<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No.22 of 2008<br /> Instituted On: 12.03.2008<br /> Date of Service: 26.06.2008<br /> Decided On:02.12.2008<br /> <br /> Karamjeet Singh Gill son of Sh.Nand Singh Gill (Senior Citizen) Retired Development Officer, LIC of India, Opposite SDM Residence, Near Asian Footwears, Moga, Distt.Moga.<br /> Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1. Jasbir Singh Mahi, Tehsildar cum Sub Registrar, Moga, through Deputy Commissioner, Moga.<br /> 2. Punjab State through Deputy Commissioner, Moga.<br /> <br /> Opposite Parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of The<br /> Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President.<br /> Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member.<br /> <br /> Present: Sh.Karamjeet Singh complainant in person.<br /> Sh.Parvesh Kapoor, Adv.counsel for OP-1<br /> Sh.Harsharanjit Singh, Tehsildar for OP-2<br /> <br /> (J.S.CHAWLA, PRESIDENT)<br /> Sh.Karamjeet Singh Gill complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Sh.Jasbir Singh Mahi, Tehsildar cum Sub Registrar, Moga through Deputy Commissioner, Moga (herein-after referred to as ‘Tehsildar’)-OP1 and Punjab State-OP2 directing them to pay Rs.322500/-as compensation on account of embarrassment, harassment, mental sufferings for not registering the sale deed dated 13.3.2006 or any other relief to which this Forum may deem fit be granted besides costs of litigation.<br /> 2. Briefly stated, Sh.Karamjeet Singh complainant presented the sale deed on 13.3.2006 executed by him for registration duly executed on judicial stamp papers worth Rs.22500/- before OP1-Tehsildar. That the OP1-Tehsildar refused to register the sale deed arbitrarily without any reason and did not return the sale deed on the same day with a copy of the reasons for refusal as per the Registration Manual at the instance of Varinderjeet Singh and Tajinderjeet Singh, who had no title in the land mentioned in the sale deed. That the complainant reported the matter to the SDM, Moga vide application dated 30.3.2006 after requesting the OP1-Tehsildar to supply the copy of the reasons for not registering the sale deed vide his application dated 25.3.2006. That the Deputy Commissioner, Moga directed the OP1-Tehsildar to give the reasons for delay in supplying the reasons for not registering the sale deed, but no reply was given till May 2006. That when the complainant filed application dated 2.5.2006 for inspection of documents, the unregistered sale deed was returned to him in the first week of May 2006 in registered cover, but the complete documents were not supplied to him. Thereafter, the complainant filed application dated 4.5.2006 for supplying of the remaining documents, but to no effect. That the complainant reported the matter to the Deputy Commissioner and Inspector General, Registration, Punjab, Jalandhar, but no action was taken. That the complainant filed application dated 1.5.2006 before Deputy Commissioner, which is still pending decision. That the complainant also brought the matter to the notice of Deputy Commissioner, Moga during Sangat Darshan on 4.12.2007. The enquiry was entrusted to Additional Deputy Comssioner, Moga, who submitted the report after 3 months delay. That the refusal of register sale deed by OP1-Tehsildar was willful, intentional and in connivance with two army officers namely Tajinderjeet Singh and Varinderjit Singh Gill, who had no right in the land mentioned in the sale deed. That the complainant suffered physical, mentally and financially to the tune of Rs.2.5 lacs equivalent to the sale price of land and judicial stamp papers worth Rs.22500/- plus Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental harassment and loss of reputation total amounting to Rs.322500/-. Hence the present complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP1-Tehsildar appeared through Sh.Parvesh Kapoor Advocate whereas OP2-State of Punjab appeared through Sh.Harsharanjit Singh, Tehsildar Moga and they filed their separate written replies contesting the same. <br /> 4. OP1-Tehsildar took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against him as provided under section 86 of The Registration Act, 1908. It provides that no registering officer shall be liable to any suit, claim or demand by reason of anything in good faith done or refused in his official capacity; that the order of refusal to register document in question passed by OP1-Tehsildar in discharge of his official duties as public servant in accordance with the provisions of law and the same can not be challenged before this Forum in view of the mandatory provisions of section 87 of said Act; that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant does not fall within the definition of a ‘Consumer’ as provided under section 2 of the Act; that the complaint is a gross abuse on the process of law to harass a public servant as well as State of Punjab; that the complainant has other efficacious remedy under The Registration Act, 1908 which he failed to avail; that the order of OP1-Tehsildar can not be legally challenged by way of misusing the provisions of the Act in order to frustrate the mandatory provisions of The Registration Act, 1908/ Registration Manual/ Instructions of the Department, which the OP1-Tehsildar bonafidely performed in this case; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint and that the complainant is barred by his act and conduct to file the present complaint. On merits, it was averred that the complainant has other efficacious remedy under section 72 of The Registration Act and the present complaint is against the provisions of section 71 of the said Act. However, it was admitted that the sale deed was presented for registration, but the perusal of jamabandi for the year of 2003-2004 shows that vide mutation no.12670 mutation of partition had been recalled which was pending decision before the Circle Revenue Officer and entry in the remarks column with red ink was made by the Halqa Patwari, even regarding the khasra no.2/2, 23/2 of Rect No.19, Khasra no. 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 of Rect No.32, out of which some khasra numbers were in the ownership of Gurpreet Singh son of Balwinder Singh son of Veer Singh and Balpreet Singh son of Mohinder Singh son of Veer Singh and as such, the OP1-Tehsildar was required to be vigilant to verify the revenue record which established that the complainant was not competent to sell that area, which was also included alongwith other khasra numbers in the sale deed in question and the OP1-Tehsidlar following the procedure correctly refused the registration of the said sale deed on the same day, as it evident from the endorsement and also passed order no.10/RC dated 13.6.2006 giving valid reason for refusal. That the said order of OP1-Tehsildar was upheld in various complaint/ inquiries by the higher authorities i.e. SDM, Moga and other competent officials. It is pertinent to mention here that the said order attained finality as the complainant did not challenge the same before the competent authority as provided under The Registration Act, 1908 and not by way of filing the present complaint. As the sale deed was with the Registrar’s Office and it was ordered to be returned. When the complainant failed to turn up, a registered letter was sent to him intimating the same. All other allegations made in the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect. <br /> 6. OP2-State of Punjab in their separate written reply averred that the sale deed was returned with reasons as stated in the Bahi No.2 at Serial No.10 dated 13.2.2006 and the complainant was informed through registered letter. All other allegations made in the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.<br /> 7. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence the copy of sale deed dated 13.3.2006 Ex.A1, registered envelop Ex.A2, copy of request dated 25.3.2008 Ex.A3, copies of sale deeds Ex.A4 to Ex.A7, copies of requests Ex.A8 to Ex.A10, copy of jamabandi Ex.A11, copy of request letter Ex.A12, copy of sale deed Ex.A13, copy of mutation Ex.A14, copies of jamabandi Ex.A15 and Ex.A16, copy of partition application Ex.A17, copy of rapat rojnamacha Ex.A18, copy of letter Ex.A19, copy of application Ex.A20, copy of jamabandi Ex.A21, copy of application Ex.A22 and closed his evidence.<br /> 8. To rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OPs tendered the affidavit of Sh.Jasbir Singh Mahi Ex.R1, copy of bahi-2 Ex.R2, copy of enquiry Ex.R3 and affidavit of Harsharanjit Singh Ex.R4 and closed their respective evidence.<br /> 9. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Karamjit Singh Gill complainant and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by him and by the OPs and carefully perused the evidence on the file.<br /> 10. The first point of determination is whether the complainant is a ‘consumer’ within the definition of section 2(i)(d) and (o) of the Act. The answer to this question is in affirmative. Admittedly, Sh.Karamjeet Singh Gill complainant presented the sale deed dated 13.3.2006 executed by him for registration before OP1-Tehsildar, but he refused to register the same. The sale deed was executed by the requisite stamp paper prescribed by the government. Hence, the complainant becomes the consumer qua OPs by affixing the requisite stamp papers. On this point, Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Consumer Commission, Madras in III(1993) CPJ 1383 titled as Lions Club Trust & Anr. Vs. Government of Tamilnadu has held that the registration done by the Registration Department can be considered as service as defined in the Act. It has been observed as under:-<br /> “The Registration Department of the Government of Tamilnadu registers documents which are compulsorily registerable and documents which are also not compulsorily registerable, on payment of proper stamp duty and registration fees. This is indeed a service coming within the ambit of Section 2(1) (o) of te Consumer Protection Act, under which ‘service’ is defnied as service of any description. Under Section 1(4) of the Act, the Act shall apply to all goods and services, save as otherwise expressly provided by the Central Government by Notification. The Central Government has not so far issued any notification excluding any service rendered by the Government Department from the purview of the Act. It follows, therefore, the service done by the Registration Department is a service within the meaning of this Act and since it is done for consideration, namely stamp duty and registration fees, persons who present documents for registration are consumers within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.<br /> <br /> 11. Similar view was held by Hon’ble Tamilnadu State Consumer Commission, Madras in II(1993) CPJ 1153 titled as Thiagaraja Finance Ltd. Vs. Government of Tamilnadu and Others. <br /> 12. On the other hand, the OP1-Tehsildar has failed to cite any authority contrary to the aforesaid rulings cited by the complainant that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the definition of section 2(1)(d) and (o) of the Act. Thus relying upon the supra authorities, we hold that Karamjeet Singh complainant was a ‘consumer’ within the definition of section 2(1)(d) and (o) of the Act. <br /> 13. The next point for determination is whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint and that the OP1- Tehsildar could be proceeded under the Act in case of refusal to register the sale deed in question. The answer to this question is in affirmation. On this point, it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in 2007(2) CLT page 63 titled as Joint Sub Registrar, District Registrar’s Office Vs. Maragathan (TMT) “that the Joint Sub Registrar or concerned officer could be proceeded under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in case issuance of encumbrance certificate without noting all the relevant transfer encumbrances or transactions with regard to immovable property. The reason is erroneous encumbrance certificate seriously prejudice the rights of the parties and increases, litigations and disputes with regard to immovable property.” <br /> 14. In that context the Apex Court, after discussing the relevant aspects in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta in III(1993) CPJ 7 (SC) observed as under:-<br /> “…..we also reiterate that a Government officer may be held liable to tort if, in the discharge of his official administrative duties, he acts maliciously or with oblique motive or mala fide but the position in the instant case is different in many vital respects.”<br /> <br /> 15. In para no.38 of the aforesaid judgement, the Hon’ble Court observed as under:-<br /> “…..A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it. Compensation or damage as explained earlier may arise even when the officer discharges his duty honestly and bonafidely. But when it arises due to arbitrary or capricious behavior then it loses in individual character and assumes social significance. Harassment or a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally, but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functions in offices instead of standing against it. Therefore, the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual, satisfies him personally but helps in curing social evil. It may result in improving the work culture and help in changing the outlook. <br /> <br /> 16. In the instant case, the complainant has failed to prove that the OP1-Tehsildar has acted maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony to him. The OP1-Tehsildar has refused to register the sale deed by passing the legal and valid order Ex.R2 wherein he has mentioned that “on enquiry of the jamabandi for the year of 2003-2004, it came to his notice that Karamjeet Singh complainant/vendor had included khasra numbers in the sale deed which had been cancelled vide mutation no. 12670, so the complainant does not seem to be owner of the land mentioned in the sale deed and therefore, he was not competent to execute the sale deed regarding the same.” The aforesaid order dated 13.3.2006 Ex.R2 passed by the OP1-Tehsildar shows that he acted bonafidely and in the exercise of his official duties as public servant by giving cogent and convincing reason. The complainant did not go in appeal under section 72 of The Registration Act, 1908 before the Registrar or sought any other remedy against the said legal order passed by him. The said order passed by him was appealable, but the complainant did not file any appeal against the same for the reasons best known to him. Moreover, number of complaints made by the complainant and enquiries held thereon by the higher authorities show that they had not held guilty OP1-Tehsildar for refusal to register the sale deed. So the complainant has failed to prove any malafide on the part of the OP1-Tehsildar to refuse to register the alleged sale deed executed by him. He has also failed to prove enmity or connivance with other party while refusing to register the said sale deed.<br /> 17. Moreover, it is the case of complainant that OP1-Tehsildar had refused to register the alleged sale deed at the instance of Tajinderjeet Singh and Varinderjit Singh Gill. He has failed to mention in the complaint that the aforesaid persons namely Tajinderjeet Singh and Varinderjit Singh Gill are his real brothers and they objected for the registration of the alleged sale deed. Thus, it shows that the complainant himself had malafidely concealed in the complaint that the aforesaid two persons namely Tajinderjeet Singh and Varinderjit Singh Gill are his real brothers who were also claiming title and had litigation regarding this land and some other land with him. On the other hand, it is not the case of the OP1-Tehsildar that if he took any cognizance to refuse to register the alleged sale deed at the instance of aforesaid persons. Hence, when the complainant has failed to prove that the act of the OP1-Tehsildar was malicious or oppressive or it was abuse of process of law, no compensation or damage would arise to him on account of refusal to register the sale deed. <br /> 18. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold that the complainant has failed to prove any malafide on the part of the OP1-Tehsildar which would make him liable to pay compensation on account of refusal to register the sale deed.<br /> 19. The next point argued by the complainant was that as per section 71 of The Registration Act, 1908, the OP1-Tehsildar was required to supply the copy of reasons to refuse to register the sale deed, without payment and unnecessarily delay, but he has provided the same in the month of May 2006. This contention of the complainant has some merit. Admittedly, the alleged sale deed was presented by the complainant for registration on 13.3.2006 whereas the photo copy of registered envelop Ex.A2 and postal receipt on Ex.R2 show that the same was dispatched to him on 3rd of May 2006 i.e. after the expiry of about 1½ months. The provisions of section 71 of The Registration Act, 1908 clearly imposes a duty on the part of the Registering Officer/ Tehsildar to supply the copy of the same without payment and unnecessarily delay. The dispatch of the sale deed with reasons of refusal to register, if any, after about 1½ months show that the office of OP1-Tehsildar took sufficient long time in dispatching the same while they were required to do so without unnecessarily delay. Thus, it shows that the OP1-Tehsildar had committed deficiency in service while sending the original sale deed with a copy of reasons of refusal to register the sale deed. <br /> 20. So far as the losses/ damages suffered by the complainant is concerned, the complainant has failed to prove the same by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has alleged that he has suffered a loss of Rs.250000/- i.e. value of sale consideration on account of refusal to register the sale deed, but the same has not been substantiated on the file. If he had not received the sale price of Rs.250000/-, he had not given his land to the proposed vendee. Now-a-days, the prices of the land are sky rocketing and increasing day-by-day. Moreover, the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove, if the price of the land alleged to be sold had been decreased by not registering the sale deed on 13.3.2006. <br /> 21. The complainant has also failed to prove any agreement to sell or penal clause, if any, entered into between him and the alleged vendee. He has failed to prove that he was liable to pay the penalty for breach of contract. He has also failed to file an affidavit of the proposed vendee to prove if he had made any payment by way of penalty to him or not. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation on account of alleged breach of contract of not executing the sale deed. <br /> 22. The contention of the complainant that he has suffered loss on account of purchase of the stamp papers worth Rs.22500/- is concerned; the same has also not been substantiated on the file. It is generally seen that the stamp papers for the execution of the sale deed are purchased by the vendee and not by the vendor. Moreover, there is provision in The Registration Act, 1908 for the refund of the stamp papers, if the sale deed had not been executed or used due to some reason. In the instant case, the complainant or vendee has not moved an application to the Registrar/ District Magistrate for the refund of Rs.22500/- i.e. the value of the stamp papers purchased by him for the execution of the alleged sale deed. Hence, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the compensation on account of purchase of stamp papers worth Rs.22500/-.<br /> 23. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we therefore, hold that the complainant is not entitled to any compensation on account of loss for refusal to register the sale deed or for purchasing the stamp papers as alleged. However, he is entitled to compensation on account of delay in sending the copy of the sale deed alongwith the reasons of refusal to register the same. Due to this reason, the complainant had suffered some harassment, mental tension and agony for which he is entitled to reasonable compensation. We therefore, hold that the complainant is entitled to Rs.7500/- as compensation for the same. As the delay in sending the original sale deed alongwith copy of reasons of refusal for registering the same had been made by the OP1-Tehsildar, so he is personally liable to pay the same.<br /> 24. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.<br /> 25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has some merit and the same is partly accepted. The OPs are directed to pay Rs.7500/- as compensation to the complainant on account of harassment, mental tension and agony for delay in sending the original sale deed with reasons of refusal to register the sale deed. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.2500/- on account of costs of litigation. In case, the aforesaid amount of Rs.10000/- is recovered by the complainant from OP2-State of Punjab, the OP2- State of Punjab shall recover the same from the salary of OP1-Tehsildar. The OPs are directed to make the payment of aforesaid amount of Rs.10000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> (Bhupinder Kaur) (J.S.Chawla)<br /> Member President<br /> Announced in Open Forum.<br /> Dated:02.12.2008.<br /> hrg*<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />