BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT  HYDERABAD.

F.A. 945/2007  against C.C. 168/2006, Dist. Forum, Ongole.     

Between:

1.  Tahsildhar,

Singarayakonda

Prakasham Dist.

2.  The Revenue Divisional Officer

Kandukur, Prakasham Dist.

3.  The District Collector

Ongole, Prakasham Dist.                            ***                           Appellants/

          .                                                                                       O.Ps.

                                                                   And

T. Venkateswarlu

S/o. Venkata Subbaiah

Age: 44 years

R/o. Singarayakonda.                                 ***                         Respondent/

Prakasham Dist.                                                                      Complainant

Counsel for the Appellants:                         Govt. Pleader.

Counsel for the Respondent:                       M/s. P. Mehar  Srinivasa Rao.                                                

CORAM:

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT.

&

                                  SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TEN

ORAL ORDER:  (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President.)

***

1)                 This is an appeal preferred by  the   Tahsildhar, R.D.O and Dist. Collector opposite parties 1 to 3 respectively  against the order of the Dist. Forum directing them to issue duplicate  patta besides costs.

2)                The case of the complainant in brief is that  his mother was granted  a patta by the then  Tahasildhar  of Kandukur  on 21.7.1977 for five acres of land in S.No.  498/A2 at Somaraju palli village.  Unfortunately  he lost it  in a recent cyclone and when he made representation they did not issue any reply.    Alleging that it constitutes  deficiency of service, he filed the complaint  to direct  the appellants to give duplicate  copy of patta besides damages and costs. 

3)                 The appellants resisted the case.    They alleged that no patta was granted  in favour of  Smt. Tanneru Venkayamma for five acres of land in S.No.  498/A-2C in Somarajupalli  village.    When Mandals were formed during the year 1984  all the D.K. files  along with connected records were transmitted to the  concerned mandals.    Accordingly  the Mandal Revenue Officer,  erstwhile taluq  of  Kandukur   while sending the records relating to  Singarayakonda mandal  did not mention  the file relating to  D.K. File No. 41/86 Dt. 20.1.1997 as alleged by the complainant.    In fact when the  Dist. Collector  directed the  M.R.O., Kandukur  to  make thorough search  he had observed  that there is no record  relating to the file in question.   A  recent survey   was made on  23.11.2004  in order to grant   assignment patta by following the due procedure  to the persons who were in occupation  of  five acres of land  in S.No.  498/A-2.  The details of occupation are noted hereunder :

At no time  patta was granted  to the complainant’s  for five acres of land.   She was  in enjoyment  only in an extent of  Ac. 1.53 cents.  Therefore, it is not possible to grant  assignment patta  for  Ac. 5-00 cents.  It is against rules.     The sketch in respect of said land is enclosed. There was no deficiency of service on their part  and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4)                The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence  and got Exs. A1 to A7 marked while the appellants did not choose to file any documents. 

5)                 The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that  the complainant was in possession and enjoyment of  the property  evidenced from the order  in W.P. No. 15955/1997  and  that subsequent survey was not valid and therefore  directed the appellants to  issue duplicate  patta to the complainant besides  Rs. 500/- towards costs.

6)                Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the appeal  contending that  there was no record that patta was granted to his mother.   A xerox copy of the original said to have been  filed was a fake one.  Even the Hon’ble  High Court  directed the complainant to approach the Civil Court.    It did not order for issuance of  duplicate patta.  He was not a consumer nor any relief  could be granted. 

7)                 The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact  and law?

8)                The complainant is the son of Smt.  Tanneru Venkayamma.  Alleging that his  mother was given  an assigned patta  for five acres of land  in Sy. No. 498/A-2C  of Somarajupalli  village of Singarayakonda mandal and for subsequently  it was lost   he filed the complaint for directing the  appellants to issue  duplicate patta.     He filed a xerox copy of  so called patta  given to him though the said fact was not mentioned in the complaint nor said document was  appended to it.   When  xerox copy of  the alleged patta was filed  the appellants in their counter mentioned that it was a fake one.    A perusal of it shows that it is a xerox  copy.   It was not even  true copy of the original. 

9)                It looks as though  that some of the  portions were pasted and later he took a copy of it.    The complainant initially could not prove that  his mother was given a patta for  five acres of land.    On the other hand the MRO  after thorough search  had observed that there was no  D.K. file  bearing No. 41/86 Dt. 20.1.1997  mentioned by the complainant.  On the other hand  the record shows that  patta was granted to four persons   which we have already adverted to.    The complainant’s mother was  in occupation of  Ac. 1.53 cents.  To substantiate the same  they also filed an extract from FMB.  It is a public document.    The  complainant could have verified the same.  When the MRO  stated that five acres of land  was  in occupation of four persons, the  complainant could have filed the affidavits of  those persons  to state that they were not in possession and that  his mother was alone is in possession  of  five acres of land  and was  entitled to the patta. 

10)              In fact  earlier he  along with two of his sisters   filed W.P. No. 15955/1997 before the Hon’ble High Court  alleging  that all of them are children  of  Smt. Tanneru Venkayamma who was given patta for five acres of land.    One Kunapa Reddy Mastanamma R3 in the   Writ Petition was making a claim over the said property.   When he complained that  the MRO and the police  had connivanced    with a third party, the  High Court after considering  the evidence disposed of the  Writ Petition  with a direction to the complainant  and his sisters to take appropriate action in a competent civil court  against the third  party.    The complainant instead of  filing a suit against the third party against whom accusing of trespass  with the connivance of  MRO and the police, gave up that plea, filed a case against the appellants as though his mother was  in occupation of five acres of land  and intended that a patta be given to him.   This is all contrary to the earlier pleading.    It is not known why the complainant did not take any action against the police as well as the third party  as directed by the  Hon’ble High Court.    Obviously, he was aware  that he  wanted a cheap remedy  as the proceedings  under the Consumer Protection Act are summary in nature  and he would get some order in his favour which  in fact  he succeeded.    

11)              We may state that  the  pattas to the property are granted by the  Government, no doubt  recoursing to some  Revenue Act but at the same time it is a sovereign function.    The appellants cannot be termed as statutory authorities.    Granting  of  patta by the appellants,  cannot be termed as service  to be rendered to him.   At any rate, the complainant could not prove that  his mother was having  land for which a patta was given for five acres of land.   Though he impleaded his sisters  in the Writ Petition, he discarded  them  and filed the complaint  solely  obviously in order to get wrongful benefit.    The relief which he sought  cannot be granted by recoursing to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.    The Dist. Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   We do not see any merits in the appeal. 

12)               In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Dist. Forum.   Consequently, the complaint is dismissed.   However, in the circumstances of the case no costs. 

1)      _______________________________

PRESIDENT                 

2)      ________________________________

 MEMBER           

   Dt.  18. 02. 2010.  

*pnr

“UP LOAD – O.K.”