DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 2nd day of May, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 17/04/2023
CC/101/2023
Madhu C.,
S/o.Chandran,
Cholakkal, Poolakkaparambu,
Kattukulam, Ottapalam – 679 514. - Complainant
(By Adv. Nimisha K.)
Vs
Revathy K.R.,
Tahsildar (Bhoorekha),
Ottapalam Taluk Office,
Ottapalam Taluk,
Palakkad – 679 101
(Notice not issued) - Opposite party
ORDER IN THE QUESTION OF MAINTAINABILITY
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- This complaint is filed seeking redress of grievance as against the Tahsildar, allegedly aggrieved by the refusal on the part of opposite party in not taking any actions upon an application filed by the complainant seeking mutation of revenue records pertaining to a property of the complainant and pursuant non acceptance of land tax.
- In view of the nature of transaction between the complainant and opposite party as evidenced by the pleadings, this complaint was taken up for preliminary hearing on the question of maintainability as against the opposite party.
- The complainant lobbied for her case that a complaint is maintainable as against the opposite party since a consideration is being paid by way of fee to the opposite party. In order to substantiate her case the complainant also placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Gupta reported in 1994 (1) SCC 243.
- The decision relied on above was the culmination of a dispute wherein a statutory body had undertaken construction of various residential buildings and was selling them to buyers for consideration. It is true that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has rejected the contention of the appellant that since they are a statutory body, provisions of Consumer Protection Act will not apply to them. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that since this was an instance where a statutory body was undertaking development projects and selling the constructions to the users for sale consideration, the provisions of Consumer Protection Act applied squarely.
- Dictum of the decision apart, we are not inclined to subscribe to the view adopted by the complainant herein. The O.P. herein cannot be held to be at par with the appellant in the case referred to above. The functions carried out by the opposite party above are not for consideration. They are carrying out their public duties in their capacity as public servants for maintenance of records pertaining to land. There is no consumer - service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite party. Maintenance of land records or acceptance of land revenue by a Govt. official cannot be termed as or equated to be a service as contemplated under the Act. Needless to say, fees paid will not be a consideration for services rendered or availed.
- Thus we hold that this complaint is not maintainable as this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly this complaint is dismissed inlimine.
Pronounced in open court on this the 2nd day of May, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member