ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Since these two writ petitions are case and counter case, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for disposal by this common order. 2. For convenience sake, parties are referred to as arrayed in Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2025. 3. Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2025 is filed by one Vemulapalli Srinivasulu seeking a direction to the official respondents not to grant any electricity connection in Acs. 2.06 gts, in Sy.No. 109/1; Ac. 1.03 gts, in Sy.No. 109/22; Acs.4.12 gts, in Sy.No. 241/a and Acs. 2.06 gts, in Sy. No. 241/a2 totalling Acs.9-27 gts, situated at Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Primarily, this Writ Petition is against M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.(Respondent No.4). 4. Writ Petition No. 24511 of 2025 is filed by M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. against the T.G.S.P.D.C.L., seeking a direction to the official respondents to provide Power Supply service connection to petitioner's property i.e. Plot Nos.47 & 48, each consisting of 300 Sq. yds., totally to 600 Sq. Yds, in Sy.Nos. 109 & 241 situated at Singapur village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5. As seen from the prayers in these two writs petitions, the lis pertains to providing power supply service connection to the land/plots in Sy.Nos. 109 & 241 situated at Singapur village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 6. The case of petitioner Mr. Vemulapalli Srinivasulu in Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2025, in brief, is: himself and one Sri N. Papi Reddy jointly purchased agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 4-12 guntas and Acs.8-24 guntas, in toto Acs. 12-36 guntas, in Sy.Nos. 109 and 241 respectively situated at Singapur Village of Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District from Sri S. Malla Reddy and his two sons Ramakrishna Reddy and Madhava Reddy and Sri S. Bhujanga Reddy and his son Hanumanth Reddy vide sale deed document dated 15.01.1977 and it was validated accordingly. Thereafter, a dispute has arisen between petitioner and Papi Reddy on one side and the vendors on the other. Petitioner and Papi Reddy filed O.S. No. 91 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, R.R. District, for declaration and perpetual injunction against the vendors. This matter was settled before the Lok-Adalath and an award was passed on 08.04.2008. Petitioner and Papi Reddy filed O.S. No. 91 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, R.R. District, for declaration and perpetual injunction against the vendors. This matter was settled before the Lok-Adalath and an award was passed on 08.04.2008. In the said Award, defendants admitted that plaintiffs are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule land and they are enjoying the same from 15.01.1977. Defendants further admitted that they have received Rs. 10,00,000/- jointly and severally from plaintiffs towards full and final settlement and passed separate receipts. It is also admitted that defendants have no objection for getting mutation of the said land in favour of plaintiffs in the Revenue records. Later petitioner and Papi Reddy approached the M.R.O., Shankarpally for mutation and after thorough enquiry, mutation was affected on 20.06.2008 and both of them also approached the Tahsildar, Shankarpally who, through letter dated 27.06.2008, recommended for conversion of land. Later, a partition deed was executed between petitioner and Papi Reddy and the land admeasuring Acs.2.06 gts, in Sy. No. 109/1; Ac.1.03 gts, in Sy.No. 109/22, Acs. 4.12 gts, in Sy.No. 241/a; Acs.2.06 gts in Sy.No. 241/a2 in total Acs. 9-12 guntas, fell to the share of petitioner who is in possession of suit schedule property. On an earlier occasion, some other persons tried to interfere with the possession of petitioner, hence, he filed an injunction suit against them and since the relief is not in rem, he filed OS No. 61 of 2024 on the file of X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, R.R. District, against defendants therein as they are interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule property without any right/title/documents whatsoever. Plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 49 of 2024 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking ad-interim injunction against defendants. The Court dismissed the said I.A. mainly on the ground that petitioner was aged about 7 years at the time of purchase of schedule property and it was not represented by any guardian, so that sale itself is not a valid one. Subsequently, the suit was also dismissed. The Court held that though in A.T. Raghava Chariar vs ?.?. The Court dismissed the said I.A. mainly on the ground that petitioner was aged about 7 years at the time of purchase of schedule property and it was not represented by any guardian, so that sale itself is not a valid one. Subsequently, the suit was also dismissed. The Court held that though in A.T. Raghava Chariar vs ?.?. Srinivasa Raghava Chariar [2011 (5) CTC 146], it was held that a mortgage deed executed in favour of a minor who had advanced whole of mortgage money was enforceable by him; in Krishnaveni v M.A. Shagul Hameed (2024(2) Civil CC (SC) this Authority was overruled. In the result, I.A. No. 49 of 2024 was dismissed. In this Writ Petition, petitioner places reliance on the judgment in Neelam Gupta v. Rajendra Kumar Gupta [2024 SCC Online SC 2824] to the proposition that law will not come in the way of transfer of an immovable property in favour of a minor. 6.1. It is stated, after the matter was settled before Lok Adalath as stated above, petitioner and Papi Reddy partitioned the property as referred to above and partition deed was registered as Document No. 4882/2013 dated 01.02.2013. Pursuant to this partition deed, petitioner applied for mutation which was affected vide orders of the MRO dated 20.06.2008 and Patta Pass Books and Title Deed vide Patta No. 944 were issued and his name was recorded in the Revenue records and was also shown in Dharani portal. Petitioner made an Application to Tahsildar, Shankarpally Mandal for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural, which is pending. Grampanchayat of Singapur village issued information to general public in its letter dated 24.06.2016 informing that no lay-out is approved and no structures exist in Sy. Nos. 109 and 241 of Singapur village. 6.2. While so, one Mr. SMVS Prasad and other claiming that property in question is a residential area and plots are existing, filed Appeal No. 3369 of 2008 before the Revenue Divisional Officer to set aside the mutation proceedings dated 20.06.2008. This Appeal was allowed on 06.06.2009, against which petitioner filed Revision under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 vide Case No. ST/D1/1320/2021, D1/3312/2009. Later, the Special Tribunal constituted under the Telangana Rights in land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 2020, by order dated 08.02.2021 dismissed the Revision. This Appeal was allowed on 06.06.2009, against which petitioner filed Revision under Section 9 of the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 1971 vide Case No. ST/D1/1320/2021, D1/3312/2009. Later, the Special Tribunal constituted under the Telangana Rights in land and Pattedar Pass Books Act, 2020, by order dated 08.02.2021 dismissed the Revision. Against this order, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6844 of 2024. 6.3. Since SMVS Prasad, K. Sudhir Babu and people claiming through them are interfering with the possession of petitioner and filing complaints before Police, he filed Writ Petition No. 4739 of 2024, wherein an interim direction was given on 22.02.2024 restraining the Police from interfering with the civil disputes. Since the District Collector, RR District, unilaterally passed orders proc. Nos. D2/4391/2022 and D2/4391/2022 both dated nil.05.2023 deleting the name of petitioner and late N. Papi Reddy, petitioner and the son of late N. Papi Reddy filed Writ Petitions No. 13078 and 12406 of 2024 respectively. In both the Writ Petitions, this Court by orders dated 03.06.2024 and 02.05.2024 respectively granted interim suspension of the Collector's orders dated nil.05.2023. 6.4. Petitioner states that he has come to know that one Mr. Hari Babu and others claiming to represent M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. applied for an electricity connection for an illegal and unauthorized layout. Hence, the present Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2025. 7. M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. filed counter affidavit rebutting all the material contentions of petitioner in the Writ Petition. It states that it has acquired plots through registered sale deeds, obtained building permission and applied for electricity supply. Rejection of power supply on the sole ground of pendency of Writ Petitions is untenable, is the contention. 8. M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. filed Writ Petition No. 24511 of 2025 against the electricity authorities - TGSPDCL seeking a direction to provide electricity supply connected, as stated above. The case of M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., in nut-shell is: M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is the absolute owner and possessor of plot Nos. 47 and 48 each admeasuring 300 Sq. Yds, in Sy.Nos. 109 & 241 of Singapur village, Shankarpally Mandal, RR District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.2023. It applied for power supply service connections vide Application Nos. NR154244166434 and NR154244166448, which were rejected with a remark 'Rejected as Court Case Pending'. 47 and 48 each admeasuring 300 Sq. Yds, in Sy.Nos. 109 & 241 of Singapur village, Shankarpally Mandal, RR District, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 30.06.2023. It applied for power supply service connections vide Application Nos. NR154244166434 and NR154244166448, which were rejected with a remark 'Rejected as Court Case Pending'. It is further contended that electricity supply is a statutory right recognized under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The authorities being licensees' under the Act are under a statutory obligation to provide power supply to any owner/occupier of the premises. 9. Heard Sri Rajesh Maddy, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2025, Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24511 of 2025, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy. 10. From an analysis of the contentions of the writ petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and the rival ones, it is clear that the entire lis revolved round the title over the land in Sy.Nos. 109 & 241 of Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, RR District. Both the parties have invoked all the jurisdictions such as Mandal Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, District Collector, Lok Adalath, civil Courts and this Court and got different orders. But the point remains that nowhere the issue of title over the land in Survey Nos. 109 and 241 of Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, RR District is decided. This Court, normally, at the first instance, will not decide the title of a party over a given land. It is only the jurisdictional civil Court that has to decide the issue. In this point of view, this Court recuses from making any comment regarding title over the land in Sy.Nos. 109 & 241 of Singapur Village, Shankarpally Mandal, RR District and also on the proposition that law will not come in the way of transfer of an immovable property in favour of a minor. 11. Be that as it may. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2025 is a direction to TGSPDCL authorities not to grant/provide electricity supply to M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., on the ground that they are not absolute owners of the land in question. What is the locus of the petitioner to seek such a direction is not pleaded or demonstrated. The prayer in Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2025 is a direction to TGSPDCL authorities not to grant/provide electricity supply to M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., on the ground that they are not absolute owners of the land in question. What is the locus of the petitioner to seek such a direction is not pleaded or demonstrated. It is for the TGSPDCL authorities, upon considering the relevant documents, to sanction electricity supply to the applicant. No order from a competent Court is placed before this Court restraining TGSPDCL authorities from sanctioning electricity supply to M/s Lahari Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Hence, Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2025 fails and is accordingly dismissed. 12. As regards Writ Petition No. 24511 of 2025 is concerned, the prayer is a direction to TGSPDCL authorities to provide/sanction electricity supply to petitioner. 13. TGSPDCL filed a counter in Writ Petition No. 5528 of 2025 stating that electricity supply connection was rejected to petitioner therein, since there are civil disputes regarding title over the lands in question between petitioner and Mr. M. Chandrmouli, Municipal Councilor. Another ground of rejection is that there is no Lay-out approval by HMDA. 14. It is made clear above that TGSPDCL has no power or jurisdiction to decide title over a land. So also, it has no authority to decide whether a conveyance deed produced by the applicant is a valid one or not. If at all the required documents such as conveyance deed pertaining the land/plot in which the electricity connection is required, without going into the question whether it is a valid one or not; approved lay out by HMDA or Municipality concerned; building construction permission, etc., are annexed with the Application for the electricity supply, TGSPDCL authorities are not justifiable to reject electricity supply connection. Thus, it is for TGSPDCL authorities to check whether all the required documents are produced to grant electricity connection and then consider the Application. This Court will not step into the shoes of TGSPDCL and grant connection. 15. Thus, it is for TGSPDCL authorities to check whether all the required documents are produced to grant electricity connection and then consider the Application. This Court will not step into the shoes of TGSPDCL and grant connection. 15. Hence, Writ Petition No. 24511 of 2025 is disposed of giving liberty to TGSPDCL authorities to check/verify whether all the required documents are produced by the applicant or not and to consider the Application for electricity supply connection subject to complying with the following relevant guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad , 2024 SCC Online SC 3767 “(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as, Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after the production of the completion / occupation certificate. (v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation /violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder / owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for issuance of wrongful completion / occupation certificate shall be proceeded departmentally forthwith. (vi) No permission / licence to conduct any business / trade must be given by any authorities including local bodies of States /Union Territories in any unauthorised building irrespective of it being residential or commercial building. (vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan land usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly following the rules in place land in consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the environment”. No costs. 16. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.