Complaint filed on: 17.09.2016
Complaint Disposed on:14.06.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.98/2016
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
K.Nagaraju,
Manju shree Compound,
Kalyananagara, Vasanthapura
Post, Bangalore-560061.
(In Person)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. Assistant Director,
Land records,
District Commissioner Office.
Chikmagalur-577101.
2. Tahasildar,
Tarikere Taluk Office,
Tarikere-577228.
3. Survey Supervisor,
Tarikere Taluk Office,
Tarikere-577228.
4. Asst. Divisional Officer,
Tarikere Sub-Division,
Tarikere-577228.
(OP No.1 –Exparte)
(OP No.2 to 4 –In person)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos.1 to 4 alleging deficiency in service in not changing the khata into his name as per the earlier sale deed. Hence, prays for direction against Op Nos. 1 to 4 to change the present RTC and khata into his name as per the earlier sale deed along with compensation for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The father of the complainant one Sri.B.K.Kenchappa is owner of the land measuring 2.07 acres and had obtained a loan of Rs.2,250/- from Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, Tarikere in the year 1991-92, with respect to the said loan there is a endorsement in Revenue Department stating the encumbrance in M.R. No.16/96-97. There afterwards on 28.03.2009 they have cleared the loan and mortgage deed was cancelled as per the document No.2625/08-09, after the clearance of the loan as per the document No.728/2010-11 the father of the complainant became a registered owner of the said lands. Thereafter the complainant approached the Survey Department in order to obtain a mutation and to obtain RTC to the said lands, for which the Revenue Department Officers have informed that as per the Form No.5 it was registered in the name of Sri.B.K.Kenchappa as per the survey. There afterwards complainant verified the documents as per the sale deed, where he noticed that in survey No.180/2B it is mentioned that the father of the complainant is having only 1.31 acres including 3 guntas karab, but remaining 1.28 acres was not allotted to the father of the complainant. In this regard he found there are no records. Op Nos.1 to 4 have surveyed the lands and failed to notify that the father of the complainant is having 2.07 acres in survey No.180/2B, without any valid reason they have took away 1.28 acres from the complainant as per the land survey. Immediately, complainant wrote a letter under Right to Information Act to Ops to furnish the detailed documents with respect to the survey and also intimated the Op Nos.1 to 4 to change the khata and RTC in the name of the father of the complainant as per the earlier sale deed towards the land to the extent of 2.07 acres.
The complainant also wrote a letter to Lokayuktha with respect to the ill-legality done by Op Nos.1 to 4, for which the Lokayuktha office intimated the Ops to take needful action. But so far Ops have not taken any further action to give possession of the remaining lands to the complainant as per the earlier sale deed. Hence, complainant alleges deficiency in service against Op Nos.1 to 4 in not giving the remaining lands into his name in the Revenue records. Hence, prays for direction against Ops to change the khata into his name as per the earlier sale deed and also prays for compensation for deficiency in service.
3. After service of notice Op No.1 placed exparte and Op Nos.2 to4 appeared in person and filed a memo stating that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant has filed this complaint against the order of cancellation of the RTC in his name under 180/¦2p2 and complainant made the Survey Supervisor, Tariker Taluk as a party to the complaint with respect to the cancellation of the right over the property. The complainant has to prefer appeal before Karnataka Lands Revenue Department. Hence, the matter alleged by complainant not comes for their office for consideration. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.19 and Ops not appeared before this forum and filed any affidavit.
5. Heard the arguments from complainant side.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavit and documents produced by both complainant and Op No.2 to 4, we are of the opinion that the complainant alleges that the Revenue Department and Op Nos.2 to 4 have not provided right over the property to the extent of 2.07 acres situated in survey No.180/2B as per the earlier sale deed entered by complainant vide document No.728/2010-11 and also alleges that without considering the earlier sale deed the Op Nos.1 to 4 have made a survey of the land and provided only 1.31 acres against 2.07 acres to the father of the complainant in survey No.180/2B. Hence, alleges a deficiency in service on the part of Op Nos.1 to 4 in not taking consideration of the sale deed vide document No.728/2010-11 in favour of father of the complainant. But we considered the matter in hand is not comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act. We are of the opinion that the subject matter of the complainant is purely civil matter and this Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter, which related to civil in nature. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. At the same time, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority to get a remedy as sought. Hence, the complaint is dismissed for want of maintainability and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 14th day of June 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - True copy of Registered Sale Deed No.279/80-81.
Ex.P.2 - 2 RTC relating to Ex.P.1.
Ex.P.3 - Another Sale Deed No.1352/83-84.
Ex.P.4 - 2 RTC relating to Ex.P.3.
Ex.P.5 - True Copy of Sale Deed No.1015/84-85.
Ex.P.6 - RTC of survey No.180/2P4 relating to Ex.P.5.
Ex.P.7 - Loan extract.
Ex.P.8 - 2 tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.9 - Jaminu Hiduvali Pathra.
Ex.P.10 - 2 Survey Sketch.
Ex.P.11 - E.C. relating to Survey No.180.
Ex.P.12 - Letter regarding Borewell.
Ex.P.13 - Crop Certificate.
Ex.P.14 - Application to RTI.
Ex.P.15 - Letter by complainant to RTI.
Ex.P.16 - Reply Notice.
Ex.P.17 - Order of A.C & RTI Officer.
Ex.P.18 - Letter issued by Technical Asst. of D.C. & Loan record Asst.
Direction, Chikmagalur.
Ex.P.19 - Paper publication.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
NIL
Dated:14.06.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
