ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Since petitioner is common and the lis involved in both the Writ Petitions is similar, both of them are heard together and a common order is being passed. 2. Petitioner states that he is the owner and possessor of open agricultural land admeasuring Acs. 2.25 guntas in Survey No. 214/B of Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having purchased the same through Registered Sale Deed dated 21.5.2008; Revenue authorities have also mutated his name and issued pattadar pass book. Petitioner states that electricity Service Connection was issued to the above property vide LT SC No. 120701682 and till this date, there are no arrears on the said Service Connection. 2.1. While so, it is stated that the 3 rd Respondent – Superintendent Engineer issued Notice dated 16.08.2019 stating that HT SC No. CBC 363 (Old SC No. RRD 353) which was initially in the name of Giridhar Ispat and subsequently in the name of M/s Airan Comptrax Pvt. Ltd. has got pending arrears of consumption charges to the tune of Rs. 6,58,94,764/- as on 31.07.2017 and therefore, directed petitioner to pay the said amount or else Service Connection No. 120701682 would be disconnected apart from initiating proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. Petitioner contends that he has filed a reply dated 28.12.2019 to the said notice intimating that he is no way concerned/connected with the dues of above Service Connection as mentioned in the notice. It is stated by him that except the LT Service Connection for the agricultural property, there is no HT Service Connection belonging to him and further contends that he is not liable to pay the electricity dues of above mentioned companies, hence requested for withdrawing the said notice. 2.2. It is further contended that in 2021, Respondents have also installed a transformer for supply of LT power 3 phase, 25 KW in the open agricultural land belonging to petitioner but without any notice, the said connection was disconnected on 14.10.2021. Hence petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 37524 of 2021. 2.2. It is further contended that in 2021, Respondents have also installed a transformer for supply of LT power 3 phase, 25 KW in the open agricultural land belonging to petitioner but without any notice, the said connection was disconnected on 14.10.2021. Hence petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No. 37524 of 2021. When the matter is pending adjudication, respondents, without any notice and without issuing any proceedings, all of a sudden, came to petitioner’s property on 16.06.2025 and disconnected power to the service connection and demanded petitioner to clear the dues pertaining to HT SC No. CBC353 (old SC No. RRD 353) It is contended that the action of respondents is in contravention of the Electricity y Act, 2003 and the Regulations made thereunder by the Regulatory Commission. Hence, petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16757 of 2025. 3. Respondents filed Counter Affidavit vehemently contending that the property in which Service Connection of petitioner viz. LT SC No. 120701682 is given, earlier belonged to M/s Giridhar Ispat who had industrial Service Connection bearing HT SC No. CBC 353 (Old SC No. RRD 353) which had been subsequently changed in the records of Respondents in the name of Airan Comptrax Pvt. Ltd. The said Service Connection was disconnected for non-payment of arrears of Rs. 1,64,40,440/- and in spite of several communications issued, dues have not been paid. Therefore, steps were taken by Respondents for recovery of dues under the Revenue Recovery Act, by issuing Notices in Form ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ and arrears as on 31.7.2022 stood at Rs. 7,34,16,264/-. 3.1. It is stated that the Managing Director of the previous companies viz. one Munnalal Agarwal is none other than the father of petitioner. It is contended that petitioner and his father, to avoid payment of electricity dues, have changed the ownership of the subject land in the name of petitioner by treating the property to be an agricultural land. The District Collector also initiated proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act and issued Distraint Notice for sale of subject property for recovery of dues on 25.11.2019. It is contended that Respondents addressed several letters to the Tahsildar, District Town and Country Planning Officer, Commissioner of HMDA and Environmental Engineer of Pollution Control Board requesting them not to grant any permission in respect of subject property. It is contended that Respondents addressed several letters to the Tahsildar, District Town and Country Planning Officer, Commissioner of HMDA and Environmental Engineer of Pollution Control Board requesting them not to grant any permission in respect of subject property. Therefore to avoid payment of amounts, petitioner seems to have got the property transferred in his name and obtained LT Service Connection bearing No. 120701682 in 2021 by suppressing the fact of dues of previous owner. This is nothing but fraud played by petitioner and his father to avoid payment of electricity dues to Respondents. 3.2. It is stated that as HT SC No. CBC 353 was in the very same property claimed by petitioner, even if petitioner claims to be alien to the earlier industries and also claims to be a bona fide purchaser of the property, still he is liable to pay the dues of previous owner. The issue of payment of dues of previous owner is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in TGSPDCL v. Srigdhaa Beverages , (2020) 6 SCC 404 , which was thereafter reiterated by a 3-Judge Bench in K.C. Ninnan vs Kerala State Electricity Board , 2023 (14) SCC 431 . It is further contended that as per Clauses 5.9.6 and 8.4 of General Terms & Conditions of Supply, no new Service Connection can be granted in the very same property which had outstanding dues, unless the same are fully paid and cleared and therefore, prays for dismissal of Writ Petition. 4. In the reply, petitioner almost reiterated the averments in the writ affidavit. 5. Heard Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 37254 of 2021 and Sri D. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ Petition No. 16757 of 2025 and Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL. 6. It is the specific case of Respondents that in the very same property i.e. land admeasuring Acs.2.25 guntas in Survey No. 214/B of Janwada Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, there was earlier a HT Service Connection No. CBC 353 (Old SC No. RRD 353) in the name of M/s Giridhar Ispat initially and thereafter in the name of M/s Airan Comptrax Pvt. Limited. It is also contended that father of petitioner was the Managing Director of the said Companies. It is also contended that father of petitioner was the Managing Director of the said Companies. This fact is not specifically denied by petitioner except vaguely stating that the said contention is without any evidence. 7. Further, the documents filed by petitioner in both the Writ Petitions show that he purchased the property from one Rajendra Prasad Goyal who is in fact not the owner of the property. The contents of Sale Deed dated 21.05.2008 shows that one Rachuri Pentaiah and Rachuri Mallaiah were absolute owners of the land admeasuring Acs.1.13 guntas in Survey No. 214/3/A and Acs.1.12 guntas in Survey No. 214/3/B of Janwada Village and they sold the said property to M/s Giridhar Ispat Pvt. Limited through Registered Sale Deed dated 16.07.1985 vide Doc. No. 4852 of 1985. In turn, the said Giridhar Ispat Pvt. Ltd. sold the property to M/s Airan Comptrax Towers Pvt. Ltd through Registerd Sale Deed dated 04.08.2000 vide Doc. No. 6323 of 2000. It is seen that M/s Airan Comtrax Towers Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Managing Director, Agarwal M.L. (father of petitioner) entered into an Agreement of Sale and GPA dated 10.04.2003 with one Rajender Prasad Goyal in respect of the above property and that the said document was validated by the District Registrar & Collector under Indian Stamp Act, Ranga Reddy District on 28.10.2006 in File No. 9815/AR/06. Sri Rajender Prasad Goyal who was only a GPA Holder sold the property in favour of petitioner vide Registered Sale Deed dated 21.05.2008 which clearly shows that petitioner had become owner of the property which had electricity dues. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the property claimed by petitioner having purchased through Registered Sale Deed dated 21.5.2008 had earlier HT SC No. CBC 353 (Old No. RRD 353) which had dues of Rs. 7,34,16,264/- as on 31.7.2022. Petitioner, having purchased the said property, is liable to pay the dues of previous owners. Therefore, Respondents have the right to deny power supply to the very same property which had dues by previous owners. Also, this Court is convinced that petitioner and his father, in order to avoid dues, seems to have transferred the property in the name of petitioner and have clandestinely obtained LT SC No. 120701682 for the very same property. 8. Therefore, Respondents have the right to deny power supply to the very same property which had dues by previous owners. Also, this Court is convinced that petitioner and his father, in order to avoid dues, seems to have transferred the property in the name of petitioner and have clandestinely obtained LT SC No. 120701682 for the very same property. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.C. Ninnan’s case while referring to earlier judgment in Hyderabad Wanaspathy Limited , held at Para 78 that even under Indian Electricity Supply Act, 1948, there is an obligation on the new owner to clear the arrears of previous owner, as a pre-condition to avail electricity supply which have statutory character. At para 89, while referring to earlier judgment in Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitharan Nigam , the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that distribution licensees can insist for clearance of arrears of electricity dues of previous consumer before resuming electricity supply to the premises, which is valid and permissible under Electricity Act, 2003. At Para 95, it was held that Electricity Supply Code requiring payment of electricity dues of previous owners as a condition for grant of electricity connections have a clear nexus to the scheme of the parent legislations and the objectives sought to be achieved and it is just and reasonable for distribution licensees to specify the conditions of supply requiring the subsequent owners or occupiers of premises to pay the electricity dues of previous owner or occupier as a pre-condition for grant of electricity connection to protect their commercial interest as well as welfare of consumers of electricity. 9. Also, Clauses 5.9.6 and 8.4 of General Terms & Conditions of Supply abundantly make it clear that no new Service Connection shall be provided to the premises unless the existing dues are cleared. As petitioner is the owner of property which had electricity dues of previous owner, he is liable to pay the same. In view of the above discussion, this Court sees no grounds to interfere with disconnection of power supply to the property of petitioner. No grounds are made out for granting the relief as sought in the Writ Petitions. 10. Accordingly both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 11. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.