Date of Filing ::02-04-2012
Date of Disposal ::14-07-2015
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::ONGOLE
Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2015
PRESENT: Sri P.V. Krishna Murthy, B.A.,B.L., President
Sri K. UMAMAHESWARA RAO, M.A.,B.L., Member
C.C.No.9/2013
Isikalla Padmavathi,
W/o Venkateswarlu,
Aged 68 years,
D.No.6-308,
S.S.B. Nagar,
Revenue Colony,
Kurnool Road, Ongole,
Prakasam District. … Complainant
Vs.
1) The District Collector,
Prakasam District, Ongole.
2) The Tahsildar, Ongole,
Prakasam District. …Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on 03-07-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of T. Srilakhamma, Advocate for the Complainant and the Government Pleader for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:
ORDER
(ORDER BY Sri P.V. KRISHNA MURTHY, PRESIDENT)
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant underwent tubectomy operation in 1986 in Government Hospital. The complainant was granted patta for house site of 2 ½ cents. The site was not handed over to the complainant. The opposite parties informed the complainant that the dispute was pending in the Civil Court with regard to the site. When the complainant requested the opposite parties to handover the site, they informed that the possession of the site was given to others and that she will be provided with another site of same extent. However, this has not happened. The opposite parties were negligent in not giving possession of the land to the complainant. Hence, the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to allot site and pay compensation and costs.
2. The brief averments of the counter affidavit of the opposite party no.2 are as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable. The allegations made in the complaint are not correct. The averments of the complaint are denied. The land in S.No.146 of Ongole Village was classified as “Vagu Poramboke” as per village records. House site pattas were granted in Sub-Division No.146/1A (Ac.33-32 in 1976 vide D.K.No.992/85). Five cents was allotted to each beneficiary. There is no record about the grant of house site patta to the petitioner in the office. A copy of layout alone is available. House site pattas were granted to 36 persons vide D.K.No.6/97 in S.No.146/1A. But they were cancelled as per the report of the Mandal Surveyor. The house site pattas granted vide D.No.992/85 were restored. The petitioner has not raised any hut in the suit site land after grant of patta to her. Thus, she violated the conditions of patta. As per the records, one Kandula Devanandam, S/o Daniel is residing in Plot No.26 in S.No.146/1A. The boundaries of the Plot No.26 granted to the petitioner are not tallying on the ground. Grant of Patta to the petitioner did not arise. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.
3. Now the point for consideration is “Whether the opposite parties committed a deficiency of service?”
4. The complainant filed her affidavit and marked Exs.A1 and A4. On behalf of the opposite parties, second opposite party filed his affidavit. No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.
5. POINT:- The complaint is against the officials of the Government. The complaint is for a direction to the opposite parties to allot site of 2 ½ cents and for delivery of possession of it. She also claimed compensation for causing mental agony. The facts of the case are strange. The complainant was granted a patta of 2 ½ cents in S.No.146/1A. But, she was not given possession with clear boundaries. Her efforts to take possession failed due to non-cooperation of subordinates of the opposite parties. The opposite parties admitted grant of patta to the complainant long back. They contended that the record with regard to the grant of the same was lost in the office. The pattas granted in the proceedings D.K.No.6/97 were cancelled. The opposite parties contended further, that the complainant did not occupy the site allotted to her and as such, the subsequent beneficiaries, who were granted pattas, raised constructions. Therefore, the complainant is seeking grant of alternate patta of the same extent.
No doubt this is an unfortunate case. However, the complainant cannot be a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is a beneficiary of a scheme of the Government, which was implemented long back. The opposite parties contended that the earlier pattas were cancelled, pattas to the same land were distributed to others and that the subsequent beneficiaries are in possession of that land. It is clear that there is no land in that vicinity to be granted to the complainant. Grant of pattas is under the sovereign powers of the Government. It is not a service or providing of a service. The complainant has not purchased the site with her funds. There is no consideration in the above dealing between the parties. The complainant has not purchased any commodity for money or availed services of the opposite parties on payment of money. The complainant is not a consumer as defined by the Consumer Protection Act. Since the complainant is not a consumer, her request for giving a direction to the opposite parties, does not arise. It is for the opposite parties to consider the case of the complainant on sympathetic terms whenever they think of granting pattas in future. The same cannot be as of a right in favour of the complainant. Since there is no consumer dispute, the complaint is not maintainable. The point is held against the complainant.
6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 14th day of July, 2015.
Sd/-xxx Sd/-xxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:
P.W.1 12-09-2013 Smt.Isikalla Padmavathi, W/o Venkateswarlu,
aged 68 years, D.No.6-308, S.S.B. Nagar, Revenue Colony, Kurnool Road, Ongole.
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:
R.W.1 06-08-2013 Sri P.V. Subba Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu, aged
56 years, Hindu, Working as Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 The card of the complainant.
Ex.A2 14-07-1987 The patta issued to the complainant.
Ex.A3 09-05-2002 The representation filed by the complainant.
Ex.A4 02-11-2009 The representation given in grievance cell.
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOISTE PARTY:
-NIL-
Sd/-xxx
PRESIDENT
Copies to:
1) T. Srilakshamma, Advocate, Ongole.
2) Government Pleader, Ongole.
Date when free copy was issued:
//True Copy//
