Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40120-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6328 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukti Nath Pandey,Pashupati Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Anant Agarwal,C.S.C.,Raghvendra Pratap,Udit Chandra Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Pursuant to notices issued to respondent No.3, Sri Anant Agarwal and Sri Raghvendra Pratap, learned counsel have put in appearance and have advanced submissions. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated December 26, 2024 whereby the Executive Engineer, Urban Electricity Distribution Division, Chaukaghat, Varanasi has directed the Incharge of Police Station Chetganj, Varanasi to facilitate administrative support in energizing the electric connection in relation to a building. 3. Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the property in dispute and there being an order of status quo passed by the Civil Court, the respondent No.6 is not entitled to get the electric connection energized in his favour. Various submissions have been made regarding extent of ownership of respondent No.6. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 urges that respondent No.6 is not a party in the civil suit and an impleadment application has been filed by him but no order has been passed thereon. It is further urged that dispute in relation to the property in question has no direct bearing on the controversy involved in this writ petition. 5. Sri Udit Chandra, learned counsel for the Electricity Department, submits that certain old constructions were existing on the spot and in place thereof, certain new constructions were raised and part of the constructions have been purchased by respondent No.6. He further submits that certain electricity dues were there which have been cleared and, as of now, there are no electricity dues. It is also submitted that a transformer has to be installed and there is no legal impediment as far as the Electricity Department is concerned in energizing the electricity connection of the respondent No.6. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find that on August 24, 2024, the Executive Engineer had sanctioned load of 45 KVA (commercial/residential) in the name of respondent No.6 in relation to Property No.C 21/5-6, Habibpura, Varanasi. The said order, admittedly, has not been challenged and remains intact. 7. In view of the above, we are of the view that the Civil Court may have competence as regards determining the extent of ownership and title to the property in dispute, however, insofar as the present writ petition is concerned, once a load has been sanctioned in the name of respondent No.6 and as per the Electricity Department there is no legal impediment in energizing the electric connection of the respondent No.6, we are of the view that the order impugned has been passed in furtherance of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated December 17, 2024 in Writ-C No.42036 of 2024 and in the totality of facts, we do not find any error in the order dated December 26, 2024. 9. We make it clear that we have not made any comments on the extent of ownership and title over the property involved in the civil suit. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Rakesh (Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH MEHTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad