REKHA GUPTA

Revision Petition No. 4875 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 27.9.2013, passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (short, “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.817 of 2011.

2.       The facts of the present case as per the respondent/complainant are that the respondent is a resident of Village Dholavas, Teh. Lalsot and his land is situated at Village Ramsar and Dholavas.  He is disabled and member of Schedule Tribes.

3.       The respondent made an application for grant of seven and half HP agricultural connection in his land at Village Ramsar in the office of the petitioner/opposite party no.2 (before the District Forum) on 1.9.1993 and also deposited the fees as per rules.  On the maturity of his application as per serial the petitioner issued a demand notice no.166 dated 10.4.2008 for a sum of Rs.22,260/- which amount was deposited by the respondent in the office of the petitioner vide receipt no.245 on 8.5.2008.  Thereafter, the respondent moved an application in the office of the petitioner to shift the said connection from his land at Ramsar to Dholavas and also deposited a sum of Rs.75/- vide receipt no.24560133 dated 13.5.2008.  On this application orders for shifting the connection from Ramsar to Dholavas were passed and shifting charges of Rs.75/- were recovered from the respondent.  From this, it was clear that shifting orders had been passed by the petitioner and shifting charges had been deposited.

4.       Inspite of passing the orders of shifting and getting the amount deposited, neither the connection had been given nor the connection had been shifted from Ramsar to Dholavas.  Thus, in this way there was a grave deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner.

5.       The petitioner vide its letter no.1673 dated 29.5.2008 which was received by the respondent on 3.6.2008 had informed the respondent that since he had sold the land in Khasra No.42, Ramsar his application for transfer of connection from Ramsar to Dholavas was rejected.  The said letter of petitioner was completely illegal and improper because till date the respondent was recorded as khatedar in the revenue record of Vill. Ramsar from which proved that the letter of rejection sent by petitioner was baseless, untrue and had been sent without verifying the record.

6.       The petitioner in their written statement before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dausa (short, ‘District Forum’) stated as follows :-

“1. The complainant has not mentioned in this para that on 1.9.1993 he has applied for an agricultural electric connection in which Khasra no. of land at Vill. Ramsar.  The pleadings made in this para are not correct.  Because on 1.9.1993 the Balu Ram S/o Sharvan Meena has applied for an agricultural electric connection in the well situated in khasra no.42 of the Vill. Ramsar by Balu Ram has sold that above agricultural land referred Khasra no.42 to Gobind Singh s/o Adial Singh, Tikam Bhai wd/o Kalyan Singh, Gopal Singh, Gobind Singh sons of Adial Singh, Prema wd/o Madho Singh Rajput.  Thereafter, that land was sold by them to Manna Lal, Kanihya Lal, Sant Kumar, Harinarayan, Prabhu Dayal r/o Vill. Bar Karol, Teh. Sanganar Distt. Jaipur.  In this way on the above in the land of the above said khasra no.42 continues to be possessed by Manna Lal & Ors. and they are irrigating the land and they have deposited the demand note amount of Rs.22,260/- on 8.5.2008 in the office of the opposite party.  Because the purchasers have not got transferred the connection in their name, therefore, the demand note of that agricultural connection was issued in the name of Balu Ram.  On the application filed by the complainant for shifting of the agricultural connection from Ramsar to Salavas in the office of the opposite party on 13.5.2008, only an application fees of Rs.75/- were deposited in the office of opposite party no.2. No demand notice has been issued by the office of the opposite party no.2 in this regard.  Because Balu Ram s/o Sarvan Meena is not in possession of agricultural land in Khasra No.42 and the same has been sold by him, therefore, the purchasers have obtained all the title and rights in this land.  The complainant cannot get the electric connection shifted to any other place. Remaining facts are mentioned in additional pleas.

The demand note amount has not been deposited by the complainant in the office of the opposite party no.2 and the shifting charges of Rs.75/- deposited by the complainant in the office of opposite party no.2 do not entitle him to get the connection shifted as per provisions of Agricultural Connection Rules, 2004 and the connection cannot be shifted as not being according to rules because the Khasra nos. at Salavas in which he wants to get connection shifted as other purchasers are in possession of that land.  Therefore, without their agreeing to shift the connection.  Details are given in the additional pleas.

The letter dated 21.5.2008 bearing no.1673 sent by the opposite party no.2 to the complainant that is correct because the complainant have already sold in Khasra no.42, Ramsar, therefore, he cannot get the said connection shifted from Ramasar to Dholavas.  It is also denied that the name of the complainant is recorded in the revenue record of land in khasra no.42 but presently the land in khasra no.42 in mutated in the name of Manna Lal, Kanhaiya Lal, Sant Kumar, Harinarayan, Prabhu Dayal s/o Ram Kalayan caste Meena r/o Bar Karol, Tehsil Sangner, Distt., Jaipur.  The remaining pleas are mentioned in additional pleas.

The opposite party has not recovered any amount as shifting charges but have received only Rs.75/- as fees of shifting application.  On the basis of the said shifting application fees, the complainant does not fall in the definition of consumer till the demand note is issued to him and amount of demand note is deposited by him, till then he does not fall in the category of consumer.  There is no legal mistake on the part of the opposite party in rejecting the application of the complainant for shifting the connection.  Rather the rejection of the application for shifting of the electric connection is according to law.  Since, the complainant has misled the opposite party and has concealed the actual facts while moving an application for shifting of the connection therefore, it is not necessary to give an opportunity of hearing or evidence to the complainant.  Remaining pleas have been mentioned in remaining additional pleas.

By not shifting the electric connection from Ramsar to Dholavas have not committed any deficiency for service nor there is any negligence or carelessness on the part of the opposite parties.  Remaining facts are mentioned in the additional pleas.

ADDITIONAL PLEAS

    The present complaint is also liable to be dismissed on the point of resjudicata because the complainant has filed a suit for permanent injunction with an application titled as Balu Ram Vs. Asst. Engineer JVVNL before the Civil Judge cum Judicial Nagistrate on these very grounds in which the opposite parties have filed their reply on 7.6.2008.  Thus, if two complaints/suit in respect of the same facts are pending before two different courts and when the matter is pending in a civil court, then the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the same matter. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset.

That after the sale of land in Khasra no.42 on which the agricultural connection has been applied, the seller looses his right of connection which accrues to the purchaser.  But the complainant after selling his land has presented an application for shifting of the electric connection by depositing Rs.75/- on 13.5.2008 as application fees but the complainant cannot get the connection shifted legally from that place to other place.  Since the complainant has not suffered any financial loss or mental tension etc. therefore he is not entitled for any compensation.”

7.       District Forum vide their order dated 22.2.2011, while dismissing the complaint and observed that ;

       “The question to be considered is whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in not shifting the connection from Vill.Ramsar to Vill. Salavas.  It yes, what relief is the complainant entitled for.

The complainant has applied for agricultural electric connection in the land situated at Vill. Ramsar and after that application he has sold the said land to another person.  On issuing of demand notice by the opposite parties he has deposited the amount of demand and also made an application for shifting the connection from Ramsar to  Vill. Salavas in the office of opposite parties and alongwith the said application he has also deposited a fees of Rs.75/- with the application.

    In which he has applied for agricultural electric connection and out that khasra how much land has been sold by him to another person.  The complainant has also not written in his complaint as to in which khasra in Salavas he wants the electric connection to be shifted.  Complainant has not made any clear statement in his complaint.  The complainant has sold that land in Ramsar to another person for which he has applied electric connection, therefore, according to the rules the said connection cannot be shifted to any other agricultural land.  The complainant has only deposited application fees for shifting and has not deposited any amount of demand or shifting fees and the application for shifting has been rejected by the opposite parties. 

On the basis of the above discussion we reach the conclusion that by not shifting the electric connection and rejecting the application for shifting opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service.  The compliant is liable to be dismissed.”

8.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission, vide their order dated 27.9.2013, while allowing the appeal observed that :-

    “The day on which the electric connection was given the land was in the name of the complainant and he was khatedar owner and if he wants to shift this connection to Salavas Khatedari, it is his right.  The objections which are being raised by the respondents infact should have been raised by the purchasers who are affected by this.  The respondents have unnecessary raised difficulties in this matter.  The Ld.District Forum has dismissed the complaint on the ground that it is not clear as to which portion of the field has been sold by the complainant.  The sale of the part is not important.  The electric connection was allotted in the name of the complainant and thereafter, if sells his land even then he has the right to get his connection shifted.

    As a result of the discussion above, we think the complaint of the complainant is worth accepting. The order of the District Forum being fit for setting aside is ordered to be set aside and the complaint of the complainant is ordered to be accepted and it is ordered that the connection of the complainant allotted to him be shifted to VIll. Salavas in the land of which the complainant is khatedar.  He will be also entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental tension and Rs.5,000/- towards the litigation costs.”

9.       Hence, the revision petition.

10.     The main grounds for the revision petition are that ;

• Because the Hon’ble State Commission has misread the facts of the case and has passed an order without looking into record.
• Because the Hon’ble State Commission has wrongly held that no proof of sale has been filed whereas the jambandis of 1993 and 2008 have been filed which show the sale purchase and sanction of mutation in the name of the purchasers. 
• Because the State Commission has failed to see through the conspiracy of the respondent who is illegally and with an ulterior motive is claiming the deposit of Rs.22,260/- the amount of demand notice which has infact been deposited by the present owners in possession.
• Because the State Commission has failed to appreciate that Mannna Lal while submitting his application cum agreement has also filed the report of the Partwari which shows that the co-sharer in khasra no.42 in which the respondent was not the co-sharer.
• Because the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the respondent has purchased a very small portion of land i.e. 9/839 share in khasra no.42 on 7.6.2008 after the release of the connection to Manna Lal who were the owner in possession at that time. The said portion of land purchased by respondent does not need any electric connection for irrigation.
• Because the State Commission has failed to see through the conspiracy of the respondent who wanted to take benefit of the fact that the connection was in his name as no specific request was made by the then owner who was in possession to transfer the connection in his name.
• Because the State Commission has wrongly held that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner in defending the case.  Since, the application for shifting the connection was made to the petitioner and the connection could not be shifted, therefore, the application has to be rejected and the same being rejected by the petitioner it was the duty of the petitioner to defend the same. 
• Because the State Commission failed to appreciate the rule 14 of the Agriculture Policy of 2004 according to which the electric connection goes with the land when sold and the purchaser is entitled to have the same.
• Because the State Commission has wrongly held that the connection will not go with sale of land.
• Because the State Commission has wrongly held that the purchasers are necessary parties and if so it was the duty of the respondent to implead him as a part and not the petitioner as the complaint has been filed by the respondent.
• Because the orders passed by the State Commission are against the actual facts and documents on record which the State Commission has failed to interpret correctly.

11.     We have heard the learned counsels for the petitioner and the respondent and carefully gone through the record.

12.     It is an admitted fact that the respondent had applied for agricultural connection on his land situated at Vill. Ramsar on 1.9.1993.  At that time, he owned the land. Subsequently, demand notice dated 10.4.2008 was issued for depositing Rs.22,260/- which amount was deposited on 8.5.2008 by the respondent according to him and as per the petitioner by the present owner Manna Lal. Thereafter, the respondent made an application for shifting the electric connection which stood in his name from its present location Ramsar to agricultural land situated at Vill. Dholavas for which he paid application fees of Rs.75/-.  The petitioner, however, did not issue demand notice and did not shift the connection because the respondent was not in possession of the said agricultural land of khasra no.42 where the connection had been given since the same had been sold by him.  Therefore, he could not get the said connection shifted from Ramsar to Dholavas as per provisions of Rule 14 of the Agricultural Connection Rules, 2004. The electric connection cannot be shifted as it is not attached to the owner but the land and the purchaser was now entitled to have the same.

13.     The respondent, however, has alleged in the complaint that the land is still in his name in the revenue record. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the report from concerned Patwari dated 25.4.2008 which identifies the owner of the land as Manna Lal, Kanhaiya Lal, Sant Kumar, Harinarayan, Prabhu Dayal S/o Ram Kalyan Meena.

14.     State Commission while allowing the appeal has observed that “the objections which are being raised by the respondents infact should have been raised by the purchasers who are affected by this.”  The State Commission has right observed that the purchasers should have been made necessary parties and in the interest of justice, the respondent should have impleaded them as party as their right would be affected by the transfer of the electric connection.  The respondent has not only failed to implead them as party to the complaint but has also not placed on record any affidavit or “No objection” from the present owners of the land to transfer of the connection as sought by the respondent.  The respondent, thus, is trying to take advantage of the fact that the connection continues in his name, as the present owners of the land have not got it transferred in their name, and is trying to go behind their back to get the connection on the land sold to them transferred from its present location to the small piece of land subsequently purchased by him.

15.     Hence, the revision petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside.  We confirm the order of the District Forum that “by not shifting the electric connection from Ramsar to Dholavas, petitioner has not committed any deficiency of service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.”