Judgment Heard Mr. Sivaprakasam, petitioner as party in person; Mr. G. Vasudevan learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 7 and 9 and Mr. S. Rajendiran learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent. 2. The prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents 1 to 9 to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner in respect of his pump-set well situate in the schedule mentioned land, with a further direction to award an amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner herein. 3. According to the petitioner, the very object of the petitioner filing the present writ petition is for the above relief of directing the respondents 1 to 9 to supply motor service connection to him in his lands; to award costs for the death of yielding coconut trees and to award compensation for the mental agony caused to him by the respondents 1 to 9 due to non supply of motor service connection and for other reliefs. It is his case that the well situated in Survey No: 23/4 absolutely belongs to him, which was obtained by partition deed dated 21.12.1997; the well falls in the above survey number alone; he only dug the well found in the said survey number, in the year 1996, with his own costs and efforts and two certificates issued by the Village Administrative Officer are also filed to prove that the land and well are owned by him and that he is in possession and enjoyment of the well by cultivating the land which falls within the aforesaid survey number with the help of an oil engine purchased by him. It is his case that since the oil engine is often struck with some repair, he is unable to draw water from his well. Hence, he filed an application before the 5th respondent requesting for supply of motor service connection for the well situated in his land. He also claims that he has filed all the required documents and complied with all the formalities. Petitioner has approached the respondents directly and has also sent a registered notice to the 4th respondent on 03.09.2011 which was duly acknowledged. Even after issuance of the said notice, the service connection was not given and hence, he approached the respondents but, in vain. Petitioner has approached the respondents directly and has also sent a registered notice to the 4th respondent on 03.09.2011 which was duly acknowledged. Even after issuance of the said notice, the service connection was not given and hence, he approached the respondents but, in vain. While so, on 19.03.2012, R.7 issued a letter to R.6 stating the "readiness" for the supply of motor service connection and stated that supply ought to be issued within 30 days from the date of the order of "readiness" from Kuttu Road E.B. Office. But till date service connection is not given to him. According to the petitioner, the well which is situated in Survey No: 23/4 is not a joint well nor a share well and it is owned by his father and that it is not necessary to get a 'No Objection Certificate' from his brother Pitchaipillai and from the 10th respondent. He has also stated that the 10th respondent is threatening him that if the petitioner installs a pole for service connection he would destroy it and that he is also preventing the petitioner from drawing water from the main well from 01.07.2012 onwards and therefore, he has to be restrained by an order of injunction. Petitioner also submitted a representation to the respondents on 19.04.2011. Since no action is forthcoming from the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 4. The 2nd respondent has filed a statement in the form of Inspection Report and stated that, as per the direction of this Court on 28.08.2012, he made an inspection at the petitioner's residence on 10.09.2012 along with the Village Administrative Officer and 10th respondent, since the petitioner's house was locked. One Thiru.Adimoolam, S/o. Veeran, Vasudevanur Village, had applied for free agriculture service connection for his well at S.F. No:23/4 Vasudevanur Village and the above application had been registered as Divisional Engineer/ Q & M / Kallakurichi Office vide Registration No: 533 on 03.02.1996. On his turn, 30 days notice was issued on 01.11.2011 to him to produce all the revenue records and to report his readiness to avail the free agriculture service connection on or before 03.12.2010. Later it became known that the applicant Adimoolam had expired having his three sons namely Thiru. Pichaiapillai, Thiru. Sivapragasam and Thiru.Subramanian as his legal heirs. On his turn, 30 days notice was issued on 01.11.2011 to him to produce all the revenue records and to report his readiness to avail the free agriculture service connection on or before 03.12.2010. Later it became known that the applicant Adimoolam had expired having his three sons namely Thiru. Pichaiapillai, Thiru. Sivapragasam and Thiru.Subramanian as his legal heirs. As the original applicant had expired, the application rights goes to the persons who are now holding the land in which the above well exists. Fortunately, the above land is jointly owned by all the three sons mentioned above. The revenue record, 'Patta' stands in the name of the above three sons. Hence, the application right goes equally for all the three legal heirs. So as per the rules in vogue, the free agricultural service connection could be given in the name of all the three legal heirs or in the name of any one with the written consent of the other two. 5. Further it was stated that the fact was properly explained to the petitioner Thiru. Sivapragasam and he was advised to get the consent of his brothers in writing so as to effect the free agricultural service connection in the name of Thiru.A. Sivapragasam. At this juncture, the petitioner Sivapragasam has failed to produced the consent from his brothers and moved this Court with the present petition and got a direction to the 2nd respondent to inspect the site in question in the presence of the respective parties and verify as to what are all the wells situated in the area in question and the persons in occupation and file a report before this Court within a period of three weeks. As per the order, the following report is submitted : " A Joint inspection notice was issued on 10.09.2012 to the Thiru. Pitchaipilla, Thiru. Sivapragasam and Thiru. Subramanian, who are the legal heirs of late Adhimoolam. The above site was inspected by the 2nd respondent accompanied by the Village Administrative Officers of that particular revenue village in the presence of Thiru.Subramaniaan, the 10th respondent. The petitioner was not available in the village. I am submitting the inspection report, which is as follows : " ...... On my inspection it is observed that two wells are existing as detailed below. The petitioner was not available in the village. I am submitting the inspection report, which is as follows : " ...... On my inspection it is observed that two wells are existing as detailed below. One well is jointly existing in S.F. No: 23/3 and 23/4 without water and is in the deteriorated condition. ........ Another well is existing in S.F. No: 23/2 and 23/20 which is having sufficient water with parapet wall. ........ Both the wells are jointly owned and under the enjoyment of all the three legal heirs. The revenue records "Patta" is also existing in the name of all the three legal heirs. 6. On the above stated position, I have heard the petitioner as party-in-person, the learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. 7. The petitioner has mainly focused his grievance on the fact that he has enclosed all the documents in support of his claim and that the respondents 1 to 3 are bound to provide electricity service connection to the petitioner to the well situated in the land mentioned by him and also award compensation for the inaction on the part of the respondents. 8. Resisting the above statement, the learned counsel for the official respondents contend that the petitioner's claim can be looked into only on production of the necessary documents and other relevant requirements as per the Regulations and that as of now, the petitioner has not taken such a course to approach the respondents with the necessary documents. Therefore, the respondent is not in a position to take a decision. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent that his client is one among the three sons of late Adimoolam and that he is also entitled to claim the rights accrued from his father. 9. It is seen from the facts pleaded that the petitioner is one of the sons of late Adimoolam of Vasudevanur Village, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District, and the other sons are Thiru. Pichaipillai and Subramanian. There are two wells. The one which is situated in S.F. No: 23/3 and 23/4 is without water and in the deteriorated condition and the other situated in S.F. No: 23/2 and 23/20 is having sufficient water with parapet wall. Pichaipillai and Subramanian. There are two wells. The one which is situated in S.F. No: 23/3 and 23/4 is without water and in the deteriorated condition and the other situated in S.F. No: 23/2 and 23/20 is having sufficient water with parapet wall. Petitioner claims that he has got a right over the land in Survey No: 23/4 exclusively and, therefore, his claim for providing electricity service connection to his pump set and well to be considered independently and there is no question of obtaining a consent letter from the other brothers as he is having documents to prove the exclusive right over the land in question. The Inspection Report of the Assistant Engineer, Operation and Maintenance of the TANGEDCO, Kalasamudram, reveals that two wells are existing in the land in question and the one which is situated in S.F. No: 23/3 and 23/4 is without water and is in the deteriorated condition and the other is situated in S.F. No: 23/2 and 23/20 is having sufficient water with parapet wall and both the wells are standing in the name of all the three legal heirs. 10. In the light of the above stated position, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent herein to consider petitioner's claim in accordance with the existing provisions of the relevant Act and Regulations. The 2nd respondent is hereby directed to receive necessary documents from the petitioner, issue notice to the concerned parties, namely brothers of the petitioner, give an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, hear them and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and on merits within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. As regards the claim of the petitioner for an award of compensation, it is the duty and obligation of any claimant to put forth appropriate pleadings to establish his contentions about the quantum of loss suffered by him and equally, it is the responsibility of the concerned authority to put forth his defence in resisting such a claim. But, the contentions of both the parties can be decided in accordance with law not only on examination of the facts pleaded but, it has to be decided by letting in evidence both oral and documentary, before a Court of competent jurisdiction. But, the contentions of both the parties can be decided in accordance with law not only on examination of the facts pleaded but, it has to be decided by letting in evidence both oral and documentary, before a Court of competent jurisdiction. In the absence of any such claim based on any pleading, it is not for this Court to consider the same and hence, this Court is not inclined to consider the claim of the petitioner for compensation. However, it is open to the petitioner to claim any compensation, if he so desires, from a competent Court of Jurisdiction in accordance with law. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no orders as to the costs.