Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/130/2019

Sri Vishwanatha.K.N,S/o K.C.Ningappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Thippeswamy.N,

30 May 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:07/02/2019

DISPOSED      ON:30/05/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:130/2019

 

DATED: 30^th MAY 2019

PRESENT :-         SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                             SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N         :     MEMBER

                                      B.Com.LL.B.,

                             SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,              LADY MEMBER

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. Vishwanatha. K.N, S/o K.C. Ningappa, Age: 50 Years, Principal, SJM Law College, R/o Myalara Lingeswara Nilaya, Behind Unity Health Complex, Kelagote, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.N. Thippeswamy, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	The Municipal Commissioner, Chitradurga City Municipality, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.M. Umesh, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

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 No.11/P/1K, 11/P1K/A and 11/1/1/K/B as per sale deeds in his favour, to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony and other expenses, failing which, ordered to pay the amount as per S.R value of the vacant site with 24% interest p.a and to grant such other reliefs.

   2.   The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 17.10.2018 he has purchased three vacant sites measuring 40 X 35 feet bearing Municipality Khata No.11/P/1K, 11/P1K/A and 11/1/1/K/B respectively from their previous owners for a valuable consideration and the same have been registered before the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Chitradurga in Book No.1, document No.5734/2018-19, 5736/2018-19 and 5734/2018-19.  After purchasing the same, the complainant has paid the Kandayam to the OP regularly.  It is further submitted that, on 27.10.2018, the complainant has issued a requisition along with documents to the OP for change of khata in his favour.  But, the OP colluded with several real estate persons intentionally to drag on the proceedings and issued an endorsement to produce the final approval copy from the concerned authority within seven days.  It is further submitted that, the khata of the said properties are stands in the name of previous owners by name D.S. Suresh Babu, J. Shanta @ Kantha and G.N. Anusuya.  Earlier the OP has changed the khata of the said properties in the name of previous vendors of the complainant and issued khata extracts by obtaining all the documents.  It is further submitted that, the complainant is paying the kandayam to the OP, hence, it is the fundamental duty of the OP to change the khata in favour of the complainant.  The OP is well aware of the settled Principles of Law and the act of the OP is highly illegal, improper and further the act of the OP is against to the well established Principles of law and natural justice, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. The cause of action for this complaint arose on 27.10.2018 when the complainant has issued requisition to the OP and on 29.11.2018 when the OP has issued endorsement, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.  

3.      On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. M. Umesh, Advocate and filed version denying all the allegations made in the complaint.  According to the version filed by the OP, it is submitted that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed limine and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Further, it is submitted that, the Government has passed Circular dated 22.03.2017 and there is a strict guidelines with regard to change of khata and other matter and the OP has no power to overtake the Circular of the Government, therefore, the complainant is entitled for change of khata and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 4.     Complainant himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked and closed his side. OP has have examined one Sri. Laxmi. S, the Commissioner, City Municipality, Chitradurga as DW-1 and no documents have been produced.

 

5.      Arguments heard.

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

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

              (3) What order?

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

                    Point No.1:- Partly in affirmative. 

Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:- There is no dispute between the parties that, the complainant is the absolute owner of sites measuring 40 X 35 feet bearing Municipality Khata No.11/P/1K, 11/P1K/A and 11/1/1/K/B 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 27.10.2018.  After purchasing the same, the complainant approached the OP for change of khata on the basis of registered sale deeds.  By that time, the OP refused to change the khata in favour of complainant.  In spite of that, the OP has issued endorsement dated 29.11.2018, those are marked as Ex.A-4.  According to the Ex.A-4, the OP asked the complainant to produce the plan approved by the concerned Department within seven days from the date of issue of notice. 

9.      The Advocate for the OP has filed version stating that, as per the Circular made by the Government on 22.03.2017, for change of khata in favour of parties, they have to collect the plan from the parties.  No doubt, the OP has followed the procedure as per the Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka.  In this case, the complainant has purchased the above sites from their lawful vendors on 27.10.2018.  By that time, the previous vendors were already having the Municipal Khata from the OP.  Such being the case, the question of asking the plan from the complainant does not arise because, already Municipal Khata has been made out in the name of previous owners.  Under such circumstances, the OP has no right or power to ask the complainant to produce the plan.  Once the khata has been accepted, the question of asking the plan and other documents from the complainant does not arise.  In this case, the Advocate for the complainant has argued that, the previous vendors were already having khata from the OP, by that time, the OP never asked any plan or other documents from them. Once the khata has been accepted, the question of asking the documents for change of khata does not arise. 

10.    We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant, those are marked as Ex.A-1 to 4, the relevant documents concerned to the properties of the complainant.  The OP has not produced any Circular made by the Government of Karnataka.  The OP has simply stated in his version stating that, the Government has passed an order to take the plan at the time of changing the khata.  Without producing any relevant documents to disprove the case of the complainant, the Forum cannot come to the conclusion that, there is a Circular issued by the Government of Karnataka.  The documents produced by the complainant are clearly shows that, the vendor of the complainant is the absolute owner of the properties before selling the same.  After selling the same, the complainant is the absolute owner of the above said properties.  The complainant has followed the procedures as per the Municipalities Act.  Accordingly, the complainant has filed an application before the OP for change of Khata on the basis of registered sale deed.  Once the khata has been accepted by the Municipality or OP, they cannot ask any other documents from the party to change the khata.  In this case, the OP has to do the work of transfer of khata in the name of complainant from the previous vendor.  Here the OP has committed deficiency of service and they have not followed the procedure as contemplated under the Municipalities Act.  So, the OP has to do the work on the basis of Municipality Act and the documents produced by the complainant.  Therefore, this Forum comes to the conclusion that, the OP has committed deficiency of service.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.      

   

            11.     Point No.3:- 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 is hereby directed to consider the application filed by the complainant for change of Khata in his name within 30 days.

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.

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

(This order is made with the consent of Members after the correction of the draft on 30/05/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

 

DW-1: Smt. Lasmi, Commissioner of OP by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Sale deeds
02	Ex-A-2:-	Tax paid receipts
03	Ex-A-3:-	Khata extracts
04	Ex-A-4:-	Endorsements

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

Rhr**