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 Pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony to the complainant on the following averments:

          The complainant is the obsulate owner of the land in Sirvey No.26/3 in an extent of 2 Acres 95 cents. He got the said property under a registered settlement deed dated 21-12-2009 executed by his Mother Allu Satyavathi.  The Mother of complainant was already given Pattadar pass book and title deed in respect of the said land.  After the complainant got the same from his mother he applied through the 1^st respondent for issuance of Pattadar pass book and title deed and has paid the required fee of Rs.135/- on 21-7-2014 but of no avail.  The complainant approached the 2^nd respondent many a time and requested him to issue the Pattadar pass book and title deed but to no effect.  Since the O.Ps are in dereliction of duties and as there is deficiency in service on their part the complainant suffered a lot and was constrained to file the complaint.

          The O.Ps.1 and 2 filed their respective counters traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and in the counter of 1^st respondent it is averred that they are not aware of the registered settlement deed  executed in favour of complainant by his Mother.  It is averred that the complainant paid Rs.135/- in the Mee Seva Centre -2, Jami on 21-7-2014 relating to the above said land for issuance of Pattadar pass book and title deed and a receipt was issued to that effect in favour of complainant and all the documents along with the complaint were sent to the Tahsildar, Jami online on the same day.  It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and as the complaint merits no consideration the same is liable to be dismissed.  

          In the counter of O.P.2 it is averred that after receipt of an application filed by the petitioner a notice under Form 8 and Rule 19 (1) of R.O.R. Act were published in Gram Panchayat Office In Jagaram Village upon which (1) G.Seetharama Raju  (2) G.Janaki Rau and (3) G.Chandra Sekhar Raju filed an objection for grant of Pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the petitioner.  It is averred that during the course of inquiry the complainant told that his mother got the property through his Maternal Grand Mother Jagarapu Gunnamma, but he did not produce any document to show the title of Gunamma.  It is averred that one G.Bangaramma filed an appeal before the R.D.O., Vizianagaram for cancellation of Pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of Satyavathi and on enquiry made by R.D.O it was found that A.Satyavathi had no documents to establish her title over the land and as to how she got the land from the original pattadar. Hence the R.D.O held that the issuance of pass book and title deed in favour of Satyavathi is not correct as there is dispute in between the parties with regard to its tiltle.  It is averred that R.D.O. directed both the parties to approach competent Civil Court to establish their respective title.  It is averred that in F.C.O and Fair Adangal the name of G.Satyanarayana Raju is mentioned as Original Pattadar for the disputed land and as such the 2^nd respondent did not issue Pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the complainant.  It is averred that the men of O.P.2 are not in dereliction of their duty and as there is no deficiency in service on their part the complaint merits no consideration and is liable to be dismissed.

          In furtherance of complainant’s case the affidavit evidence of complainant is filed and Ex.A.1 to A.3 are marked.   On behalf of O.P.No.2 the affidavit evidence of the Tahsildar, M.R.O., Office Jami is filed and they did not get any documents marked on their behalf. Perused the material placed on record and heard the counsel for both the parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

          Points:-       As seen from the material placed on record it is manifest that the complainant filed an application in Mee Seva for grant of Pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour for complaint schedule lands and when the same was received by the 2^nd O.P an enquiry was made and as there was dispute with regard to title in favour of Satyavathi who alleged to have bequeathed the property in favour of complainant under the settlement deed, his petition for grant of Pattadar pass book and title deed was dismissed.  The complainant has impleaded the 1^st respondent who is authorized agent of Mee Seva-II, Jami Village as a party to this complaint but no evidence is forth coming to believe that the said agent was in dereliction of his duty.  In the counter filed by 1^st respondent it is clearly averred that on 21-7-2014 when the complainant paid Rs.135/- in their centre relating to the land covered by the survey number 26/3 for issuance of Pattadar pass book and title deed, the documents pertaining to the said land were sent to the Tahsildar Jami on online on the same date.          It is further averred that they are not concerned with the issuance of Pattadar pass book and title deed.

   The above said contention raised by the 1^st respondent is not traversed

 by the complainant.  In the counter of 2^nd respondent it is averred that the application filed by the complainant in Mee Seva for grant of Pattadar pass book and title deed for the land in Survey No.26/3 were sent to them and when an enquiry was made, it was found that there is dispute with regard to the title of the said land.  In view of the contentions raised by O.Ps 1 and 2 in their respective counters it is clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of 1^st O.P and as the 1^st O.P is not competent to issue any Pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the complainant the filing of complaint against them is bad in law.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against 1^st respondent.  As we have already stated supra the 2^nd respondent in its counter has clearly stated that (1) G.Seetharama Raju  (2) G.Janaki Rau and (3) G.Chandra Sekhar Raju filed objections for grant of Pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of the complainant and during the course of enquiry, it was found that the Mother of complainant by name Satyavathi had no documents to establish her title over the disputed land.  The 2^nd O.P has averred in his counter that when a Pattadar pass book and title deed were issued in favour of Satyavathi, one G.Bangaramma filed an appeal before the R.D.O Vizianagaram and on enquiry made by R.D.O it was found that Satyavathi had no title over the land upon which the issuance of Pattadar pass book and title deed in her favour was found to be incorrect.  It is averred that learned RDO has directed the parties to approach Civil Court to establish their title over the said land.  The complainant herein filed the copy of settled deed, Pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of his mother and got the same marked as Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3.  For the reasons best known the complainant did not file any documents to show that his mother Satyavathi had valid title over the complaint schedule property.  Since the R.D.O cancelled the Pattadar pass book and title deed issued in favour of the mother of complainant, it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled to get the Pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour.  Since there is dispute with regard to title over the schedule property in between the Mother of complainant and one G.Bangaramma and when the order passed by R.D.O cancelling the Pattadar pass book and title deed in favour of Satyavathi remained unchallenged, the complainant is not entitled to get the Pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour for the above said land.  As the O.P.2 is not found to be deficient in service or dereliction of duty and as there is dispute with regard to the title over the complaint schedule property the very filing of complaint is bad in law.  As the complaint merits no consideration the same is liable to be dismissed.

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  15^th  day of June, 2015.

Member                                                           President

C.C. 64 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

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

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Original receipt dt.21-7-2014
2. Ex.A.2 O/c Registered settlement deed dt.21-12-2014
3. Ex.A.3 Copy of Pattadar pass book and title deed.

For O.P:-   NIL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 President.