SMT. S. S. ALI
The complainant purchased a land under Mouza Khadal Gobra, J.L. No. 86, L.R. Kh. No. 302, Plot No. 1074 -Hal- & Sabek 982, area 2.7 dec. -Eastern portion- out of 27 dec. from OP by a registered Deed of Sale being no. 1656 dt. 14.03.2012 against the highest market price amounting to Rs. 2,70,000.00. After purchase of the said land, complainant filed a Mutation case u-s 50 of W.B.L.R. Act before the B.L.& L.R.O., Ramnagar-I on 26-04-2012 for correction of name in the L.R.R.O.R. which hearing date was fixed on 26-11-2013. After hearing of the said mutation case the complainant came to know from B.L.& L.R.O., that OP was not the legal owner of the said land; he had fraudulently and illegally transferred the same to complainant after obtaining Rs. 2,70,000.00; the Sale Deed no. 1656 dt. 14-03-2012 executed by the OP in favour of the complainant against highest market price Rs. 2,70,000.00 was fraudulently obtained by the OP; that the OP is not a legal owner and he had no right to transfer the same; after observing all the facts, the complainant made oral request-demands to the OP for purchase amount with interest on 27-11-2013, but the OP took time for 3 months to repay the said amount, but on the expiry of 3 months, OP has not paid a single pie to the complainant and has withheld the amount without any jurisdiction, hence the instant case being filed by the complainant against the OP.
In support of his complaint, the complainant filed Xerox copy of Registered Deed of Sale being no. 1656-2012 dt. 14-03-2012, Xerox copy of Notice of Mutation case being no. 4740-12 dt. 26-04-2012, Xerox copy of searching against plot no. 1074 -Hal- from B.L.&L.R.O.
OP entered appearance and filed his written version and also WNA. OP in paragraph 7 of W.V. states that it is false statement made by the complainant regarding filing of any mutation case u-s 50 of the W.B.L.R. Act before the B.L.& L.R.O., . The OP in paragraph 20, 21 and 22 of the WV states that 13.5 dec. out of 27 dec. of land of plot no. 1074 of Mouza Khadalogobra belonged to Nityananda Jana. Accordingly, the said land has been recorded in the name of Nityananda Jana under Khatian No. 302. On the death of Nityananda Jana, his two sons Atul, Bimal three daughters Subhasini, Sarojini and Kamalini inherited the same in equal share. Subhasini Jana, one of the daughters of Nityananda Jana inherited 2.7 dec. of land out of 27 dec. of plot no. 1074 Mouza Khadalgobra under P.S. Ramnagar from his father and was possessing the same. On the death of Subhasini, her land was inherited by her four sons, Goursundar, Ganapati, Gopal and Ganesh and four daughters Ganadaini, Gitangali, Gayatri and Giribala in equal share. All the heirs of Subhasini i.e. Goursundar and others transferred 2.7 dec. of land to the Op by a Deed of Sale being no. I-06587 of 2010 executed on 14-03-2012 and the Op sold the aforesaid land measuring an area 2.7 dec. of the suit plot to the complainant by a Deed of Sale executed on 14-03-2012 and delivered possession to the complainant herein and states that the complaint made by the complainant is totally false, baseless and illegal and he never transferred any land to the complainant by fraudulent means. The Op takes the plea that the complainant is not consumer of the OP as per Consumer Protection Act and as such, this petition is totally out of jurisdiction.
We have gone through the documents and the pleadings advanced by the complainant as well as OP. There are three points for consideration.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer u-s 2 1d- of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as sought for?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1 &2.
We take up all the 2 points together for the sake of convenience of discussion.
On perusal of the documents and the pleadings made by the complainant and OP and also considering the arguments made by the ld. Lawyer on behalf of the complainant as well as OP, we find that the dispute between the complainant and the OP is totally civil in nature. It is clear that the complainant purchased a land from the Op and there is no relationship of a consumer between the complainant and the OP. OP argued that the Consumer Protection Act is a latter Act and it received the assent of the President subsequently and it is not in derogation of any other law. The provisions of this Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Dispute raised in this particular case is purely civil in nature and the same is a dispute of title and whether the title has been transferred on good faith or fraudulently, is to be decided by a Court of Civil-Criminal nature. As such, the petition filed by the complainant before this forum is without any jurisdiction. It is held that the Act does not bar an aggrieved consumer from seeking Redressal before the Redressal Forum constituted under the Consumer protection Act, which is a special statute enacted by Parliament for specific purposes for providing a speedy, cheap and efficacious trial, but the relief which a person can get in Civil Court only, cannot be adjudicated by this forum. The remedy provided in the Consumer Protection Act, are not in derogation of the provisions of common law, remedies by way of a suit or other remedies provided under other enactments.
Apart from that the complainant could not produce any cogent prima facie material to show that the OP had no title over the disputed land at the time of selling the same to the complainant. Mere refusal by the BLRO to mutate -record- the name of the complainant at the time of mutation by saying, that the OP had no title over the said land as alleged by the complainant, does not prima facie prove that the OP had no title over the land in question at the time of transfer to the complainant. Moreover, there is no dispute that the complainant got possession of the said land from the OP after purchase.
As such, we come to the conclusion that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2d of the Consumer Protection Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, thus, we find that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such a case and to take any decision as to whether there is any title in respect of the land in question or not which is totally civil in nature. In our view, remedy as to dispute over the title of the said land lies in Civil Court. That being the position, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought for.
All the points are thus decided against the complainant and the instant complaint case is dismissed without any cost.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP. Parties do bear their respective cost.
