Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/464/2019

A.R.Ashok, S/o Late Rudramuniyappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner, City Municipality - Opp.Party(s)

A.M.Rudramuny

06 Feb 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:09/08/2019

DISPOSED      ON:05/02/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC. NO:462/2019

DATED: 5th February 2021

PRESENT :-     Smt. H.N. MEENA .                         …. PRESIDENT

                                B.A., LL.B.,               

                             Smt. B.H. YASHODA.                       ....MEMBER

                     B.A., LL.B.,

                               Smt. B.U. GEETHA.                                …. MEMBER

                               M.COM. LLB. P.G.D.C.L.P

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. A.R. Ashok S/o Late Rudramuniyappa, Aged about 45 years, R/o Hirehalli Village, Challakere Taluk. (Rep., by Sri.A.M. Rudramuni, advocate)
V/S
..OPPOSITE PARTY	1.Commissioner, City Municipality, Chitradurga.   2. Smt. Renukamma W/o Hanumanthappa Aged  about 45 years, R/o 5th Block, IUDP Layout, 11th Cross, Chitradurga Town.   (Rep., by Sri.                            P. S. Satyanaraya Rao, advocate)

 

Pronounced on 5th February 2021.

Written by Smt. H.N. MEENA, President.

ORDERS

1.   The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to change the Khata of the property bearing Site No. 54 municipal Katha No.7529, Asst. No.15310/54, as per sale deed in his fovour, to pay Rs. 6,60,000/- and registration charges of Rs. 45,200/- towards mental agony and other expenses, failing which, ordered to pay the amount as per S.R value of the vacant site with 12% interest p.a and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, site No.54, Municipal Asst. No. 15310, measuring E-W-30 feet, N-S-4- feet site, situated at 5^th Block, 15^th ward, Yangammanakatte Area, Chitradurga, the site formed in Sy No. 138 and 64 of Kelagote Village, this site formerly belongs to City Municipality, Chitradurga. Site was public auctioned by the City Municipality, Chitradurga on 28/02/1995, in the said Public Auction Smt. Renukamma W/o M. Hanumanthappa was the highest Bidder of the said site of Rs. 530/- and she deposited Rs. 150/- on 01/03/1995 receipt No. 37142 and Rs. 380 on 03/04/1997 under receipt No. 067758 to Municipal Fund towards auction amount. Thereafter the bid  was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. later the Commissioner, CMC, Chitradurga was issued Sale Certificate, SC No.4/1997-98 dated 04/04/1997 in favour of Smt. Renukamma W/o M. Hanumanthappa. Sale certificate was registered before office of the Sub Registrar, Chitradurga under SR No. 69 dated 10/04/1997.

3.     Thereafter Katha of this site is changed in fovour  of Smt. Renukamma W/o M.  Hanumanthappa  as katha/Asst., No. 7529/15310/54 an extent of 30X40 feet, she paid up to date tax to City Municipality, Chitradurga, She was in possession, enjoyment and owner of the said site. Smt. Renukamma W/o M. Hanumanthappa has sold Site No. 54, Municipal Katha No. 7529, Asst. No. 15310/54 Ward, Yangammanaktte Area, Chitradurga in favour of A.R Ashok S/o Late Rudramuniyappa through registered sale deed dated 17/12/2014 for a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/- the sid sale deed was registered before office of the Sub Registered, Chitradurga under SR No. 6663 dated 17/12/2014./

4.     Thereafter A.R. Ashok was approached before OP No.1 to change of Katha of this site as per registered sale deed dated 17/12/2014 and paid up to date tax to OP No.1 office and filed application for requesting to change of Katha in favour of complainant, but Op.1 till today katha of the schedule site is not changed in favour of complainant and till now not issued any endorsement to the complainant. OP.No.2 also approached to OP.no.1 to change of katha in favour of complainant and she given no objection for change of katha also. The Opposite party No.1 was dragging the  change of katha in favour of the complainant for one or other reasons. Hence prayed for allow the complaint.

5.    Notice has been served to the OP.1.  In spite of service of notice, OP.1 did not appear before this Commission and hence, placed ex-parte. OP.No.2 appeared through Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate and filed version admitted                                               all the allegations made in the complaint. According to the version filed by the OP.2 it is submitted that, OP.2 sold the site No. 54            Katha No. 7529 assessment No. 15310/54 30X40 feet situated at 5^th Block 35th ward Yangamanakatte Area, Chitradurga in favour of A R. Ashok S/o late Rudramuniyappa (complainant) through registered sale deed dated 17/12/2014  for a sum of Rs. 6,60,000/ the said sale deed was registered before the Office of the Sub registrar, Chitradurga.  And later A.R. Ashok approached before OP.1 to change of Katha of this site as per Registered sale deed 17/12/2014 and paid up to date tax to Op.1. and filed application for requesting to change of katha in favour of complainant, but Op.1 till day katha the schedule site is no change in favour of the complainant. Till now not issue any endorsement for refusing to change of Khatha  in favour of complainant  and OP.2 also approached the OP.1 to change of Khata in favour complaint and OP.2 also given no objection for change of Khatha but OP.1 has dragging the change of khata in favour complainant. It is clearly goes to shows that the said act of Op No.1 amount to unfair trade business, custom, deficiency in service and willfully negligence towards the complainant. The complainant is bonafide purchaser due to this illegal act of Op.1 the complainant is suffering from fanatical loss and metal agony.

6.     Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-8 were got marked and closed his side. OP.2 she have examined one Smt. Renukamma W/o M. Hanumanthappa,  documents have been Nil.

7.     Arguments heard.

8.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP.1 has committed deficiency of service in changing the khata of property in his favour and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the complaint?

              (2) What order?

 9.    Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                Point No.1:- Partly in affirmative. 

Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

10.  Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the parties that, the complainant is the absolute owner of site measuring 40 X 30 feet bearing site no.54, Municipal Assessment No.15310 respectively, the same have been purchased from their lawful vendors under the registered sale deed and registered the same before the Sub-Registrar, Chitradurga on 10/04/1997.  After purchasing the same, the complainant approached the OP.1 for change of khata on the basis of registered sale deed.  By that time, the OP.1 refused to change the khata in favour of complainant. 

11.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant, those are marked as Ex-A-1 to 08, the relevant documents concerned to the property of the complainant.  The documents produced by the complainant are clearly shows that, the vendor of the complainant is the absolute owner of the property before selling the same.  After selling the same, the complainant is the absolute owner of the above said property.  The complainant has followed the procedures as per the Municipalities Act.  Accordingly, the complainant has filed an application before the OP.1 for change of khata on the basis of registered sale deed.  Once the khata has been accepted by the Municipality or OP.1 they cannot ask any other documents from the party to change the khata.  In this case, the OP.1 has to do the work of transfer of khata in the name of complainant from the previous vendor.  Here the OP.1 has committed deficiency of service and they have not followed the procedure as contemplated under the Municipalities Act.  So, the OP.1 has to do the work on the basis of Municipality Act and the documents produced by the complainant.  Therefore, this Commission comes to the conclusion that, the OP.1 has committed deficiency of service.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.      

12.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

 

ORDER

 

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed. 

It is ordered that, the OP.1 is hereby directed to change the Khatha of the Site No. 54, Municipal Katha No. 7529, assessment No. 15310/54 Measuring 30X40 site at 5^th Block, 35th ward Yangammanakatte area, Chitradurga in favour complainant.  

It is further ordered that, the OP.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

It is further ordered that, the OP.1 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 

 

Complaint against OP.No.2 is dismissed.

(This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 05/02/2021 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

 

 

                               

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP.2:

DW-1: Smt. Renukamma W/o Hanumanthappa of OP.2 by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Sale deeds
02	Ex-A-2:-	Sale certificate
03	Ex-A-3:-	Assessment extract 2010-11
04	Ex-A-4:-	Assessment extract 2014-15
05	Ex-A-5:-	E.C
06	Ex-A-6:-	Form-15 ( Rule148)
07	Ex-A-7:-	Challan NO. 11309CTROC1602019
08	EX-A-8:-	SAS Form for Vacant Site

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP.2:

-Nil-

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                        MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

 

Kms

C