KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.283/2017

JUDGEMENT DATED : 19.11.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.101/2016 on the file of DCDRC, Idukki)

PRESENT:

APPELLANTS:

(by Adv. B.A. Krishnakumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

(by Adv. Nithya S.)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C.No.101/2016 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Idukki (for short ‘the District Commission’). The respondent is the complainant before the District Commission.

          2.       The complainant contended that the complainant was in possession and enjoyment of 60 cents of landed property in Survey No.161/1 of Idukki Village.  In the year 1196, the complainant applied for patta and after enquiry, the revenue authorities registered LA case No.AP 52/96.  Thereafter, on 21.12.2000, the 2^nd opposite party issued the order for the assignment of patta and the complainant deposited the amount.  The 2^nd opposite party prepared a location sketch and mahazar of the property.  However, the patta was not issued.  When contacted, the opposite parties 1 to 4 gave a reply that the files were missing.  In the said circumstances, the complainant alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          3.       The opposite parties filed objection admitting the registration of LA case No. AP 52/96 and issuance of assignment order on 21.12.2000.  However, since some fake pattas were issued during the year 2001, there was a direction to issue pattas only after proper verification.  All the pattas issued from the Village Office, Idukki, in the year 2001 were fake and the files were taken into custody by the Vigilance.  The 4^th opposite party could issue patta only after conducting further survey, based on the relevant rules.  The notification of the Government is also necessary for issuing the patta. 

          4.       Both sides did not adduce any oral evidence.  On the side of the complainant, Exhibits P1 series to P3 series were marked. The opposite parties did not adduce any documentary evidence also. 

          5.       After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties 2 to 4 to issue patta to the complainant in respect of the property mentioned in Exhibit P1 within three months from the date of receipt of the said order, failing which the opposite parties should pay jointly an amount of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) per day to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

          6.       Heard both sides. Perused the records.

          7.       The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the District Commission had exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a direction to the opposite parties to issue patta in respect of the property of the complainant and in the said circumstances, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

8.  The Hon’ble Apex Court in  Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh (2004 KHC 705 : 2004 (5) SCC 65: AIR 2004 SC 2141) held that where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non - exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission / Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation. If the Commission / Forum is satisfied that a complainant is entitled to compensation for loss or injury or for harassment or mental agony or oppression, then after recording a finding it must direct the authority to pay compensation and then also direct recovery from those found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour.

          9.       In Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority vs. Vidya Chetal and Another (2019 (4) KHC 823 : AIR 2019 SC 4357) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Consumer Commissions have jurisdiction to deal with the deficiency in service in respect of the function by the statutory authorities other than the sovereign functions. 

          10.     The Hon’ble Apex Court further held in Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Supra) that no functionary in exercise of statutory power can claim immunity, except to the extent protected by the statute itself and the public authorities acting in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions oppressively are accountable for their behaviour before the authorities created under the statute. 

11.  There is no gainsaying that all statutory obligations are not sovereign functions.  Although all sovereign functions/services are regulated and performed under constitutional/statutory instruments, yet there are other functions, though might be statutory, but cannot be called as sovereign functions. These sovereign functions do not contain the consumer-service provider relationship in them and are not done for a consideration.

12.  Coming to the case on hand, it was contended by the appellants that all the pattas issued from the Village Office, Idukki, in the year 2001 were fake and the files were taken into custody by the Vigilance and hence the 4^th opposite party could issue patta only after conducting further survey, based on the relevant rules. It was also contended by the appellants that the notification of the Government was also necessary for issuing the patta.  This being the fact, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of respondents 1 to 4 in the matter of issuing patta in favour of the complainant. Since no deficiency in service could be found from the materials on record against opposite parties 2 to 4, we are of the considered view that the District Commission was in error in issuing the order directing the opposite parties to issue patta in favour of the complainant. 

          13.     It is also apposite to note that the District Commission directed the opposite parties 2 to 4 to issue patta in respect of the property of the complainant, which in our considered view is a sovereign function of the State, having no consumer-service provider relationship in it and hence the said direction cannot be sustained in view of the ratio in Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra) and Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (Supra).   Since      the direction to issue patta is an intrusion into the sovereign function, we are of the view that the order impugned cannot be sustained and consequently, we set aside the same.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed, the order impugned stands set aside and the complaint stands dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. 

SL