BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                                                                    Dated this the 18^th of April 2011

PRESENT

                                                   SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                                                                         SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                                                                         SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.198/2010

(Admitted on 17.07.2010)

Sri.K.Shivarama Rao,

Aged about 46 years,

So. K.Gopalakrishna Rao,

Advocate,

RA. Sharade, Near Kadri Rocks,

Kadri, Mangalore.                              …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Mrs.M.S.Surekha).

          VERSUS

1. Land Acquisition Officer,

K.I.A.D.B., Baikampady,

Mangalore.

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri.Ramakrishna Rai).

2. Sulochana Shetty,

Aged about 71 years,

W/o. Mahabala Shetty,

R/A. ‘Kinnimajalu Bedu’,

Ira Village, Bantwal Taluk.                  ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri.K.S.N. Rajesh).

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant stated that, he is the owner of the land comprised in survey No.174/8 measuring 2.64 acres acquired by Karnataka Indusrial Area Development Board (herein after called ‘KIADB’), Baikampady.  It is stated that, the entire 2.64 acre was tenanted property, vested with Government as on 01.03.1974 on the advent of Karnataka Land Reforms Act.  Out of the aforesaid 2.64 acres of land an extent of 1.63 acres was granted in favour of Sri.Narayana Shetty, 50 cents granted to Sri.K.Rama Rao, 46 cents was granted to Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Rao, 5 cents were granted jointly in favour of Narayana Shetty, K.Rama Rao and K.Gopalakrishna Rao who are the agricultural tenants under the Opposite Party No.2 in a common order passed by the Land Tribunal in favour of the Complainant.  It is submitted that, the aforesaid original grantee is expired.  Sri.Rama Rao who was the elder brother of Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Rao has no issues and he was under the care and custody of the Complainant during his life time.  The Complainant is the son of Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Rao.  Sri.Rama Rao and Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Rao died leaving behind their Last Will and Testament which was executed by them, where under they have bequeathed their property in favour of the Complainant.  The Complainant became the owner of the property left by them.  After their death, the Complainant has been in actual possession.  The Opposite Party No.2 is residing in Kasaragod District since more than 30 years.  On coming to know about the acquisition of property the Complainant made claim in respect of acquired land in survey No.174/8 stood in the name of Rama Rao and Gopalakrishna Rao as per letter dated 30.01.2010.  The Complainant came to know that in respect of said 1.01 acre of land in survey No.174/8 was fraudulently claimed and taken by the Opposite Party No.2 the erstwhile landlady on the strength of erroneous computerized RTC issued by Taluk Office.  The earlier handwritten RTC shows the name of K.Rama Rao and Gopalakrishna Rao. 

It is stated that, Mrs.Sulochana Shetty i.e., Opposite Party No.2 could not have claimed any amount in respect of the above said property as she is quite aware about the fact of grant of land under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Opposite Party No.1 who is a public body and service provider has acted in a manner of unfair trade practice, due to the deficiency in nature and manner of performance on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant put to unnecessary loss and hardship and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.9,93,333/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of acquisition till actual payment and also to pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel but not filed version before this FORA till this date nor led any evidence. 

Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their counsel filed version raised a contention that, the Complainant is not a consumer and this FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

          Apart from that, it is stated that, 1.1 cents of land along with other lands of Ira Village of Bantwal Taluk were notified for acquisition under the KIAD Act after giving notice to the concerned parties taken possession of the acquired land.  It is submitted that, the latest RTC as on the date of acquisition of the property was standing in the name of Opposite Party No.2 and accordingly  after perusing revenue record, the compensation of Rs.10,10,000/- by cheque dated 30.11.2009 drawn on Corporation Bank, the said payment was made during the course of official duty as officer.  The claim dated 20.02.2010 was received by the Opposite Party No.1 much after the payment made to Opposite Party No.2.  After receipt of the letter from the Complainant, this Opposite Party has issued a notice to Opposite Party No.2 and this Opposite Party has taken steps to recover the amount from Opposite Party No.2.  The Opposite Party No.2 with malafide intention committed fraud and deceived the Opposite Party No.1 by receiving the compensation of Rs.10,10,000/-.  It is submitted that, the subject dispute is purely a Civil Dispute and this FORA has no jurisdiction and it cannot be decided in a summary proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and this FORA has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

3. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri.K.Shivarama Rao (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him.   Ex C1 to C7 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure in detail.   One Sri.S.Krishna Murthy (RW1), Special Land Acquisition Officer of the Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him.  Opposite Party No.1 produced 3 (three) documents as listed in the annexure in detail.   Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 produced notes of arguments along with citations.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:

                       Point No.(i): Negative.

                       Point No.(ii) to (iv): As per the final order.  

Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) to (iv):

In the instant case, the Complainant came up with a complaint stating that, the immovable agricultural property comprised in survey No.174/8 of Ira Village Bantwal Taluk measuring 2.64 acres has been acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (herein after called ‘KIADB’), Baikampady, Dakshina Kannada District, Mangalore.  The above said property was tenanted property, out of the above said property 46 cents was granted to one Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Rao and 50 cents of land granted to one Sri.K.Rama Rao and 5 cents of land granted jointly in favour of K.Rama Rao and K.Gopalakrishna Rao along with one Narayana Shetty.  The above said immovable property was granted under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act in a common order passed by the Land Tribunal Bantwal Taluk in TNC No.6921, 13075, 11659 / 74-75.  The original grantees i.e., Sri.Rama Rao who was the elder brother of Gopalakrishna Rao has no issues. The Complainant is the son of K.Gopalakrishna Rao, the above said Rama Rao and Gopalakrishna Rao died leaving behind their last WILL and testament in favour of the Complainant.  The Complainant became the owner of the property left by them.  It is stated that, on coming to know about the acquisition of property the Complainant made claim in respect of acquired land in survey No.174/8 stood in the name of Sri. Rama Rao and Gopalakrishna Rao as per the letter dated 30.01.2010.  The Complainant came to know that the compensation amount in respect of the said 1.01 acre of land in survey No.174/8 was fraudulently claimed and taken by Opposite Party No.2, the erstwhile landlady on the strength of erroneous computerized RTC issued by Taluk Office.  It is further stated that, the earlier handwritten RTC shows the name of K.Rama Rao and      Sri.Gopalakrishna Rao on the strength of Land Tribunal order.  It is stated that, the Opposite Party No.2 i.e., Sulochana Shetty should not have claimed any amount in respect of said property as she has no right in the above said immovable property.  The KIADB by obtaining the computerized RTC made payment to the Opposite Party No.2 by overlooking the documents available before them and stated that the Opposite Party No.1 without paying the awarded amount to the Complainant who is a rightful owner the same has been paid to a wrong person.  Due to their deficiency, the Complainant put to hardship hence came up with this complaint. 

On the contrary, the Opposite Party No.1 raised a contention that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and at the same time it is stated that, the Complainant is not a consumer to entertain this complaint.  Apart from the above, the Opposite Party No.1 stated that, they have taken steps to recover the amount from the Opposite Party No.2. 

On scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, we find that, this FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain this type of complaint because the Complainant is not a consumer.  It is purely a civil dispute involving the title to the property in question between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2.  If at all there is a dispute with regard to the payment of the awarded amount under the Land Acquisition, the Complainant ought to have approached the Civil Court under the Land Acquisition Act and not before this FORA.  We further observed that, the Opposite Party No.1 i.e., Land Acquisition Officer acted in accordance with the provisions enacted under Land Acquisition Act.  If there is any dispute with regard to the title or the payment of the awarded amount the parties should approach the Civil Court wherein the Land Acquisition Act dealt in accordance with law and not before this FORA.

In view of the above observation, we hold that the Complainant is not a consumer and this FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  No order as to costs.                                                                                                        

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                          

ORDER

            The complaint is dismissed with a liberty to the Complainant to approach the Civil Court for proper remedy.  No order as to costs.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.

(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18^th day of April 2011.)

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE`

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri.K.Shivarama Rao – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 01.06.1990: Notarized copy of the WILL and Testament of Sri.K.Rama Rao.

Ex C2 – 09.05.1994: Notarized copy of the WILL and Testament of Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Rao.

Ex C3 – 09.02.2010: Copy of the notice along with acknowledgement.

Ex C4 – 20.02.2010: Copy of the notice along with acknowledgement.

Ex C5 -                  : Death certificate of K. Rama Rao,

Ex C6 -                   : Death certificate of K.Gopalakrishna Rao.

Ex C7 -              : Bunch of documents given by the Opposite Party No.1 under RTI Act containing Land Tribunal order and records for having paid the compensation amount to O. P No.2.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:

RW1 – Sri.S.Krishna Murthy, Special Land Acquisition Officer

                   of the Opposite Party No.1.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:    

Doc. No.1 – 07.02.2007: True copy of notification published in the official Gazette. 

Doc. No.2 – 07.05.2008: True copy of notification published in the official Gazette.

Doc. No.3 – 2006-2007: Certified copy of the RTC in the name of Sulochana.

Dated:18.04.2011                               PRESIDENT