DATE OF FILING :18.11.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31st day of March, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.242/2010

Between

Complainants : 1. K.R.Prakash,

Kavumprayil House,

Ellackal P.O, Chithirapuram,

Idukki District.

2. Shamjala.K.Prakash,

Kavumprayil House,

Ellackal P.O, Chithirapuram,

Idukki District.

3. Shijo.K.Prakash,

Kavumprayil House,

Ellackal P.O, Chithirapuram,

Idukki District.

4. Arun.K.Prakash,

Kavumprayil House,

Ellackal P.O,

Chithirapuram,

Idukki District.

5. Cheera Gouri,

Vettikkompil House,

Ellackal P.O,

Chithirapuram,

Idukki District.

(All by Adv: K.M.Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Deputy Director,

Resurvey,

Survey & Land Records,

Collectorate, Idukki,

Painavu P.O, Kuyilimala – 685 603,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: N.K.Vinodkumar)

2. The Taluk Survey Superintendent(L.R),

Devikulam Taluk Survey Superintendent

Office,

Devikulam,

Idukki District.

3. The Village Officer,

Kunchithanni Village Office,

Kunchithanni .P.O,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Emmanuel John)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

The Ist complainant is the owner and in possession of 3.97 acres of land in Kunchithanni Village. The 2^nd complainant is having 1.48 acres of land and the 3^rd complainant is having 1.25 acres of land. The 4^th complainant is having 1.25 acres of land and the 5^th complainant is having 49 cents of land in ownership and possession in Kunchithanni Village and all are adjacent properties. The Ist complainant's property was purchased by him in the year 1988 from his brother Aniyankunju by creating a sale deed. The said Aniyankunju has received the patta of the property in the year 1977. The properties of the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th complainants were purchased by them in the year 1988 from one Sasi S/o Raghavan, Thoppil House by creating different sale deeds. The 5^th complainant received the patta of the land in the year 1977. All complainants are in possession of the property, are having title deed and conducted mutation in favour of them. They are independently enjoying the properties. The opposite parties are conducting resurvey in the year 1998 in that area. After the resurvey, in the year 2000 onwards the 3^rd opposite party is not ready to accept the tax of the property. The 3^rd opposite party told that after the resurvey, the property of complainants 2 to 5 were become in the same Thandaper Number of the Ist complainant. So the complainants filed several complaints to cure the defects and mistakes occurred in the resurvey. But the opposite parties are not ready to cure the same. As per the order of the District Collector, the Ist complainant has paid the tax in the year 2005. The only income of all the complainants are from the agricultural land. Because of the lack of the tax receipt, the complainants are not entitled to get agricultural loans, another benefits from the Government, Panchayath etc. and subsidies from the Government. They also lapsed the subsidy issued from the Government for cultivating pepper wine as Rs.26/- per plant. A subsidy provided by the Government as 33.33% for weed cutting machine was also lapsed, because of the same. Several complaints were given to the opposite parties, even at the Ist opposite party's office while situated at Kakkanad. The opposite parties have received the charges for surveying the property at the time of issuing the patta. Even now the complainants are ready to give any other amount to the opposite parties for clearing the defects of the resurvey of the complainants' land. So this petition is filed against the deficiency in service of the opposite parties that the delay in the procedures to cure the defects of the resurvey of the complainants' property and also for getting the tax receipt of the property within 15 days.
 

2. As per the written version filed by the Ist opposite party, it is stated that the cases relating to immovable property are having jurisdiction before the appellate authorities and civil courts because the procedures are long and needed several technical aspects and it should be considered like that. The complainant has not filed application as per Section 5, 68 and 69 of the Kerala Survey & Boundaries Act and Rules. After filing legal application as per the Rules, the documents of the property should be produced before the concerned officer and the property also should be shown to that officer by the complainant. If the property is not coming under the documents of the resurvey, that property should be changed as Government land. After the resurvey, the 3rd opposite party rejected the payment of tax. But as per the order of the District Collector the Ist complainant remitted the tax in the year 2005. So that particular order of the District Collector should also be analysed, before that, the resurvey cannot be completed. But no such order has been produced before the Ist opposite party. There is difference in the Thandaper and the area of the property and it also should be verified. So there is no deficiency from the part of the Ist opposite party.

3. As per the written version filed by the 2^nd opposite party, it is stated that the resurveys are conducted after perusing the resurvey records. In certain places where there are no clear or exact boundaries, they are surveyed again together with the records and documents of the Revenue and Survey, names are entered and records are created. The complainant stated that he has given several complaints to the opposite party, but the number of the complaint and details of the documents produced are not seen with the complaint. As per the Government Order No.200/10/Revenue dated 31.05.2010, if there is any defect or deficiency in the mutation or the resurvey, that can be cured through the Taluk Office by the Tahsildar by filing application there.

4. As per the written version filed by the 3^rd opposite party, it is stated that the resurvey documents came in force on 1.06.2004. But there are certain patta lands which are not included in the resurvey records. If that properties are also included in the resurvey records, then only the tax can be received and a possession certificate can be given that property. The concerned resurvey officers are the persons who are entitled to take action about the same. There is nothing to be done by the Village Officer with the resurvey. If a report received from the resurvey office or from the officials stating that the properties are to be included in the resurvey records and Thandaper should be obtained for the same then the Village Officer can conduct mutation and tax can be received for that property. This is the only duty of the Village Officer relating to that subject. In this case the property has not been included in the resurvey records and that order is not received by the Village Office till now. If such an order received, it will be given the first priority and tax will be received from the complainants. So there is no deficiency in the part of the 3^rd opposite party.
 

5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainants are entitled to ?
 

6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1(series) to P9 marked on the side of the complainants. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite parties.
 

7. The POINT :- The Ist complainant deposed as PW1. The copy of the title deed of the property purchased by the complainant and that of the property purchased by the complainant in favour of the complainants 2 to 4 are marked as Ext.P1(series). Copy of the tax receipts of the Ist complainant and in favour of the complainants 2 to5 are marked as Ext.P2(series). The complainant was paying tax upto the year 2000 and after the completion of the resurvey in the year 2000, the 3^rd opposite party was not accepting the tax of the property of the complainant stating that the Thandaper Number was different. So a complaint was filed by the Ist complainant to the District Collector in favour of complainants 2 to 4, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P3. The 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th complainants are the children of the Ist complainant and the 5^th complainant is the mother's sister of the Ist complainant. In 2005 the tax was received by the 3^rd opposite party as per the order of the District Collector. Several complaints were given to the opposite parties by the complainant and several times the complainant appeared before the Resurvey Adalath for settling the resurvey defects caused in his property. Ext.P4(series) are the notices issued by the opposite parties 1 to 3 for settling the dispute of the complainant which are 5 in numbers. But the dispute of the complainant was not cured by the opposite parties. The complainant filed an application before the Ist opposite party's office and also filed an application at Kakkanad where the Ist opposite party's office was situated earlier. As per the complaint given to the District Collector, several notices were issued to the complainant to appear before the Kunchithanni Village Office with relevant records and the complainant was present there, but the defects were not cured. Ext.P5(series) are the notices issued by the Collector's office which are 4 in numbers to appear before the Village Office with relevant documents and the the complainant appeared there, but the matter was not settled. On 15.02.2007 the 5^th complainant gave a complaint before the Survey Adalath and copy of the same is marked as Ext.P6(a)and the acknowledgement received from the office of the District Survey Superintendent is marked as Ext.P6(b). Another application given to the District Collector by the complainant dated 26.12.2007 is marked as Ext.P7 and a copy received stating that the matter was forwarded to the Tahsildar, Devikulam for enquiry and urgent report within a week, which is marked as Ext.P8(series). On 2.04.1997, the Ist complainant gave another complaint to the Ist opposite party, when their office was situated at Kakkanad, copy of the same is marked as Ext.P9.

As per the complainant, the complainant, his three children and his mother's sister, altogether having a property of more than 8 acres of land in Kunchithanni Village. The complainant and his children purchased the property as per sale deed and the 5^th complainant received patta land from the Government and they were paying tax for that property. But after resurvey they were not able to pay the tax for the property. The tax was not received by the 3^rd opposite party stating that the Thandaper Number became one and the same. The properties are situated adjacent. The complainant who is an agriculturist, the whole family is depending upon the income from agriculture for their livelihood. Due to the non-availability of the tax receipt, the complainants were not able to avail agricultural loans for their property. Many subsidies are also lost by the act of the opposite parties. Complainants filed several complaints before the opposite parties for the same. As per the 2^nd opposite party, if there is any dispute regarding the mutation and survey, the concerned Tahsildar can cure the defects by giving an application to the Tahsildar as per the Government Order No.200/10/Revenue dated 31.05.2010. As per the Ist opposite party the complainant has to file an application before the opposite parties' office as per Section 5, 68 and 69 of the Kerala Survey & Boundaries Act and Rules and the records of the property should be given to the concerned officers and the property is also shown to the officers. Then only the resurvey defects can be cured. That was not done by the complainant. As per the 3^rd opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party cannot receive the tax because the property above mentioned by the complainants were not included in the resurvey records and the order for the same was not received from the Resurvey Office. Only after getting the same the Thandaper should be confirmed in favour of each property and tax can be received.
 

So we think that the complainants already filed series of complaints to the opposite parties even when the Ist opposite party's office was situated at Kakkanad, on 2.04.1997 as per Ext.P9. A complaint was given to the District Collector on 25.04.2005 as per Ext.P3. Another complaint was given to the District Collector on 26.12.2007 as per Ext.P7. The 5^th complainant, who is an old lady filed another complaint to the Survey Adalath as per Ext.P6. Several times the complainants were called before the opposite party's office for curing the defects as per Ext.P4(series)and Ext.P5(series) notices. But the defects in the resurvey were not cured by the opposite parties. So it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite parties that they never cured the defects in the resurvey conducted by the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant lapsed several subsidies from the Government. Even now he is not able to receive any loan from the banks for agricultural purpose because of the lack of the tax receipt. So the complainant suffered heavy loss because of the act of the opposite parties. As per the 2^nd opposite party, the matter can be settled by filing an application before the concerned Thasildar. But as per the Ist opposite party the matter can be settled by an application as per the Kerala Survey & Boundaries Act and Rules. As per the complainant, he was not able to conduct the marriage of his daughter because he was not able to sold out his property or avail loan from the banks due to the non-availability of the tax receipt. If any specific application is needed for curing the defects that should be filed by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to cure the defects caused in the resurvey of the complainant's property mentioned in Ext.P1 within 3 months of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties 1 and 2 shall pay Rs.1,000/- per day to the complainant as compensation. The 3^rd opposite party is directed to receive the tax of the complainant's property after the same within 7 days, failing which the 3^rd opposite party shall pay Rs.100/- per day to the complainant as compensation.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) 
 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainants :

PW1 - K.R.Prakash

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainants:

Ext.P1(series) - Photocopy of title deeds of the property purchased by the complainant and that of the property purchased by the complainant in favour of  complainants 2 to 4

Ext.P2 (series) - Photocopy of Tax Receipts of the Ist complainant and in favour of the complainants 2 to 5

Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Ist complainant's complaint dated 25.04.2005 filed before the District Collector, in favour of complainants 2 to 4

Ext.P4 (series) - Notices(5 Nos) issued by opposite parties 1 to 3 for settling the dispute of the complainants

Ext.P5(series) - Notices(4 Nos) issued from the Collector's office

Ext.P6(a) - Photocopy of 5^th complainant's complaint dated 15.02.2007 filed before the Survey Adalath

Ext.P6(b) - Acknowledgement received from the office of the District Survey Superintendent

Ext.P7 - Photocopy of Ist complainant's application dated 26.12.2007 given to the District Collector

Ext.P8(series) - Photocopy of reply letter dated 27.12.2007 issued from the Collectorate, Idukki

Ext.P9 - Photocopy of Ist complainant's complaint dated 2.04.1997 addressed to the Ist opposite party

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Nil