KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.130/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED: 10.04.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.207/2021 of CDRC, Kasaragod)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. N.C. Priyan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          The opposite party in C.C.No.207/2021 of the Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commission, Kasaragod (District Commission for short) has filed this appeal challenging an order dated 15.12.2022 allowing the complaint and granting compensation.  As per the order appealed against, an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) has been granted as compensation and a further amount of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand) as  litigation costs.  A direction to the appellant to issue possession certificate to the complainant has also been issued.  The respondent herein is the complainant.  For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to herein, in accordance with their status before the District Commission.

          2.       The complainant who is the owner of the landed property in Resurvey No.252/1 having an extent of 1.3 acres in Balla Village, Hosdurg Taluk applied for the issue of a possession certificate in respect of his property.  The opposite party is the Village Officer of the Balla Village.  He paid Rs.25/-(Rupees Twenty Five), the prescribed fee on 26.01.2021.  But the opposite party did not issue possession certificate even after seven days.  The complainant caused the issue of a lawyer’s notice on 22.09.2021.  He complained to the Tahsildar on 05.07.2021 narrating the difficulties caused to him by non issue of the possession certificate, which was necessary for him to avail a loan.  But, he could not obtain any relief.  He therefore filed a complaint seeking a direction for the issue of a possession certificate and compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand).

          3.       The opposite party filed written version and contested the complaint.  The case of the opposite party is that the property was subject to survey measurements.  On completion of the survey measurements, the opposite party advised the complainant to re-apply through e-district portal.  But the complainant did not co-operate with the survey measurements or apply through the e-district portal.  It was for the said reason that no possession certificate was issued.  Therefore it was contended that there was no deficiency in service.

          4.       The District Commission tried the complaint on the above pleadings.  The evidence in the case consists of Exhibits A1 to A8 documents.  No evidence was adduced by the opposite party.  There is no oral evidence in this case.

          5.       After close of evidence, the matter was heard and after considering the respective contentions, the order under appeal was passed, directing the opposite party to issue possession certificate to the complainant in respect of his property in Resurvey No.252/1 of the particular extent covered by the title deed, to pay a nominal sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation to the complainant and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) as costs.  It is the said order that is challenged in this appeal.

          6.       According to counsel for the appellant, the District Commission seriously erred in allowing the complaint and issuing direction as sought for by the complainant.  It is submitted that, the Consumer Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to the functions discharged by the Revenue Department.  It is contended that, the opposite party had not rejected the application submitted by the complainant.  The application had only been returned for submitting a fresh one through the e-district portal.  It is further contended that there is no deficiency in service in the said conduct of the appellant.  Therefore, the counsel seeks interference with the order of the District Commission.

          7.       This appeal comes up before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel for the appellant at length.  The facts in this case are not in dispute.  It is not disputed that the complainant had submitted an application for the issue of a possession certificate in respect of his property.  The only reason put forward for not issuing the same is that, Re-survey was in progress and that he was not co-operating with the same.  Though a feeble attempt is made in the appeal memorandum to put forward a contention that there was puramboke within the property, there is absolutely no evidence to support the said contention.  Therefore, the irresistible conclusion is that, the property absolutely belongs to the complainant.  In such circumstances, declining to issue possession certificate cannot be countenanced.  Even delay in issuing the same cannot be accepted.  Inasmuch as the requisite fee had been admittedly paid by the complainant, it was incumbent on the appellant to have issued the same.  Since it was not done, the finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant is fully justified.  The said finding is therefore confirmed. 

          8.       It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala that in the matter of issuance of possession certificate, encumbrance certificate, mutation certificate etc. deficiency on the part of the authorities would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the redressal authorities under the Consumer Protection Act.  The District Forum has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala to find that it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  We find no infirmity in the said finding.

          9.       The relief granted in this case is only reasonable, a direction to issue the possession certificate sought for by the complainant.  The quantum of the compensation and costs ordered can also be termed only as nominal.  Therefore, we find no grounds to admit this appeal.

          In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL