Tamil Nadu

Ariyalur

CC/23/2018

G.Gopal., - Complainant(s)

Versus

1)Tahsildar 2)Revenue Divisional officer, - Opp.Party(s)

T.Kannan., B.Sc.,B.L.,

13 Mar 2023

ORDER

                                                                                                                Date of    Filing        : 06/09/2018

                                                                                                Date of Order          : 13/03/2023

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                                  ARIYALUR       

 

PRESENT:  THIRU DR. V.RAMARAJ.  M.L., Ph.D., PRESIDENT

                                                       THIRU        N.BALU           B.A., B.L.  :   MEMBER I

                                                       TMT           V.LAVANYA    B.A., B.L.  :   MEMBER II

           

 

 

 CC  NO. 23/2018.

Friday 13th ^Day of March 2023.

 

Gopal

S/o Late Govindasamy

West Street, Periyakurichi (Post)

Sendurai circle, Ariyalur District.                                                               Complainant

 

Vs

1. The Tahsildar

Taluk Office

Sendurai.

2.  The R.D.O

Udayarpalayam                                                                                            Opposite parties.

 

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant: - Mr. T. Kannan

                                                       Mr. T. Selvam

Counsel for the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite

Parties                                :-         Mr. O.Venkatachalapathy (Government Pleader)

1.      This Complaint has come before us for final hearing on 02/03/2023. Heard arguments of both the parties.  Perused the complaint and exhibits marked by the complainant. Op1 filed written version, op2 Set-Exparte on 22/11/2018. Upon perusing the Material facts and Exhibits of the Complainant and Opposite Parties and having stood for Consideration, this Commission passed the following:-

 

            ORDER

Pronounced by the Member II Tmt. V.LAVANYA B.A., B.L.,

Adopted by President Dr.V.Ramaraj M.L., Ph.D., & N.Balu Member I.

 

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint as against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- compensation for deficiency of service, financial loss and mental agony  and cost of Rs.10,000/- .

 

            Brief averments of the complainant.

 

2.         The Complainant mother one Pachaiammal and his two brothers Kaliaperumal and Kannaiyan among themselves by mutual agreement executed a registered partition deed dated 11/06/1979. The properties belonging to the complainant’s mother pachaiammal are within the jurisdiction of the opposite party. The said Pachaiammal had partitioned the properties belonging to her to her three sons retaining her A Schedule property with a view that there should be no conflict between her sons in respect of the properties belonging to her. The A schedule property is situated at Periyakurichi village, Sendurai, Ariyalur District, consisting of S.F no.239/3C measuring 0.65 cent ,S.F no. 235/9C measuring 0.21 cent in total 0.86 cents belonged to Pachaiammal. The Deed had specific condition that the said Pachiammal cannot sell or create any encumbrance over the property she can only enjoy the right over the property till her lifetime and after her demise her three sons can acquire her property equally.

3.         On 11/05/1988 the said Pachiammal expired and after her demise “A” schedule property was in absolute enjoyment and possession of the complainant and his two brothers Kaliaperumal and Kannaiyan as per the clauses of the registered partition deed.

4.         It is learnt that the Revenue authorities has subdivided the S.F no. 235/9C measuring 0.21cent into 235/9C1 with an extent of 0.2.85 and issued patta no. 3203 in the name of complainant’s brother Kanniyan wife Sumathi and daughter Rani and S.F No.235/9C2 measuring 0.5.65 patta no.3166 in the name of another brother Kaliaperumal son Sankar, Latha w/o Rajeev, Gokul s/o Rajeev and Gopal s/o Govindasamy. This events have taken place when it has not been decided which part of the A schedule property is to be allotted amongst the co- sharers. The Revenue authorities have not acted according to statutory rules by issuing notice and conducting enquiry with other co- sharers before sub- division and mutation of records which was jointly possessed by all the three brothers’ co- sharers as per the partition deed.

 

5.         The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and gave a petition in writing that the sub division of the S.F. no.235/9C into S.F. no. 235/9C1 , S.F. no.235/9C2 was against Rules and again bring back to original S.F. no.235/9C by cancelling the sub - division and issue Joint Patta. On 21/05/2018 a registered post was sent to the opposite parties to cancel the sub-division and bring back to its original S.F. no. 235/9C. ack card was received from the 1^st opposite on 30/05/2018, on 31/05/2018 from the 2^nd opposite party ack card was received. Inspite of several representations the opposite parties did not give any proper remedy.

 

6.         on 2/07/18 a petition was given to the District Collector Ariyalur on GDP, elucidating the patta issue, a formal enquiry was conducted, no concrete action was taken, and subsequently no progression took place. Therefore on 12/07/2018 a Registered post was sent to District collector and RDO in respect of the petition. In order to save the official from the clutches of court proceedings the 1^st opposite party putforth a recommendation to the 2^nd opposite party to cancel the sub-division without proper enquiry and a letter was sent on 28/06/2018 and 25/07/2018 to the complainant.

The opposite parties have not followed the statutory procedure in issuing patta and sub-division of the land by conducting proper enquiry calling upon all the co-sharers . They have failed in their duty which has caused mental agony, financial loss to the complainant. Due to such incidence there is rift, family feud between brothers and their families, causing to file civil and criminal cases against each other before the appropriate court.

 

7.         Hence the opposite parties have failed to perform their duty properly causing deficiency of service and are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.

 

Brief averments of the 1^st opposite party

 

8.         The opposite parties are the revenue authorities, In the complaint it appears that two brothers of the complainant has sub divided the joint family property A schedule property and enjoying the property in question. It is admitted fact that the Property in question belongs to one Pachaiammal and on mutual arrangement a partition deed was created. It is admitted that after the demise of the Pachaiammal her legal heirs became the co-sharers of her property. However there seems that there is a legal issue between the complainant and his brothers regarding the property mentioned by the complainant which can be resolved only through the appropriate civil court.

9.         The complainant does not come under the preview of Consumer, as he has not paid any service charges to claim his rights. Moreover it is fundamentally illogical to claim that the opposite parties have not performed their duty causing deficiency of service.  The complainant has filed this complaint without seeking the assistance of the court in the right manner under some apprehension. 

10.       It is pertinent to state that the complainant has raised an issue in his complaint that who all are the Pattadharars in the disputed property, which can be found only when the present title holders of the property are necessary parties to the complaint. Without proper enquiry the sub-division and cancellation of Patta cannot be done, for that all the present title holders have to be impleaded in the complaint which the complainant has failed to do.  The complainant has not paid the service fee and is alleging that the opposite parties has failed in their duty  causing deficiency of service and seeking compensation that the opposite parties has caused a lack of service, which shakes the basic theory of Consumer Law.

 

11.       It is proper for the Complainant to seek the help of the Civil Court to establish his own right in the disputed property and on that basis to take action to change the Patta in his name to his own property. The Complainant has filed this complaint to cancel the Patta and cancel the sub-division on the disputed property for which he is one of the co-sharer and bringing back to the old condition of Survey no. without paying Service charges is not maintainable. Therefore, it is prayed that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 

12        Point for consideration

 

            The Complainant has Marked Exhibits A1 to A16 along with Proof Affidavit. No Proof Affidavit filed by the 1^st Opposite Party. 2^nd Opposite Party Set-Exparte.

 

1.         Whether the Complaint is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act?

2.         Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service?

3.         Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed in the complaint?

 

Point No.1

           

            The Complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties Revenue Authorities for deficiency of services. On perusing the exhibits filed by the Complainant it is perceived that a Partition deed was effected between the complainant, his mother and his two brothers. The property exclusively belonged to the complainant’s mother Pachaiammal. As per the clause in the Registered Partition Deed it is clearly stated that on her demise her share shall be exclusively divided among her legal heirs i.e., the complainant and his two brothers. The S.F no. 239/3C measuring 0.65 cent and S.F.no.235/9C measuring 0.21 cent total 0.86 cent of the A Schedule property was in exclusive possession of the Pachaiammal. After her demise on 11/05/1988 the partition came into effect, all her three sons became the co-sharers of her ‘A’ schedule properties as per law.  All the co sharers were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the S.F. No. 235/9C, until it was found that one of the co- sharer Kannaiyan’s wife Sumathi and daughter Rani had Sub-divided and created Patta in their name for the (old) S.F. No. 235/9C 0.21 cent sub –divided into (New) 235/9C1 with an extent of 0.285 cent Patta no. 3203. In the same manner another co-sharer Kaliyaperumal son Shankar, Latha, Gokul, Gopal had Sub-divided and created Patta in their name for the (old) S.F. no.235/9c  sub –divided into (New) 235/9C2 with an extent of 0.565 cent Patta no.3166. The Exhibits reveals that the complainant approached the Revenue authorities In- Person and through Post to cancel the sub division of new survey no.’s and bring back to old Survey no.. and to cancel the individual Patta and issue Joint Patta.  

 

This Commission opines that according to various Catena of Judgments by the Apex Court, the Consumer Commission has no powers to deal with Title and Mutation of Records pertaining to Revenue Authorities.  The Judgement of the Honourable National Commission ,reported in 2016NCJ564(NC) in the matter of K.Mohanasundaram  vs K.U. Gopalakrishnan Nair the National Commission has held that complaint under Consumer Protection Act against the functioning of Revenue Department is not maintainable”. The above judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In F.A. No.208/2018 SCDRC, Chennai, has clearly cited that issuing Patta and surveying the land would be a subject of several disputed questions either with the co-owners of the land or its neighbors. Even if the complainant has paid necessary fee for surveying and issuing Patta for the land the same will not give rise to the cause of action to bring the matter within the ambit of the relationship of Consumer and Service Provider between the complainant and the opposite party. Even if assuming the title is clear and sufficient fees are paid, when the revenue authorities have not come forward to survey the land and issue Patta the complainant has to approach the appropriate legal forum in accordance with the law applicable to it by initiating a litigation impleading the concerned Government Official as a party but not before this Consumer Commission. Further the litigation where the land dispute is involved can never be a subject matter of the Consumer Commission.

 

            This commission opines that it was well settled by the number of decisions made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Tamil Nadu State Commission  that the Consumer Protection act has limited scope, in the sense it would adjudicate the disputes between the Consumers Vs Service Providers. When the statutory authorities who are performing their duties are not considered as service providers and hence no complaint could be filed against them under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

            Catena of Judgements relating to when the Statutory Authorities who are performing their duties are not considered as service providers then no complaint could be filed against them under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

1, The District Collector Ariyalur

Vs

K. Malairaja and others

2. Mrs. Vijaya

Vs

The District Collector, Theni

3. F.A. No. 283/2007

Tahsildar Jayamkondan Taluk

Vs

Lakshmi

4. Tahsildar Cuddalore

Vs

Kanakavalli and another.

 

Hence, with the above observations, it is clear that this Complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission and does not come within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. Therefore Point No 1. Is answered.

 

Point No.2 & 3:

 

Regarding the issues involved in the Complaint and its maintainability is answered in Point No.1. The Complainant has filed Exhibit  A16  dated on 07/02/2018 belatedly which reveals that the Tahsildar has Clubbed the New Survey No.’s 235/9C1, 235/9C2 to Old Survey no. 235/9c after due verifying the available records and had  issued clubbing Patta order copy on 07/12/2018, hence the purpose of the complaint has been resolved. The Revenue authorities have complied the queries of the complainant, the complainant should have withdrawn the case as soon as the order was issued by the Tahsildar but he had failed to do so, instead he has filed the complaint to claim compensation for mental agony from the opposite parties. Therefore this commission opines that the Revenue Authorities have not committed any deficiency of service. Hence the complaint is dismissed. Therefore Point No.2&3 stands dismissed,

 

 

In the result the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.

 

 

Typed by Member II corrected by Steno and Pronounced by us in the open commission, on Thursday the 13^th day of March 2023.

 

 

 

 

N.BALU. B.A.B.L                           V.LAVANYA B.A.B.L                         V. RAMARAJ. M.L., PhD.

  MEMBER I                                         MEMBER II                                               PRESIDENT

 

Complainant Side Exhibits

 

S.No.	Date	Description	Remarks
Ex-A1	11/06/1979	Partition deed	Xerox
Ex-A2	30/04/2018	Death certificate	Original
Ex-A3	22/03/2018	Computer Patta	Online copy
Ex-A4	21/05/2018	RPAD to Tahsildar Sendurai	Xerox copy
Ex-A5	21/05/2018	RPAD to RDO	Xerox copy
Ex-A6	02/07/2018	GDP to District Collector	Xerox copy
Ex-A7	12/07/2018	RPAD to District Collector,Ariyalur RDO,Tahsildar Sendurai.	Typed copy
Ex-A8	30/05/2018	AD Card from Tahsildar Sendurai	Original
	31/05/2018	AD Card from RDO	Original
Ex-A9	12/07/2018	AD Card  from District Collector Ariyalur, Tahsildar Ariyalur	Original
Ex-A10	13/07/2018	AD Card from Tahsildar Sendurai,RDO Udayarpalayam	Original
Ex-A11	28/06/18	Letter issued by the Tahsildar to the complainant	Original
Ex-A12	23/07/2018	Letter issued by the RDO Udayarpalayam to the complainant	Original
Ex-A13	07/12/2018	Letter issued by the Tahsildar , Sendurai	Original
Ex-A14	22/11/2018	Cancellation order of sub division	Xerox copy
Ex-A15	12/06/2018	Computer Patta no.3407	Online Copy
Ex-A16	07/12/2018	Letter issued by the Tahsildar  Sendurai	Xerox

 

1^st Opposite Party Exhibits:- NIL

 

Complainant side Witness:-    Mr. Gopal (Complainant)

 

1^st Opposite side Witness: -     NIL

 

 

 

 

N.BALU. B.A.B.L                          V.LAVANYA  B.A.B.L                         V. RAMARAJ. M.L.,PhD.

  MEMBER  I                                         MEMBER II                                               PRESIDENT