COMPLAINT FILED ON: 20.05.2010

DISPOSED ON: 03.02.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED THIS THE 3^RD FEBRUARY 2011

       PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S.REDDY                 PRESIDENT                        

                         SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA     MEMBER    

                         SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                MEMBER  

O R D E R

SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to pay compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day from the date of expiry of 45 days of receipt of Khatha transfer application form from the complainant, for delay and deficiency in service and further to award compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

2.      The case of the complainant is to be stated in brief is that:

The father of the complainant late Sri. Shri Chand Chhajer purchased vacant plots bearing Nos.19, 20 & 21, Metro Layout, First Cross Road, Nayandahalli, Bangalore under registered sale deed dated 20.04.1994. Since then they are in possession and occupation of the same. At the time of purchase, the said sites were not within the jurisdiction of BBMP and it was assigned with house list No.88 and Khatha No.60. The father of the complainant expired on 14.12.2001 leaving behind him, his wife, one son and three daughters. The complainant is the only son of deceased Sri Shri Chand Chhajer. The complainant filed an application before the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP, Bangalore for transfer of Khatha in his name on 18.10.2006. Tax has been paid in respect of said plots up to 2008-09. Though 4 years have passed, OP is not transferring the Khatha in the name of the complainant, the complainant and his Advocate visited the office of OPs for the last 4 years for more than 50 times, but Khatha has been not transferred till today. It is statutory duty of the Commissioner to register the Khatha of the property in the name of the owner and that too within 45 days from the date of submission of application for transfer of Khatha. The complainant and his counsel has spent more than Rs.10,000/- on conveyance for going and coming to the office of ARO. Further they have spent 200 man hours in prosecuting the application. In respect of various plots located in the said layout, after merger of the area in BBMP, Khatha has been transferred. The complainant is the only person who is being harassed by the ARO and Revenue Inspector, by not transferring the Khatha in the name of the complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of the BBMP. Hence the complainant is seeking necessary reliefs stated above.      

3.      On appearance, OPs filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant is not ‘Consumer’ and there is no any deficiency in service. It is admitted that the complainant has made application for registration of Khatha on 18.10.2006 in respect of the plot Nos.19, 20 and 21. It is submitted that the Government of Karnataka by ordinance – 2006 had prohibited on this in the revenue resend since lands were found being sold without conversion, without proper residential layout duly approved etc., In order to prevent registration of such sales and mutations the Government of Karnataka promalgamated an ordinance dated 01.12.2006. In pursuance of the ordinance OP issued an official circular dated 02.01.2007 to all the revenue officials of BBMP not to effect any registration in respect of new application. In view of the Government ordinance the ARO issued an endorsement dated 30.11.2006 to the complainant informing the legal position and therefore the request could not be considered. The said endorsement has been received by one        Sri. Mahaveer on 05.12.2006. On 03.03.2010 the complainant made representation to the ARO requesting for considering his request for registration, for that another endorsement dated 11.06.2010 has been issued informing the legal position and inability to entertain the request for the reasons mentioned in the earlier endorsement dated 03.03.2010. The regularization of properties and buildings in newly included areas and even in the BBMP limits are not done since the enabling provisions of the regularization scheme is not yet introduced. Once the scheme is brought into force, all the pending applications would be considered by the concerned authority. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4.      In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. The Head of the Legal Cell filed affidavit evidence on behalf of OPs and produced documents.  

5.      OPs filed written arguments. Arguments heard from complainant side. Points for consideration are:

      Point No.1:- Whether the complainant has proved          

                           the deficiency in service on the part of

                           the OPs?

Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled

                     for the reliefs now claimed?

       Point No.3:- To what Order?

6.      We have gone through the pleadings, affidavit and documentary evidence of both the parities and written arguments of OPs. We record our findings on the above points are:

Point No.1:- Negative.

Point No.2:- Negative.

Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

7.      The complainant’s father Late Shri Chand Chhajer purchased vacant plots bearing Nos.19, 20 and 21, Metro Layout, First Cross Road, Nayandahalli, Bangalore – 79 under the registered sale deed dated 20.04.1994. The said sites were not within the jurisdiction of BBMP at the time of purchase and it was assigned house list No.88 and khatha No.60. After the death of complainant’s father, the complainant applied for transfer of khatha in his name on 18.10.2006 before the jurisdictional Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP. The complainant claims that though 4 years have passed OPs are not transferring the khatha in the name of the complainant. It was statutory duty of the Commissioner OP-2 to register the khatha in the name of the owner within 45 days from the date of submission of the application for transfer of khatha; till today OPs have not issued any endorsement as to why they are not transferring the khatha in the name of the complainant. In respect of other plots located in the same layout after merger of the BBMP khatha has been transferred. The complainant is the only person who has been harassed by OPs, by not transferring the khatha in the name of the complainant; there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

8.      The main defence of the OPs is that in order to prevent registration of revenue sites and mutations, the Government of Karnataka promulgated an ordinance dated 01.12.2006. In pursuance of that ordinance circular dated 02.01.2007 is issued to all the Revenue Officials of BBMP not to effect any registration in respect of new applications. ARO’s issued an endorsement dated 30.11.2006 to the complainant informing the legal position and therefore the request could not be considered; the said endorsement has been received by one Sri. Mahaveer on 05.12.2006 who is working under the complainant in his shop. Again the complainant made representation on 03.03.2010 requesting for considering the request and another endorsement dated 11.06.2010 has been issued informing the legal position and the said endorsement is also received by the representative of the complainant Sri. Mahaveer on 14.06.2010. The complainant has suppressed the real facts and has filed this false complaint. The ARO has not mutated the khatha in view of the circular issued in pursuance of the ordinance promulgated by the Government. The regularisation of properties in newly included areas and even in the BBMP limits are not done, since the enabling provisions of the regularisation scheme is not yet introduced. Once scheme is brought into force, all the pending applications would be considered by the concerned authority. Thus there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complaint is to be dismissed.

9.      The complainant has produced the copy of the sale deed dated 20.04.1994 for having purchased these revenue sites by his father. Tax paid receipts, encumbrance certificate copies and acknowledgement for having submitted the application for registration of khatha are produced. Further the photos of the layout where in these sites are situated and the list of properties in respect of which the khatha has been registered of the sites situated in the same layout are produced. The copy of the note sheet maintained in the OPs office is also produced.      

10.    OPs produced the copy of the office order dated 02.01.2007 issued in pursuance of Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance – 2006. As per this office order action in grant of khatha / registration of khatha on purely revenue documents (non converted land) is to be abandon. Further OPs have produced endorsement dated 11.06.2010 issued to the complainant with regard to his application for registration of khatha dated 18.10.2006 stating that, since the sites are situated within the revenue area, the betterment charges are required to be paid; for the present collection of betterment charges is stayed; after receiving further order from the Government, the application of the complainant would be considered.

11.    The learned counsel for the complainant contended that in view of the principles laid down in ILR 2003 Karnataka page 2478 Asian Institute of Rural Development Vs. Bangalore City Corporation, Bangalore duty is cast on the OPs to consider the request of the complainant and register the name of the complainant in the khatha register, OP cannot insist the payment of betterment charges. We have gone through the facts of the said case. In that case the petitioner questioned the legality and validity of the endorsement issued by the respondent and sought for direction to effect necessary change of khatha in the name of the petitioner pertaining to landed property. The Hon’ble High Court held that the petitioner has established that it had discharged its statutory obligation U/s 114(3) of the Act. Therefore, the corporation is bound to issue khatha in favour of the petitioner in the discharge of its duties. Further considered the point as to whether the corporation authorities insist for payment of development / improvement charges as a condition for issuance of khatha and held that it cannot do so and can only do it at the appropriate stage as provided under Sections 466 and 467. It is contended that in view of the above principles laid down; these OPs are bound to register the khatha in favour of the complainant. In our view the Forums are not competent to issue direction to register khatha in the name of the complainant. The complainant could have challenged the endorsement issued by OPs dated 30.11.2006 and 11.06.2010 before the competent court of law. In view of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Ordinance – 2006 OP-2 issued office order dated 02.01.2007; on the basis of the same the application of the complainant has not been considered. The complainant has not challenged the office order dated 02.01.2007 and also the endorsements issued by the OPs. In view of the office order dated 02.01.2007 OP-1 has issued the endorsements stating the reasons why the application of the complainant could not be considered. The complainant has suppressed the fact of endorsement dated 30.11.2006 issued and which has been received by his representative Sri. Mahaveer on 05.12.2006 as stated by OP. After the version filed, the complainant has not denied the fact of such endorsements being issued and the same being received by his representative Sri. Mahaveer. The complainant has not disclosed this fact of receipt of that endorsement in his complaint. The list of properties for which the khathas has been registered in respect of properties situated in metro layout where these sites are situated reveals that after the office order dated 02.01.2007 issued by OP-2; only in respect of two properties at serial No.63 and 111 khathas are changed; the khathas of other properties changed much earlier to the said order. Only on that ground, it is difficult to accept that OPs without any justifiable cause not considered the application of the complainant for registration of khatha. The complainant is seeking only compensation for the delay in not considering his application. The application was filed on 18.10.2006 for registration of khatha and OP-2 has issued an endorsement dated 30.11.2006 informing legal position and the reason why the application could not be considered. The complainant could have challenged that the endorsement before the competent authority. Under these circumstances we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant is at liberty to approach the proper Forum challenged the endorsements issued by OPs and seek necessary reliefs. The complaint is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:    

                                      O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. Considering the nature of dispute no order as to costs.

          Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 3^rd day of February – 2011.)

PRESIDENT

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER 

 Snm: