A Delhi appellate court has directed the restoration of water supply to a woman residing on the second floor of a property in Pitampura, holding that denial of access to water amounted to a continuing violation of her fundamental and statutory rights.
District Judge Vikram (Link Judge), North-West District, Rohini Courts, allowed an appeal filed by Rashmi Sethi and set aside a trial court order that had refused interim relief in a suit seeking installation of a separate water connection and restoration of water supply.
The dispute arose among family members over property in Lok Vihar, Pitampura. According to the appellant, she was residing on the second floor of the property and had been deprived of water after the occupants of the first floor allegedly disconnected the supply through which the second floor was receiving water. She contended that despite applying to the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) for a fresh water connection, she was unable to obtain one because a co-owner had refused to furnish a No Objection Certificate (NOC).
The trial court had dismissed her application for interim injunction, observing that she had failed to establish a prima facie case and had not complied with the formalities required for obtaining a fresh water connection. Challenging that order, the appellant argued that she was being denied basic access to water in her own residence and that the deprivation was causing irreparable hardship.
Allowing the appeal, the District Judge held that the trial court had failed to adequately consider the consequences of depriving a resident of water supply.
The Court further relied on observations of the Delhi High Court recognising that a person occupying premises is entitled to seek a water connection even in the face of disputes concerning ownership or possession. Referring to the statutory framework governing water supply, the Court noted that access to adequate water cannot be denied merely because of inter se disputes between co-owners.
The Judge found that the appellant had been receiving water on the second floor earlier and the supply had allegedly been disconnected despite there being no change in the existing water connection arrangement.
The Court held that the trial court erred in concluding that no prima facie case existed. Emphasising the hardship faced by the appellant, the Judge observed:
“By not allowing her right to water she is being force to suffer an irreparable loss which cannot be compensated. The balance of convenience, as she is the owner not only of the first floor but also co owner of second floor, is in favour of plaintiff.”
After examining the pleadings and material on record, the Court concluded that the appellant’s water supply had been illegally obstructed. It accordingly directed the occupant of the first floor to immediately restore the water supply to the second floor through the existing connection from which water had earlier been supplied.
While granting the interim relief, the Court clarified that restoration of water supply would not confer any ownership or title rights over the property and was limited to ensuring access to an essential civic amenity pending adjudication of the suit.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the trial court was set aside.
