Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/32/2021

Sri.M.R.Vijaykumar s/o M.P.Rajashekaraiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Panchayathi Development officer - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.R.Jagadeesh

23 Jun 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:19/04/2021

DISPOSED      ON:23/06/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:32/2021

DATED: 23^rd June 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA. B.A., LL.B.      PRESIDENT

                                Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM., LL.B.   MEMBER                                                              

…COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. M.R. Vijaykumar S/o M.P. Rajashekharaiah, Aged about 52 years, Landlord and Class-I Contractor, R/o No. 77, “Bhavana” Beside KGID Office, Holalkere Road, Chitradurga City.   (Rep., by Sri. R. Jagadeesh, Advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	Panchayathi Development Officer,Matadakurubarahatty Village, Panchayathi, Matadakurubarahatty, Chitradurga Taluk and District.

 

BY SRI G. SREEPATHI, MEMBER.

:ORDER ON ADMISSIBILITY OF COMPLAINT:

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint against Op and prays to direct the Op to transfer the schedule properties to E-Khatha from manual Khatas and to issue E-Khatha Extracts in Form-9 and 11 A to the complainant and further order to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for mental agony, inconvenience, delay in discharging the service by Op, financial loss, hardship by allowing the complaint and to grant such other benefits.

 

 

:SCHEDULE:

            1. Vacant Site bearing Khata No.63/2 formed in alienated land bearing Re Sy No. 21/AP Gittinadu, Seebara, Hiriguntanuru Hobli, Matadakurubarahatty Village Panchayat, measuring  22041 93X236+238/2.

        2. Vacant Site bearing Khata No.63/2 formed in alienated land bearing Re Sy No. 21/AP Gittinadu, Seebara, Hiriguntanuru Hobli, Matadakurubarahatty Village Panchayat, measuring  21555’  93X234+236/2, both the said Site bounded by’

                 East:      Site No.63/4.

                West:     Site No. 63/1.

                North :    Land of Gundappa

                South:   Road leads to Hunasekatte.

2.     The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, one K. Channabasappa S/o Late. Kalyani Adivappa had purchased an agricultural land bearing Re.Sy.No. No. 21/P measuring 4 acres of Eastern portion, out of 13 acres and 3 gunas situated at Guttinandu Village, hireguntanuru Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk for sale consideration amount of Rs. 2,000/- under a Registered sale deed dated 24/04/1979 (as per certifyied documents) from his venders and took the possession of the said land on the above said date. The said K. Channabasappa had get alienated the said land by obtaining an order of alienation from then D.C., Chitradurga. Further the said K. Channabasappa had availed financial facility from state of Karnataka Khadi and Village Board and he had also availed loan from KSFC, Chitradurga. For the purpose of establishing Industry by offering the sites formed in the said alienated lands as security for the loan amount by executing registered memorandum of deposit of title deeds in favour of Branch Manager, KSFC, Chitradurga for the purpose of establishing Industry by offering the sites formed in the said alienated lands as security for the loan amount by executing registered memorandum of deposit of title deeds in favour of Branch Manager, KSFC, Chitradurga Branch. Further K. Channabasappa failed to pay the loan amount with accrued interest due to KSFC, Chitradurga, with this KSFC authorities have put all the sites formed in said land in a public auction, accordingly complainant had participated in a public sale and bid for the highest amount and also paid entire sale consideration to KSFC, Chitradurga Branch and Branch Manager, KSFC, Chitradurga have executed Registered sale deed in favour of complainant on 01/03/2003 before sub-Registrar, Chitradurga (as per certifyied copy of sale deed  it is 01/03/2005).

3.     That on the strength of Regd., sale deed Khatha in respect of the schedule sites have been transferred in favour of and in the name of the complainant  in all relevant documents of matadakurubarhatty Village Panchayat, as in the capacity of lawful owner, kathedhar. The complainant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the complainant schedule sites.

4.     The counsel for the complainant has vehemently addressed his arguments to pass the appropriate order to the complainant, we have perused the complainant and the documents produced by the complainant namely attested true copy of registered sale deed dated 27/04/1979, certified true copy of sale deed dated 01/03/2005. D.C.B. Registered Extract for the years 2020-21, copies of 3 tax paid receipts (general), copy of receipt issued by OP dated 05/09/2019, for measuring Suit schedule property,  copy of the endorsement dated 09/04/2019, for issue of Sketch in respect of Seebara Grama, Gramatana Jurisdiction property. Issued by OP, copy of the letter submitted to OP by complainant dated 01/03/2020, endorsement issued by Op dated 06/03/2021, reply by the complainant to Op dated 07/03/2021, letter of request from the complainant to Op dated 15/04/2021 (All copies). The complainant re-iterated that he has approached Op to get properties E-Khata extracts in Form No.9 and 11 A in accordance with law and to have E-Khatha in respect of schedule properties in his name by submitting all above necessary documents, in spite of it the Ops have not taken any proper steps, failed to perform their duties and services and irresponsible by telling silly, unacceptable, unreasonable thing to complainant. The complainant has paid the taxes to the schedule sites and with this complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service by Op.

5.     The complainant is seeking prayer before this Commission, to direct the OP to transfer the schedule properties to E-Khathas from manual Khathas to issue E-Khatas extracts in Form No.9 and 11A to the complainant and order to pay of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.

6.     The complainant is the registered owner of the vacant site bearing Khatha No.63/2 and 63/3 formed in alienated land bearing Sy No.21/AP, Guttinadu, Seebara, Hirenugtanuru Hobli, Matadakurabharahatty village panchayat as mentioned in schedule, and he has purchased the said site through registered sale deed dated 01/03/2005 and he has paid up to date taxes as per D.C. extract and produced the said documents along with other documents before the commission. It this regard perusal of facts of complaint and copy of documents.

7.     In this regard, it is relevant to state that, payment of tax which goes in to the general revenue of State or local authority, will not constitute payment of consideration for any specific service as held by the Hon’ble National Commission in case of Sri. A Srinivasa Murty V/s The  Chairman, Bangalore Development authority reported in 1992 (2) CPJ page-395 (NC). In another judgement of the Hon’ble National Commission, their lordship has held that, the payer of the taxes is not a consumer as defined under the Act as reported in 1992 (1) CPJ page 71. Hence payment of taxes by a person to the Municipal corporation or other authorities does not constitute hiring of service for consideration and hence the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under Section 2(7)(i)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act,2019. Further the Hon’ble National Commission has also held that Forum Cannot interfere in the statutory duty of the corporation and give direction against Municipal Corporation, is not maintainable as reported in 1997 (3) CPJ Page-6 and lastly the complaint filed against exercise of powers under the Municipal corporation, is not maintainable as held in the case of commissioner, Municipal corporation V/s Rakesh Johari, reported in 1993 (1) CPJ page-505 of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh state Commission. Hence as discussed above, the complaint the filed by the complainant is not maintainable.

8.     Further on perusal of the complaint and documents produced by the complainant i.e., the Xerox copy of the Registered sale Deed of the complainant, Xerox copy of the sale deed of the vendor of the complainant and other documents produced by the complainant and the averments made in the complaint, reflects about the case of Civil in nature and also date of last transaction in between complainant and Op took place on 01/03/2005 and this commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and so also it is not a consumer dispute. Hence the complainant has to approach competent Civil Court for his redressal.

9.     Hence as discussed above, the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission both on limitation as well as on maintainability and accordingly we proceed to pass the following.

10.   As the case is posted for orders on 30/04/2021 and the same was ready, due to Covid Pandamic pronounced on 23/06/2021.

                                ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before this commission for adjudication on both limitation and maintainability the same is rejected.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by the him, corrected and then pronounced by us on 23/06/2021)

 

 

MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT