Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/208/2018

Tahsildar, Ariyalur-621 704. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muthamilselvan, S/o Chinnapillai and another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.T.Ravikumar

26 Oct 2021

ORDER

 

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

              TMT. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                       MEMBER

                                                                                            F.A.No.208/2018

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.21/2017, dated 24.08.2017 on the file of the District Commission, Ariuyalur.

 TUESDAY, THE 26^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2021.

 

The Tahsildar,

Taluk Office,

Ariyalur.                                                                                                                            Appellant/opposite party

                                    

                                                                                                Vs

1.   Muthamilselvan,

      S/o. Chinnappillai,       

      Kokudi Village – 621 707. 

      Poondi Revenue Village,

      Ariyalur Taluk & District.  

 

2.   M.G. Balasubramanian,

      The Tamil Nadu Consumer & Evmnironmentl

      Protection Council, 

      No.4/284,  Mela Veethi,

      Thirumanur – 621 715. 

      Ariyalur District.                                                                                                                   Respondents/Complainants    

 

Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite party             :  M/s. T. Ravikumar,  Advocate.    

Counsel for the Respondents /Complainants         :  Appeared party-in-person.

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 07.10.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the appellant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.   

1.         This appeal has been filed under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the Learned District Commission, Ariyalur, made in C.C.No.21/2017 dated 24.08.2017, allowing the complaint filed by the complainants/respondents herein directing the appellant/opposite party to survey the land referred in the complaint and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the complainant.       

2.        For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ariyalur.  (In short, “District Commission”).              

3.         The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows;-  The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant is residing in Kokudi in Poondi Revenue Village in Ariyalur District with his mother Parvathy in the land which was purchased on 20.06.1990 in survey No.475/15B Patta No.1211 to an extent 0.28 cent. Since there was a title dispute in respect of the said land a suit was filed in O.S.No.274/1991 before the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur and in the said suit a decree was passed in favour of the complainant stating that he was entitled for 67½ cents in the said land. Against the same, an appeal was filed before the Principal District Judge Court, Ariyalur and in the appeal the decree passed in O.S.No.274/1991 was confirmed. Thus, the complainant is entitled for 0.28 cent in the said land. Therefore, the complainant applied for surveying and issuing separate patta for the land to the extent of 0.28 cent and also paid Rs.80/- as service charges to the opposite party but a separate patta was not issued by the opposite party.  Hence, the complainant made a complaint with the District Collector and the Revenue Minister.  In spite of payment of service charges, the opposite party has not come forward to measure the land and issue a separate patta to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party and hence the complainant has approached the District Consumer Commission for the relief praying for a direction to the opposite party for measuring the land referred in the complaint and issuing a separate patta to the complainant and also for compensation.  

4.        Though notice was served, the opposite party did not appear before the District Commission and hence the opposite party was set ex-parte before the District Commission. The District Commission after analyzing the proof affidavit and the documents Exhibits A1 to A7 marked by the complainant, passed an ex-parte order in favour of the complainant directing the opposite party to measure the land of the complainant and issue a separate patta to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and sufferings caused due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party. Aggrieved over the same, the opposite party has preferred this appeal praying for setting aside the same.  

5.      Heard the submission made by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and perused the materials available on record. Keeping in mind the submissions we have carefully considered the same. Since we have discussed the facts in detail above, we refrain from reiterating the same any further in this appeal and only the facts which are germane are discussed hereunder.

6.       The only submissions made by the counsel for the appellant/opposite party is that the issue involved in the complaint cannot be agitated before the Consumer Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. In this regard, the appellant produced before us a copy of a judgment of the Kerala State Consumer Commission wherein in the case of The Tahsildar, Idukki Taluk – Vs – Mathai, it was held that “a consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service against the Government Servant on his failure or default in discharging his official duties is not maintainable”.  Moreover, in support of his submission, the counsel for the appellant/opposite party  has also relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, reported in 2016 NCJ 564 (NC) in the matter of K. Mohanasundaram – Vs – K.U. Gopalakrishnan Nair wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that complaint under Consumer Protection Act against the functioning of Revenue Department is not maintainable”. The above judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

7.      The very reading of the above decision would clearly show that surveying the land and issuing patta would be a subject of several disputed questions either with the co-owners of the land or its neighbours. Therefore, even if the complainant has paid necessary fee for surveying and issuing patta for the land the same will not give rise to cause of action to bring the matter within an ambit of the relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the opposite party. Even assuming that if the title is clear and sufficient fees are paid, when the revenue authorities have not come forward to survey the land and issue patta, the complainant has to approach the appropriate legal Forum in accordance with the law applicable to it by initiating a litigation impleading the concerned Government Official as a party but not before this Consumer Commission. Further, we are of the view that the litigation where the land dispute is involved can never be a subject matter of the Consumer Commission. Therefore, in view of the above discussion held by us and the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission stated supra, we come to the conclusion that the complaint filed before the Consumer Commission is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

7.     In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Ariyalur made in C.C.No.21/2017, and the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.  

          The Registry is directed to return the mandatory deposit to the appellant/opposite party with accrued interest thereon.                               

                

  

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                                                                                      R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                          PRESIDENT. 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/October/2021