitioner Tmt.M.Madhavi had sold the plot No.46 and 39 measuring each 1200 s.ft.
totalling to 2400 s.ft. to Thiru V.Ganesan, S/o.Thiruvengadan on 10-3-2008, through
the registered document vide registration No.1036/ 2008.
9.5 Further it can also be noted from the said sale deed that the entire land in SF
No.2/4, Selliyampalayam village measuring 2.32 Acre was converted into house
plots.
9.6 Thiru G.Dhandapani S/o.R.Gopal had purchased the plot No.33 from the
petitioner on 10-3-2008 which was registered as document No.1042/2008. In the
said plot Thiru G.Dhandapani availed Electricity supply for the construction of house
under tariff V vide Sc.No.752 dt. 4-3-2010.
9.7 Tmt.S.Gowrammal, W/o. Sankaraiya had purchased the plot No.55 from the
power agent Thiru S.Sekar of Tmt. M.Madhavi (Petitioner) on 23-5-2008 which was
registered as document No.2200/2008. In the said plot Tmt.S.Gowrammal had
availed Electricity supply for the construction of house under Tariff V vide
Sc.No.1313 dt. 20-5-2011 and subsequently the tariff was changed as IA on
completion of the construction work on 30-3-2012.
9.8 Tmt.S.Susila W/o.Suthanthiram had purchased the plot No.(37) on 9-7-2009
from one Thiru K.Arumugam S/o.Kuppusamy gounder which was registered as
document No.2589/2009. In this said plot also Tmt.S.Susila had availed Electricity
supply for the construction of house under Tariff V vide SC.No.722 dt. 8-9-2009 and
subsequently the Tariff was changed as IA on completion of the construction work on
28-5-2010.
9.9 It is also submitted that one Thiru R.Ganesan, S/o.Ramasamy gounder had
submitted a letter to the AEE/O&M/Vembadithalam on 24-7-2009 where in stated
that, he is the owner of the plot No.16 and 17 and objected not to extend service
connection wire through his plots to Tmt.S.Susila W/o.Sudhanthiran, owner of plot
No.37.
9.10 The petitioner has not submitted the independent patta for the SF.No.2/4A to
show the extent of land owned by her. The combined patta (computer chitta)
obtained on 12-4-2013 and submitted for the SF No.2/4 is for 0.91 Hectare which is
owned by the petitioner Tmt.M.Madhavi and three others thus the extent of land
owned by the Petitioner could not be ascertained. Hence it is well established that
12
the same is not a valid record prove the extent of land owned by the Petitioner at
SF.NO.2/4A.
9.11 In the Adangal dt. 10-5-2012 the VAO has stated SF.No.2/4A-0.93 Hectare
owned by Tmt.M.Madhavi (t)tifawh and in the Adangal dt. 16-4-2013 the VAO
stated that SF.No.2/4A-0.93 hectare owned by M.Madhavi alone and in the Adangal
dt. 10-7-2014 now issued by the VAO it is stated “SF.No.2/4A-0.91 Hectare owned
by M.Madhavi. Hence it is evidently proved that there are glaring contradictions in
the evidence of the VAO certificates and thus the same proved to be invalid. In the
Adangal given by the VAO on 10-7-2014, it is stated in it that the land at SF No.2/4A
is owned by Tmt.M.Madhavi and others. And he has not indicated it, the extent of
land owned by the Petitioner and whether the Crop is cultivated by the Petitioner or
not. Because the said land at Sl.No.2/4A-2.32 Acre is owned by Tmt.Madhavi and 3
others viz. Tmt.S.Gowrammal, Thiru T.Ganesan and Thiru Gurusamy.
9.1 2 The petitioner has stated that 90 cents of agriculture land available for her in
SF.No.2/4A out of 0.91 Hectares jointly with other purchasers, which averment
cannot be accepted as the petitioner did not produce any revenue documents viz.
Patta (computer chitta). FMB and Adangal for the ownership of remaining land of 90
cents. The petitioner has converted the entire land of 2.32 Acre into 62 plots with
formation of 3 nos. 23 feet roads towards north and south direction of the said plots.
From the available records with the TANGEDCO it is revealed that the petitioner
have sold out many plots in all phases to various persons viz Plot No.16, 17,33, 46,
39 and 55 with pathway rights in all the 23 feet roads formed for the Plots No.1 to 62
which fact can be known from the sale deeds. The purchasers have build houses for
dwelling purposes and availed electricity supply by producing necessary house tax
receipts issued by the concerned panchayat. Therefore it is well proved that the said
land was converted into house plots and sold out to so many persons. In as much
as the concerned panchayat have already issued house tax receipts for those
houses built in it, it is to be construed that the said land was converted into plots and
sold out. In the absence of patta (computer chitta) for the ownership of 90 cents, the
VAO certificate that the petitioner is owning 90 cents of land cannot be a valid one,
as the VAO has not noted down the boundaries by drawing a sketch in it besides
mentioning about the chakkupanthy, in the light of the above it is submitted that the
averment of the petitioner had become infructuous and null and void.
13
9.13 The patta (computer chitta) for the land of SF No.23/2A1A1, 23/2A1B1, 23/2A
1B3, 24/2a, 24/1A and 42/1 was not submitted. The VAO, Revenue Inspector
Certificate was not countersigned by the Thasildhar. Hence VAO Revenue Inspector
certificate cannot be accepted as a valid one in the absence of Patta.
9.14 As per the Clause 33(4) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code of TNERC
the TANGEDCO has every right to terminate the agreement of a consumer at any
time by giving one month notice if the consumer has violated the terms of the
agreement or the terms and conditions of this code of the provision of any law
relating to the agreement including the applicable acts and rules under the act and
other orders from time to time. It is obligatory on the part of the licensee to inform
the consumer regarding the grounds for such termination. As the land at SF No.2/4A
was converted into plots and sold out, the request of the petitioner for shifting of the
agricultural service connection No.60 to some other location was not considered.
Therefore the TANGEDCO has got every right to issue 30 days notice to the
petitioner enlisting the reasons there in and terminate the agreement. Based on the
Clause 33(4) Tamil Nadu Distribution Code of TNERC the guidelines where issued in
the f.v©.nk.bgh/Cänk(g)/br.bgh//nfh.v©.1476, ehŸ 20.9.2008 and Lr.No.SE/
RE&I(D)/EE/RE/A1/ F.Doc/D.1519/201 (Tech Br.) dt. 1-12-2011 by the TANGEDCO
which is in order.
9.15 Concluding it is submitted that, the site in question was inspected by the
AE/O&M/Vembadithalam and AEE/O&M/Vembadithalam on 16-9-2014 and found
that no standing crops were there in the entire said land as stated by the VAO and
also they found that the Plot No.60 was fenced with galvanished steel wire. They
also inspected the service SC. Nos.(1) 850, 982, 982, 983, 984, 985, 752,1313 and
722 extended for the houses built in the said land.
10.0 Findings of the Electricity Ombudsman :
10.1 I have heard the arguments of both the parties. On a careful consideration of
the rival submissions, I find the following are the issues for consideration.
i) what is the procedure in voque for shifting of an agricultural service connection?
ii) whether the service could be shifted as prayed by the Appellant ?
14
11.0 Findings on the first issue :
11.1 In regulation 5(6) of the Supply Code, shifting of service / line, structure and
equipment charges have been discussed. In the said regulation it has been specified
that the cost of shifting has to be borne by the consumer. The charges that are to be
covered in the estimate has also been detailed in the above regulation. In regulation
5(6) of Supply Code the same has been specified.
11.2 As there is no specific regulation detailing the condition for shifting of an
agricultural service is available in the code, the circulars of the licensee are to be
referred to know the procedure in vogue for shifting of an agricultural service.
11.3 Various circulars were issued by the licensee, the relevant circulars are
extracted below:-
(A) Memo No.SE/RE&LL/LO/AE4/GW/114/dt. 17-03-1978:-
It has been brought to notice that many new applicants for power supply try to take
advantage of the relaxations given in the two memos quoted under ref.1 and 2 for
shifting of services and attempt to get supply circumventing the priority by initially
stating that they are co-owners of wells and later on applying for shifting their
service to a new location on the plea of “Non-availability of water”.
The instructions issued in memos cited 1 and 2 are therefore partially modified as
under :
1. The words “non-availability of water” in memo cited (1) are “hereby” deleted.
2. Shifting of agricultural service to a new location may be permitted for the same
person due to dryness of well provided the new location is in the same village. The
work of shifting should be done as deposit contribution work.
3. Shifting should not be permitted to a new location outside the village. Such cases
should be treated as new applications for power supply and dealt with as per rules
according to priority, technical feasibility and viability of each work.
4. Shifting of pump sets of enlisting co-owners of wells can also be done as per (2)
above only.
5. Extension of supply to new applicants as co-owners of wells may be effected
provided their ownership of well is certified by an officer of the Revenue Department
not below the rank of a Tahsildar and (2) it is accompanied by a certificate from the
15
Project Officer (ARDC) to the effect that there is adequate water for both the pump
sets in the same well.
(B) Chairman Memo No.SE/RE/DE/SS/A1/C 473-1/83, dated 05-12-1983.
1. Shifting of agricultural services from the existing well to another well can be
permitted in respect of the following cases subject to technical feasibility:-
(i) Shifting from one well to another belonging to the same consumer within the
same distribution group of transformers irrespective of the village and
(ii) Shifting from one well to another belonging to the same consumer
within the same village even if it involves a change from one distribution group of
transformers to another.
2. The above work will be done as a deposit contribution work.
3. This concession will be applicable even in respect of pending applications i.e.
where the service has still not been sanctioned but the applicant desires to change
the location of the service to another well owned by him.
4. Particular care should be taken to ensure that this concession is not abused for
trafficking in agricultural service connections. The Assistant Divisional Engineer
concerned should personally enquire into the case and satisfy himself that the new
well and the lands to be irrigated by it belong to the consumer and the request of the
consumer is for bonafide reasons. He should record his inspection note in this regard
on the relevant file.
(C) Chairman’s Circular Memo No.SE/IEMC/EE3/AEE2/D.408/90 (Technical Branch), dated 30-07-1990
Shifting of agricultural service connection from the existing well to another well
in another village belonging to the same consumer may be permitted in the case of
the proposed well, being located within the jurisdiction of the same Section even if it
is not in the same distribution group transformers. However, such cases shall be
permitted by Superintending Engineer of the Circle concerned with on receipt of
personal site inspection reports by the Assistant Executive Engineer on the
genuineness of the case. Each case shall be carefully examined and orders passed
by the Superintending Engineer based on the norms of each case to ensure against
abuse.
16
(D) Circular Memo No. SE/IEMC/EEs/AEE2/AE/F III/A-13(Tech Branch), dated 06-12-1997.
In modification to the orders already issued in the reference cited, the shifting of
agricultural service connection from the existing well to the another well belonging to
the same consumer may be permitted in the case of the proposed well being
located within the jurisdiction of the same division with other conditions remain the
same. However, such case shall be permitted by the Superintending Engineer of the
circle concerned with on receipt of personal site inspection reports by the Executive
Engineer / Operation & Maintenance concerned on the genuineness of the case.
Each case shall be carefully examined and order passed by the Superintending
Engineer based on the merits of each cases.
(E) Memorandum No.SE/IEMC/EE3/AEE2/AE/F.S. 23/D.382/89,(Techl.Br.) dated 02-07-1999.
(i) If any consumer under normal priority requests for change of well from the original
location to a new location, then no increase in the load will be permitted, under
normal priority.
(ii) If the applicant, under normal priority requests for change of well from the original
location to a new location with the increase in load then, he may be asked to avail
supply under RSFS in the application stage itself.
(iii) If the consumer does not agree for the above, shifting alone may be permitted for
the original load, if the required conditions for shifting are satisfied.
(F) Memo No.SE/RE&1(D)/EE/RE/A1/F.Doc/D.2841/04, (Technical Branch), dated 10-12-2004.
Of late, clarifications are being requested by the field SEs / CEs in shifting of
agriculture service connection effected under SFS category. Shifting of agricultural
service to another well belonging to the same party is to be considered only when
the existing well has gone dry.
17
(G) Letter No.SE/RE&I(D)/EE/RE/A1F.Doc/D.655/2008 (Technical Branch), dated 05-05-2008.
In modification to the orders already issued in the reference cited, the shifting of
agricultural service connection from the existing well to the another well belonging to
the same consumer from one division to another division within the Circle may be
permitted by the Superintending Engineer of the Circle concerned.
(i) with on receipt of personal site inspection reports by EE / O & M concerned on
the genuineness of the case and (ii) with the condition that the date of registration of
application of the service for which shifting is requested should be cleared in the
Division for which shifting is proposed.
The other conditions applicable for shifting remains the same.
The above instructions also applicable for pending applications, with the
above conditions and the service may be effected under the category for which
supply is requested.
(H) Lr.No.SE/RE&ID/EE/RE/AE/F./Doc/D.119/2011, dt.1.12.2011.
In the reference (1) cited, instructions were issued to consider shifting of
agricultural service connection irrespective of the reasons submitted by the
applicant under DCW basis.
In super cession of the instructions issued vide reference (1) letter, the
following instructions are issued in addition to the instruction issued vide reference
(2) cited :
1.0 Shifting of exiting agricultural service connection may be permitted only
if the existing and proposed location of the land and well/bore well are having
agricultural operations.
2.0 The shifting of agricultural service connection may be considered in
case of dryness, insufficient water and due to water pollution in the existing well/bore
well.
3.0 Necessary certificate from the concerned authorities should be
obtained for the reasons stated by the applicant.
4.0 Shifting of existing agricultural service connection should be done
under DCW basis.
18
5.0 These instructions are applicable for all categories of existing
agricultural service connections such as Normal, RSFS schemes etc.,
6.0 This is also applicable for change of location of the well/bore well
requested at the application stage itself.
11.4 On a careful reading of the circulars, Memos discussed above, the shifting of
an agricultural service could be done subject to the following conditions.
(i) The proposed location of the land and well /borewell are having
agricultural operations and shall be owned by the same consumer.
(ii) In case of dryness insufficient water and due to pollution in the
existing well/borewell necessary certificate shall be obtained for the reasons stated
from the concerned authority.
(iii) Shall be done under DCW basis.
(iv) Shifting of service from a well to a well in another village within the
same section shall be done but, the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer shall
inspect and furnish his recommendation that the shifting is for bonofide reasons.
The approval is to be issued by the Superintending Engineer.
(v) If the shifting is requested for a well from one section to another
section, but within a division then the EE of the Division has to inspect the site and
furnish his report on the genuiness of the case. The approval is to be issued by the
Superintending Engineer.
(vi) Shifting of the service from one division to another division within the
same circle is also permitted but the EE has to inspect the site and furnish his report
on the genuiness of the case. The approval is to be accorded by Superintending
Engineer. However, the date of registration as application of the service for which
shifting is requested should be cleared in the division for which shifting is proposed.
(vii) This is also applicable for change of location of the well/borewell
requested at the application stage itself.
12.0 Findings on the second issue :
12.1 In order to decide whether the agricultural SC No.60 available at SF
No.2/4A selliampalayam village can be shifted to SF No.23/2A1A1 of Kannagagiri
village, we have to analyse whether the request satisify the conditions of shifting of
services (viz)
19
(A) Whether the well/borewell at the existing service location is dry (or) polluted?
(B) Whether the new well proposed for shifting is having sufficient water ?
(C) Whether both the wells are owned by the same persons if so the document
furnished are as per requirement ?
(D) Whether both location lands are having agricultural operations ?
(E) Whether the concerned Assistant Executive Engineer/O&M has furnished
his report about the bonofide reasons genuiness of the application as the shifting is
within the same section.
13.0 Findings on issue A &B :
13.1 The appellant informed that the existing well is dry and hence requested for
shifting of service.
13.2 In the format for shifting of agricultural service connection from the existing
well to the new well it was stated that the well was inspected by the AEE on
1.2.2013, 2.5.2013 and 24.5.2013 and it is in dry condition.
13.3 Hence, it is held that the well where the service connection is now available
is dry
13.4 In the format for shifting of agricultural service connection from the existing
well to the new well against item No.8, the licensee’s AEE has stated that the well
was inspected on 1.2.13, 2.5.13 & 24.5.2013 and certified that new bore well is
having sufficient water for irrigation.
13.5 Hence, it is held that the new borewell is having sufficient water for
irrigation.
14.0 Findings on issue C:
14.1 The appellant agued that she is the owner of the old well at SF No.2/4A and
she purchased the 2.32 acres 25.2.2008 with agricultural service connection. She
sold certain portion of the said land to some persons. Subsequently some of the
purchasers have enrolled as joint patadar in patta No.61 of SF 2/4A. But, one
person has subdivided his portion of land. Hence, SF No.2/4, was subdivided into
2/4A and 2/4B. About 90 cents of agricultural land is owned by her in SF No.2/4A
out of the 0.91 hectares jointly owned with others. In computer patta No.61, the SF
No. shall have been entered as 2/4A instead of 2/4. She also furnished a copy of
the VAO certificate in support of her ownership on the land and the well.
20
14.2 As per the item (6) & (7) of format for shifting of agricultural service
connection from existing well to new, the ownership of the both the wells by the
appellant is accepted by the respondent . VAO has given certificate for ownership of
wells. Hence, there is no dispute on the ownership of the wells. But, the
respondent argued that the current patta for the SF No. where the wells are situated
is not submitted by the appellant. Hence, argued that the revenue records submitted
by the appellant in respect of both the wells are not as per the requirement.
14.3 In respect of the well at SF No.2/4A, the respondent argued that the appellant
has not furnished independent pata for SF No.2/4A to show the extent of land
owned by her. The combined patta obtained on 12.4.2013 is for SF No.2/4 and is
in the name of appellant and three others (vz) (1) Tmt. S.Gowrammal, (2) Thiru. T.
Ganesan and (3) Thiru. Gurusamy. Hence, argued that the appellant has not
furnished patta for SF No.2/4A. Further he also argued that in the adongal
dt.10.5.2012, the VAO has stated that SF No.2/4A – 0.93 Hectare owned by Tmt.
M. madavi and others (khjé (t) means khjé tifauh) in adangal dt,16.4.2013
the VO stated that SF No,2/4A - 0.93 hectare owned by Madavi alone and in the
adangal dt.10.7.2014, it is stated that SF No.2/4A – 0.91 hectare owned by Madavi &
others ((t) means tifauh) Hence, there are contradiction in the VAO certificate.
14.4 Regarding the new well location, the respondent argued that the computer
pata for the land SF No.23/2A1A1, 23/2A2B1, 23/2A1B3, 24/2A, 24/1A, and 42/1
was not submitted. He also argued that the VAO/Revenue Inspector certificate was
not counter signed by the Tahsildar. Hence, argued that the above certificate
cannot be taken as a valid certificate in the absence of patta.
14.5 As the respondent is arguing that the revenue records furnished by the
appellant is not as per the requirement, I would like to refer Form-2, the application
form for agricultural service connection.
14.6 In the above format, in the Note below the signature of the Applicant /
Partners following has been specified.
“Note : The document such as FMB map showing the location of well, patta, chitta
adangal etc. shall be enclosed with the application.”
14.7 As per the above, it is necessary that documents such as FMB maps showing
the location of well, patta, chitta adangal etc. are to be enclosed for availing an
agricultural service connection.
21
14.8 Hence, I am of the view that the appellant has to furnish FMB map showing
the location of well patta, chitta & adangal for both the wells as it is a case of shifting
of an agricultural service connection. However, as the appellant has stated that he is
unable to produce to computer patta for both the wells as it has not been entered in
the computer. In such case, he has to obtain the required certificate from the
competent revenue authority (concerned Tahsildar) on the ownership of the lands
indicating the correct SF No. for both the lands where the wells are available and
the extent of land available in each SF No.
14.9 The Appellant citing the draft amendment dt.12.5.2014 proposed by the
Commission and argued that the computer patta may not be insisted.
14.10 On a careful reading of the proposal draft amendment, it is noted that
Commission has proposed to amend the application format of the application form
for agricultural service connection and in column-6 for proof of ownership land/well, it
is mentioned that any one of the following has to be enclosed.
(a) Ownership certificate from VAO
(b) Computer Patta
(c) Attested copy of partition deed
(d) Attested copy of sale deed
(e) Attested copy of lease deed with the consent of owner of land
(f) Attested copy of gift settlement
(g) Attested copy of legal heirs certificate
(h) Attested copy of Court Judgment.
14.11 In this regard, I would like to stated that the above draft is only a proposal
and not an amendment to the existing one. Hence, it is not binding the stake
holders. Till the amendment is approved and notified in the Govt Gazette, the
existing application format alone is inforce. Hence, I am unable to accept the above
argument of the Appellant.
15.0 Findings on issue D
15.1 The respondent argued that the lands surrounding the existing well were
converted into house plots and sold to several persons. Hence, there is no
agricultural activities in the SF No.2/4A. Selliampalayam village served by SC
No.481-008-60.
22
15.2 The respondent argued that SF No.2/4A is having area of 63mx27m only
and it was 137M away from the well and 22 feet x 16 feet size foundation was also
available inside the 63m x 27m land.
15.3 The respondent citing the reference of »zW 5 HP EMP kidãy« in
adangal dt.10.5.2012 and ghf«, Å£Lkid, »zW-1, EMP-1 in adangal dt,16.4.2013
issued by the VAO and argued that the lands are only plots and there is no
agricultural activities in the above land.
15.4 The respondent also cited the sale deed executed by the appellant in favour
of Thiru. T. Ganesan, S/o Thiruvenkadam and registered in Magudan chavadi sub
register office in registration No.1036/2008 argued that the total extent of 2.32 acres
have been converted as plot. He also argued that in the above document in
page.4, it is recorded that 0.94 hectare (ie) 2.32 acres of SF No.2/4A.
Selliampalayam village agricultural land was converted into house plot . Hence,
argued that there is no agricultural activities in the above land. He also informed
that the following services have been effected in the plots sold by the appellant
(i) SC No.850- dt.4.4.2012 in the name of Thiru. T. Ganesan,
(ii) SC No.981 dt.21.9.2013 in the name of Thiru. T. Ganesan,
(iii) SC No.982 dt.21.9.2013 in the name of T. Ganesan,
(iv) SC No.983 dt.21.9.2013 in the name of Thiru. T. Ganesan,
(v) SC No.984 dt.21.9.2013 in the name of Thiru. T. Ganesan
(vi) SC No.985 dt.21.9.2013 in the name of Thiru. T Ganesan
(vii) SC No.752 dt.4.3.2010 in the name of Thiru. G. Dhandapani,
(viii) SC No.1313 dt.20.5.2011 in the name of Tmt. S. Gowrammal
(ix) SC No. 722 dt.8.9.2009 in the name of Tmt. S. Sunita
15.5 He also citing the CE/Planning & RCs circular dated 20.9.2008 and argued
that as the land was converted into plots, the existing service connection has to be
disconnected only.
15.6 The respondent pointing out the adangal dt.10.7.2014, issued by the VAO
argued that the adangal is for the entire land of 2.32 acres which is owned by the
appellant and others. The VAO has not specifically mentioned that who has raised
the crop cholam (nrhs«). Further, he has also informed that the above was
inspected by the AE/O&M, vembadithalam and AEE/O&M/Vembadithalam on
16.9.2014 and there is no standing crop in the entire land.
23
15.7 The appellant argued that she sold some portion of her lands to other’s with
pathway right only. Subsequently some of the purchasers have enrolled as joint
pattadhar in patta No.61 of SF No.2/4. As one person has subdivided the his land
the SF No.2/4 was subdivided into 2/4A and 2/4B (other person). About 90 cents of
agricultural land is available with her. She argued that the lands are not converted
into plots as the approval of the Directorate of Town & Country Planning is
necessary for converting of land into to plots but no such approval was obtained by
her for the said land. Further, she argued that the roads and 10% of area for park
has to be gifted to the local panchayat then only the land is called as house site
area. She has not made any gift settlement to local panchayat in the form of roads.
parks etc., Hence, she argued that her land cannot be declared as converted in to
house site.
15.8 She also argued when there is no water in the well, there is no possibility to
do the agricultural operation and only crops as maize, groundnut can be cultivated
which are depending on rain. The appellant also furnished a adangal dt.10.7.2014
issued by the VAO wherein the VAO has certified that cholam was cultivated in SF
No.2/4A.
15.9 The appellant also argued that she has started construction of a farm house
and a shed in the above site about 2 years back so as to provide rest room for the
agricultural labourers and to store the agricultural produce. As the well got dried
she dropped the construction works and applied for shifting of service. The appellant
also argued that the land under her ownership is about 90 cents which includes the
22 ft x 16 ft foundation area also. The appellant also argued that the contention of
the respondent that she owns only 63 m x 27m is wrong as the above works out to
only 42.03 cents whereas she is having 90 cents.
15.10 As the VAO has stated that Cholam was cultivated in SF No.2/4A, I am of the
view that the land in SF No.2/4A is having agricultural activities also. Further, as
pointed out by the appellant if there is no water in the well then the agricultural
activities will be reduced and only the crops that are depending on the rain alone
can be cultivated.
15.11 As the licensee has raised objection that there is no indication about the
person who has cultivated Cholam in SF No.2/4A, the appellant may obtain a fresh
adangal specifying the crop and the person who owns that land.
24
15.12 Further, the respondent has not disputed about the nature of the land where
the service is to be shifted. Hence, it is construed that the above land is also
agricultural land only.
15.13 In view of the above, I am of the view that the both lands are agricultural lands
only.
16.0 Findings on issue E
16.1 The AEE has inspected the site and furnished his report. The dryness of the
existing at SF No.2/4A and the availability of water in the new well at SF
No.23/2A1A1 is also confirmed by him. But, the AEE has raised some clarification
citing CE/Planning’s Circular dt.20.9.2008. Wherein it was instructed to terminate
the agreement of the agricultural service where the agricultural lands are converted
as house plots.
16.2 The AEE informed that the agricultural lands around the well are converted
as plots and only 63M x 27M land is available as vacant and in the above vacant
lands also there was a foundation for 22 ft x 16 ft. But, the VAO has certified that 90
cents of land is owned by the appellant in the above SF No. Hence, he has stated
that he is unable to decide whether the above service is eligible for shifting and
requested suitable direction.
16.3 As per the above, the AEE has neither recommended nor rejected the
proposal but informed his inability to decide the case.
16.4 In this regard, it is to be noted that the respondent have effected domestic
service to Tmt. Suseela on 8.9.2009 (SC No.481-008-722) and effected service in
that area subsequently also for various persons as noted in para 15(4).
16.5 The respondent have effected service in the above land as early as in
8.9.2009, but have not issued any notice for termination of the agreement of the
agricultural service connections to the appellant as per CE/Planning’s circular
dt.20.9.2008. Hence, it is construed that though some of the lands are disposed,
there was some agricultural activities in that place. Otherwise, the licensee would
have issued notice under regulation 33(4) for termination of the agreement.
16.6 As the respondent has not taken any action to issue a notice as per
regulation 33 (4) to terminate the agreement of the agricultural service connection till
date, I am of the view that the existing agricultural service is eligible for shifting.
25
17.0 Conclusion : 17.1 In view of my findings on issue ‘C’, furnished in para 14.8, Appellant is
directed to produce FMB, Patta, Chitta, adangal etc for both the wells and furnish
the same to the respondent. However, if there is any problem in getting the patta
due to administrative reasons, a certificate obtained from the competent revenue
authority may be accepted for the ownership of the land in view of the patta.
Further, the appellant is directed to furnish the VAO certificate indicating the crop &
the person who owns that land.
17.2 The respondent is directed to effect the shifting of the agricultural service on
production of the ownership documents in respect of the both wells and VAO
certificate giving the crop details as in previous para by the appellant.
17.3 With the above findings, the Appeal Petition No.47 of 2014 is finally disposed
of by the Electricity Ombudsman. No Costs.
(A. Dharamaraj) Electricity Ombudsman To 1) Tmt.M. Madavi, W/o.T.Mariappan, 195, Kollapatti Animoor Post, Tiruchengode, Namakkal Dist. 2) The Superintending Engineer, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, K.N.Colony, Udayapatti, Salem-636 014. 3) The Chairman, (Superintending Engineer), Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Salem Electricity Distribution Circle, TANGEDCO, K.N.Colony, Udayapatti, Salem-636 014. 4) The Chairman & Managing Director, TANGEDCO, NPKR Malaigai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.
26
5) The Secretary Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 6) The Assistant Director (Computer) - FOR HOSTING IN THE TNEO WEBSITE PLEASE Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, No.19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
