Hello all,
posting after 5 years. I have a query.
The property concerned is in state of Maharashtra. The honourable court gave judgement in 1988. Said decree granted 3 shares to 3 brothers. The case 'darkhast' was sent to Revenue department for execution of decree. Now the possession of 1/3rd share was made to petitioner in 2007. But mutation of names in 7/12 was not made by corrupt officials by making excuses. So petitioner had to go to court again for compliance hearing in court after which the hounourable judge made revenue officials mutate the name to reflect the possession given to petitioner only in 2015!
During this period the defendants denied giving water to petitioner from common pump of common well. So petitioner had to install his own pump and take connection from house meter as electric department refused AG connection because his name wasn't mutated in 7/12 reflecting his possession. During which the petitioner used this pump to water the orchard leading to more than 3000 rupees bills.
Now that in 2015 the names have been mutated, the petitioner wants AG (agricultural) connection on his name and he also has the 7/12 which mentions he is entitiled to get water from common well but now electricity department is creating new hurdle.
Since the common well is in the partitioned property of defendants, the MSEB is insisting on NOC from them to give AG connection to petitioner (note the pump house, pump, pipes all are present in defendants part, only AG connection is needed to replace the wire running from house).
Petitioner asked defendant for NOC to which one of them verbally agreed but now he is refusing to show up in the village and resides in Mumbai. The other defendant refuses to even speak. Both defendants have also consistantly refused to show up in court as case is still on going for compliance hearing.
Petitioner asked his lawyer but the lawyer is saying forget about it and build a well in your partioned part. And is insisting on closing case since this AG connection doesn't come under the perview of present case according to the lawyer.
There is another family residing in property who pays rent to defendant (They don't own any of the land but have a house and electric connection). Defendants have permitted this family to use water from common well). Note petitioner's consent was never taken by this family for use of well water. They have taken connection from house too.
My questions:
1) Is the electric department MSEB within its right to insist for NOC inspite of court order for partition, 7/12 entry regarding common well and petitioner's right to use of that well.
2)Since both defendants are either delaying or refusing to give NOC what legal remedy is available to petitioner? How can the petitioner make the defendants give him NOC?
3)Does this issue need to be bought to attention of court under the present case? I don't know how partition alone can be done by courts without resolving such issues regarding use and connection of electricity from common water resource?
4) Who is supposed to resolve this the revenue department or the court? Note the revenue department has consistently played a part in delaying justice to petitioner. How can petitioner depend on them if indeed they are competant authority?
5) If indeed the electric department insists on NOC, defendants refuse to give NOC and this doesn't come under perview of the present case, does defendant now need to file a 'new' case to get AG connection?
6) What about the other family, can petitioner now refuse permission to this family for use from common well. Please note this family has absolutely no rights on the land or its resources and depends only on goodwill of defendants?
7) One officer from the electric department actually said that they would give connection immediately without need for NOC from defendants if the petitioner submitted an affidavit to the effect that if in future if the defendants objected the electric department would be within its rights to disconnect the AG connection and won't be held responsible!
Isn't this a way to trap the petitioner and opening him up to be harrassed in future either by corrupt officials in electric, revenue departments and also by defendants?
