This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri S.S.S.S.V.R.M.Raju, Advocate for the complainant and Sri Mavuri Sankara Rao (G.P.) Advocate for O.Ps. and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to issue pass books and title deeds in respect of the dry land admeasuring 6.11 cents bearing S.No.182/2 of Koulavada village, Bhogapuram Mandal and to grant compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and loss besides granting costs on the following averments:

          The complainants 1 and 2 and one Poosapati late Chiranjeevi raju who are brothers purchased jointly the above referred land under 3 registered sale deeds separately on 28-6-79 from Danthuluri family.  P.Chirangeevi Raju died leaving behind him the complainants 3 to 5 as his sole legal heirs.  In the year 1980 Ryot pass books were issued by the village Karanam in the name of complainants and deceased Chiranjeevi raju by recognizing their title and possession over the above said land.   The complainants have requested the O.Ps. to issue pass books and title deeds in respect of the above said land but of no avail.  They have got issued a registered lawyer notice dt.4-11-11 to the 1^st O.P. by marking a copy of the same to O.P.2 with a request to issue pass books and title deeds but to no effect.  The complainants are paying land revenue and the land was purchased by paying stamp duty and registration fee to the government and as such they are consumers within the definition of the Act and as there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. and their men the complainants have filed the complaint for the above said reliefs.

          The 1^st O.P. filed counter and the same was adopted by O.Ps. 2 and 3 by denying the material allegations made in the complaint.  It is averred that as per FCO record of Kavulavada Village the land measuring an extent of 4 acres 79 cents in S.No.128/2 was classified as Ryotwari dry which stood in the name of Poosapati Chiranjeevi Rao and Venkata Krishna Raju and on physical verification of the said land, it is found to be under the possession and enjoyment of Kondapu Appanna, s/o late Appala Narsi 2.Kondapu Nagamma, w/o late Suryanarayana since 40 years.  There are coconut and cashew topes on the land and also a slabbed house constructed above 25 years and the said house is being enjoyed by the above said individuals.

          It is averred that as per Section 8 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Rules 1989 if the claimants are not in possesion of the land they are not entitled to get Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds.  As the complainants are not enjoyers of land measuring 4 acres 79 cents in S.No.128/2, they are not entitled to get Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds.  It is averred that there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. and as there are no bonafides in the complaint the same is liable to be dismissed.

          To substantiate the complainant’s case the affidavit evidence of P.W1 is filed and Ex.A.1 to A.8 are marked.  On behalf of respondents the affidavit evidence of R.W.1 is filed and Ex.B.1 is marked.  Written arguments is filed on behalf of complainant and the counsel for both the parties addressed oral arguments.

          Perused the material placed on record. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

          Points:- Basing on the evidence available on record the learned advocate  for the complainants has contended that the complainants 1 and 2 and father of complainants 3 to 5 have purchased land in S.No.128/2 for consideration under registered sale deeds on 28-6-1979 and though they have applied to the O.Ps. for issuance of Pattadar pass books and title deeds the O.Ps. did not issue the said documents and as there is dereliction of duties and deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.

          As against the above said arguments the learned government pleader has contended that there is no consumer and service provider relationship in between the parties and as the complainants are not in possession and enjoyment of land in S.No.128/2 and as K.Nagamma and K.Appanna are found to be in a possession of 4 acres 79 cents in the above said survey number, the Pattadar pass books and title deeds were not issued and as there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps., the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          As against the above said contention the learned counsel for complainant has contended that the complainants are paying land revenue to the government and as the land was purchased by paying stamp duty and registration charges to the government the complainants can be construed to be the consumers within the definition of Consumer Protection Act.

It is well settled that the person claiming himself as consumer should satisfy 3 conditions namely (1) Service should have been rendered to him (2) the service should be hired by him (3) for hiring the service, he should have paid consideration in the manner envisaged by Sec.2 (1) (d) ii of the Act.

          It is not the case of complainants that they have hired the services of O.Ps.  The complainants have taken a plea that they are paying land revenue to the government and have purchased the land by paying stamp duty and registration fee to the government and as such they are consumers.

          In a decision in : A.Srinivas Murthy v. The Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority, II (1992) CPJ 395 (NC) : 1991 (1) CPR 529 (NC)

          Tax:-  Payment to government or local authorities – Does not constitute hiring of specific service for consideration – complaint under the Act against Development Authority – Not maintainable -  The complaint filed by appellant against the Development Authority cannot be legally sustained since the essential pre-requisite of the existence of an arrangement of hiring of service for consideration is totally lacking in this case.  The payment of tax which goes into the general revenues of the State / Local authority will not legally constitute payment of consideration for any specific service.

As seen from the principles laid down in the decision cited supra payment of taxes to the government or local authorities does not constitute hiring of service for consideration.   Coming to case on hand the complainant did not hire the services of O.Ps. and did not pay any consideration to them. The complainants herein filed the Xerox copies of sale deeds and Xerox copies of pass books which are in the names of complainants 1 and 2 and late Chiranjeevi Raju and got the same marked as Ex.A.1 to A.8.  The O.Ps. did not dispute about the purchase of land by complainants 1 and 2 and one Chiranjeevi Raju under Registered sale deeds.  It is their specific contention that the complainants are not in possession and enjoyment of land in S.No.128/2.  Ex.B.1 is the letter issued by Tahsildar, Bhogapuram to the G.P., Vizianagaram and as seen from its contents the Tahsildar verified the records and found that an extent of 4 Acres 79 cents in S.No.128/2 was classified as ryotwari dry and stands in the name of P.Chiranjeevi Raju and Venkata Krishna Raju, but the same is in possession and enjoyment of K.Nagamma, w/o late Suryanarayana and K.Appanna since 40 years and there are coconut and cashew trees and a slabbed house is also in the said land.

          In the counter filed by O.Ps. they have taken a plea that as per the provisions of A.P.Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books and ROR Act the  Pattadar Pass Books will be issued to the person who is found to be in possession and enjoyment of property as the owner.  In Ex.B.1 as well as in the counter of O.Ps. it is specifically stated that in S.No.128/2 there is an extent of 4 Acres 79 Cents and the same is in possession of K.Nagamma and K.Appanna.  The complainants herein claimed to have purchased 6 Acres 11 cents under 3 separate sale deeds in S.No.128/2.  When the land in survey No.128/2 is admeasuring 4 acres 79 cents as per revenue records available with O.Ps. no direction can be given to the O.ps. to issue title deeds and pattadar pass books for an extent of Ac.6.11 cents.

          It is always advisable to a party to approach the revenue authorities by invoking the provisions of law for issuance of title deeds and pattadar pass books.  In the complaint it is specifically averred that on 28-6-79 the complainants 1 and 2 and late Chiranjeevi Raju have purchased acres 6.11 cents under three sale deeds.  The complainants 3 to 5 are shown to be the widow and sons of Chiranjeevi raju.  The complainants did not file any legal heir certificate to prove that they are the only legal heirs of Chiranjeevi raju.  The respondents herein are the M.R.O. Bhogapuram, RDO and District Collector of Vizianagaram.   They are the competent persons to issue Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds by making necessary enquiries under the provisions of relevant Acts.

          As we have already stated supra their services were not hired by the complainants for consideration in this regard.

          In a decision in : 2000(2) CPR 70 Soosai @ Joseph Izidiara Vs The Dist.Collector of Kanyakumari & others it is held:

(X /iv) Complainant not hirer of services not consumer. No doubt true, it is that no plea regarding the maintainability of the complaint has been taken by the O.Ps. in the objections filed before the Forum below.  Since, such a question is pure question of law, as had been contended by the said learned counsel Mr.M.Sivaramam the same can be raised at any stage and, therefore, it is state Commission permitted such a question to be raised before it.  There is no plea of controversy that the O.Ps. 1 to 7 are Government Officials in the pay rolls of the government.  Such being the case they are to discharge their official duties in the manner expected of them of course also in accordance with law.  While discharging their functions as Govt.Officials they in fact do some sort of a service to the public at large.  But such sort of a service as rendered can by no stretch of imagination be stated to have been construed as service in respect of which consideration has been paid by the member of the public for whose benefit the service was rendered.  Therefore, the services of Govt.Officials like the O.Ps. 1 to 7 cannot at all construed as service falling within the four corners of the definition clause of service as adumbrated in Sec.2(1) (o) of the Act.  Their services not being a service under the said definition, their act can never come at all within the purview of the Act (Sec.2, Syn 54 xivii)

          In view of the principles laid down in the decision cited supra though the complainants alleged to have paid land revenue, stamped duty and registration charges to the government the said payments cannot be construed to be the consideration and as there is dispute with regard to the extent of land in S.No.128/2 and as the land in said survey number is in possession of K.Nagamma and K. Appanna no direction can be issued to the O.Ps. to issue Pattadar Pass Books and title deeds in favour of the complainants.

          Hence, under the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that there is no consumer and service provider relationship in between the parties, and the O.Ps. are not in dereliction of their duties and as such the complaint merits no consideration.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 9^th day of July, 2014.

Member                                                           President

CC. 18 of 2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                              

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Xerox copy of sale deed  dt.28-6-1979
2. Ex.A.2 Xerox copy of sale deed dt.28-6-1979
3. Ex.A.3 xerox copy of sale deed dt.28-6-1979
4. Ex.A.4 xerox copy of pass book dt.13.3.1980
5. Ex.A.5 xerox copy of pass book dt.13.3.1980
6. Ex.A.6 xerox copy of pass book dt.13.3.1980
7. Ex.A.7 Office copy of Lawyer Notice dt.4-11-2011
8. Ex.A.8 Postal Ack.,

 For O.P:- 

1. Ex.B.1 Lr. From Tahsildar’s office Bhogapuram dt.23-4-2013

                                                                                       President