A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 697/2012 against CC 28/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar.
Between :
Sarmanpalli Manjula, W/o. Ram Mohan,
Age 35 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Korikyala, village,
. Gangadhara mandal
of Karimnagar district. Appellant/Complainant
AND
1. The Sarpunch,
Gramapanchayath, Kurikyala village
Gangadhara mandal
Karimnagar district.
2. The Panchayath Secretary,
Gramapanchayath, Kurikyala village
Gangadhara mandal
Karimnagar district.
3. The District Panchayath Officer,
Karimnagar collectorate complex,
Karimnagar district… Respondents/ Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. BuchiBabu
Counsel for the Respondents : Set exparte
M/s. V. Sree Ranga Rao for R-2
Government pleader for R-3
Coram ;
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
And
Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Hon’ble Member
Monday, the Seventh Day of October
Two Thousand Thirteen
Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )
****
1.This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 01.03.2012 in CC 28/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Karimnagar. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to here under :
2.The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the owner of 2 Guntas of Plot in Sy.No.518/2 of Kurikyala Village, Gangadhara Mandal, Karimnagar District issued by the Government by way of Patta bearing No. B/954/1999 on 05.04.2001 to her by the State government under the Family Planning programme and hence she erected a hut in the said land and residing there from then onwards. As she wanted to construct a pucca house she submitted an application to grant construction permission to opposite party no.1, but did not receive any intimation, therefore it was sent by registered post on 29.11.2010 but even then the opposite party no.1 neither granted permission nor rejected the same. Subsequently she approached opposite party no.3 and submitted application to issue construction permission, but the same is refused and copy of the same is sent by Registered Post. Inspite of several requests opposite parties failed to grant permission due to which she could not obtain loan from the Bank and she stopped construction work. The complainant got issued a Legal Notice to the Tahsildar Gangadhara on 25.02.2011 calling upon him not to interfere with her rights over the property. Despite correspondence, the Ops did not consider her request and it amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to grant permission for construction of a house, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs.
3...Opposite parties filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under : The complainant made an application through registered post by enclosing Patta Certificate without enclosing proposed Building Plan and she did not visit their office to meet the requirements. Further the Tahsildar Gangadhara issued a Circular in file no.B/1910/2010 Dt: 20.11.2010 directing the Gram Panchayat not to issue permissions to the assignees who have not applied for permission within six months from the date of Patta Certificate. The complainant is assigned the plot on 05.04.2001 and she submitted permission application on 29.11.2010 without enclosing plan prepared by licensed Engineer. The opposite party no.3 has issued a reply Dt: 17.12.2010 giving the reasons for not considering the application. Instead of doing so she filed this complaint. After receiving notice in this case, the opposite parties sent a letter asking the complainant to submit lay out plan and other documents to consider her application, but she failed to do so. The complaint is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer .There is no deficiency in service on their part and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4.Both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A 5 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 to B 5 were marked for the Opposite parties.
5.Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint does not come under the purview of C. P. Act and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with a liberty to approach Civil Court if she so desires.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Form failed to see that the complainant has paid requisite fees and plan complying with all formalities while applying the permission for construction of house in the patta land issued by the Government under Family Planning Scheme to the Ops and that the complainant is a consumer U/s. 2(1)(d) of C. P. Act and the plan submitted by the Engineer is not mandatory in rural areas and that as per Section 127(3) of G P Act it is mandatory on the part of the authority either to receive or reject the application with reasons within 15 days from the date of application and that the same authority has granted permission to 10 similar patta holders and have violated Article 21 of Constitution of India and that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thus prayed to allow the appeal by granting the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.
7. R1/OP1 did not choose to tender appearance in the appeal despite service of notice and Heard the complainant R2 and R3 who are Ops 2 and 3 in the complaint with reference to their respective contentions in detail.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District
Forum is sustainable ?
9. The case of the complainant is that in the government of A P vide its Family planning scheme assigned 0.02 guntas of Open plot in Sy No 518/2 of Kurikyala village and Ex A1 patta certificate dt. 5..4.2001 were issued in favour of the complainant and that she made an application to the 1st opposite party to permit her to construct a house thereon and that it was not received and therefore submitted Ex. A5 application dt. 25.11.2010 to OP. 3 with the same request but it was not considered and that the acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.
10. The opposite parties resisted the complaint denying her right and title over the plot and also stated that the complainant did not submit a plan of the proposed building, establish identify of the plot and that no conversion of agricultural land into nonagricultural land was obtained and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.
11. In order to accord permission for construction any house or building the applicant has to submit the title deed copies, map/plan of the proposed building prepared by a licensed engineer along with documents evidencing identify of the plot and also pay requisite fee for such permission. In this case, the complainant did not whisper in the complaint that she paid requisite fee to the concerned Gram Panchayat towards granting of permission nor produced any receipts evidencing that she paid such and such amount towards construction permission fee but so pleaded in the Appeal belatedly to cover up the lapse he did not submit any receipt evidencing payment of fee. There is no evidence on record to show that she enclosed map/plan of the proposed building prepared by a licensed engineer. In the said context, the complainant contended that it is not mandatory and even if it is recommendatory in the circumstances of the case more particularly when identity of the plot has not been established it is essential to submit such a plan drawn by a licensed engineer,. Therefore the contention of the complainant that in rural areas the owner herself can draw plan and submit plan to the authorities could not be appreciate in her favour. Hence, the plan submitted by the complainant showing proposed construction of the house which does not contain signature of the licensed engineer is not sufficient compliance and as such it is not helpful for her. Ex A1 patta certificate discloses that plot no. 1 admeasuring 5 cents of land in sy. No.518/2 Kurikyala village was assigned to the complainant under Family Planning Scheme by MRO, Gangadhara. Boundaries of the said plot are not described in it and the North East, south-West boundaries are shown blank. Thus the plot on the spot becomes unidentifiable and therefore question of granting permission for construction does not arise. No lay out is enclosed to the said Patta showing plot Nos and the said document discloses that the house has to be constructed within six months/12 months from 5th April, 2001 but admittedly she did not make any attempt for such construction within the said stipulated time.
12. The complainant also did not place any convincing evidence on record to show that she is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject plot from the date of its allotment by constructing a hut and residing in it. Whereas, the alleged application for construction of the house was made on 13.12.2010 and in that view point also the complainant is not entitled. There is no dependable evidence from the side of the complainant with regard to identify and location of the plot with boundaries. As per Ex. B3 issued by concerned Tahsildar no permission can be granted to construct the house on the assigned land. There is no dependable evidence on record to show that conversion of agricultural land into nonagricultural land is made. The complainant did not plead that she had taken steps before concerned Revenue Divisional officer in the said context and that it was so converted enabling her to construct a house in the alleged assigned land. Despite notices were given to her asking her to fulfill the requirements to consider her application the complainant did not fulfill the same and as such there was no possibility for the Ops to take any decision on her application. It is contended by the complainant that as per the provisions of section 127 (3) of Gram Panchayat Act, the Ops shall have to grant or reject permission within stipulated period of 15 days failing which it is deemed that permission is granted and when she tried to proceed with the construction the Ops interfered with her rights in the said context. That deemed provision is useful for the complainant provided she complied with all the formalities required under law described supra and as such the said argument of the complainant is not useful for her any more. In a decision reported in CPR IV 2008 (NC) page 34 .. it was held that if the statutory authorities had failed in discharging statutory obligation under the law, it is only civil court or High court which could issue directions to enforce statutory duties and the said decision supports the contention of the Ops. Thus the District Forum discussed the case correctly and rightly dismissed the complaint. The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
DATED : 07.10.2013.
