Karnataka

StateCommission

CC/57/2021

Mohd Iqbal, S/o Late Mohd. Usman, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Govt of Karnataka - Opp.Party(s)

Zameruddin

11 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE

 

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

 

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH    : PRESIDENT

MR. KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNAVAR      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

MRS. DIVYASHREE M.                                     : MEMBER

 

Consumer Complaint No. 57/2021

 

Mohd Iqbal, S/o. Late Mohd. Usman Aged 70 yrs, Agriculturist, R/of H.No.31, Village Chondi, Tq. and Dist. Bidar Rep. by GPA, Ashok, S/o Saibanna Aged 47 yrs, Agriculturist, R/o Hajjargi, Tq. Bidar 585401.   (By Sri. Zameruddin) V/s

..…Complainant

1 . The Government of Karnataka .      Rep. by Deputy Commissioner,      Bidar 585401.   2 . Assistant Commissioner,      Bidar 585401.   3 . Tahsildar,      Bidar 585401.   4 . Revenue Inspector      Bidar North 585401.   5 . Village Accountant,      Guller Haveli, Bidar 585401.   6 . Asst Director of Land Records,      through Tahsildar, Bidar 585401.   7 . Chairman      Bidar Urban Development Authority,      Bidar Office at Naubad 585401.   8 . Smt Sushilabai      W/o Late Anantram Doijode, aged 70 yrs,      R/o Devi Colony, Behind Karnataka Hotel            H.No.8-9-352, Near New Bus Stand,      Bidar 585401.   9 . Kishor, S/o late Anantram Doijode,      Aged 70 yrs,      R/o Devicolony, behind Karnataka Hotel,          H.No.8-9-352, Near New Bus Stand,      Bidar 585401.   10 . Manohar, S/o late Anantram Doijode,          Aged 70 yrs,      R/o Devicolony, behind Karnataka Hotel,          H.No.8-9-352, Near New Bus Stand,      Bidar 585401.   11 . Ashok, S/o late Anantram Doijode,      Aged 70 yrs,      R/o Devicolony, Behind Karnataka Hotel,      H.No.8-9-352, Near New Bus Stand,      Bidar 585401.   12 . Shashikant alias Sheshnarayan,      S/o late Anantram Doijode, aged 70 yrs,      R/o Devicolony, Behind Karnataka Hotel,      H.No.8-9-352, Near New Bus Stand,      Bidar 585401.

……Opposite parties

 

O R D E R   O N   A D M I S S I O N

 

Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNAVAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Commission heard the Learned Counsel for complainant on admission.

2. We perused averments of the complaint and the relief sought against OP Nos. 1 to 12,  in particular OP Nos. 1 to 7.
3. According to Learned Counsel, cause of action to raise this complaint arose, when complainant caused a legal notice under Section 80 of CPC dated 18.05.2021, which is served on OP Nos. 1 to 12.  The relief sought in this complaint is to delete the name of OP No.8 i.e., Smt. Sushila W/o. Late Ananthram Doijode and OP Nos. 9 to 12 from all the revenue records and to insert the name of complainant by way of correction in the Record of Right in respect of the land bearing survey No.60 Guller Haveli Village, Bidar Taluk.
4. He has not stopped to pray such reliefs but proceed to  sought for cancellation of NA order passed by DC, Bidar in the file No.LND Con/CR-4/ 2000-2001, Form No.10 and supplemental Akar Bandh prepared by the ADLR Bidar in file No.CSR/12/73-74 dated 03.11.1981, the layout map issued by Urban Development Authority and sought for compensation of Rs.1,22,50,000/-.
5. At the very outset we have to make mention from the averments made out in the complaint that OP Nos. 1 to 7 are none other the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, Village Accountant, Asst. Director of land records and Chairman, Bidar Urban Development Authority and rest of the OPs are private parties. 
6. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rules thereon are in force and if the officers defined under the said Act did some acts in the matter of revenue records, could not be providing service as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to complainant or OP Nos. 8 to 12.  It is therefore we held the officers discharging their revenue functions under the said Act and when the said Act itself provide appeal and review provisions, they could not be said service providers. 
7. Learned Counsel would submit that in ink page 25 of the complaint, the District Consumer Forum, Tirupati has held, commission gets jurisdiction to decide on the issue of revenue records.  We perused the so called typed copy order, wherein recorded negative finding, holding that complainant is not entitled for mutation and not entitled for any compensation, thereby dismissed complaint with no order as to costs, yet, he raised complaint before this Commission with a prayer to cancel revenue entries, cancel any order and to mutate his name in the revenue records, besides, sought for Rs.1,22,50,000/- is nothing, but, abuse of law has to be deprecated. 
8. Even otherwise, to maintain a consumer complaint before State Commission, the value of the goods or services paid as consideration has to exceed Rs.1.00 crore as provided under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  In such conclusion, this complaint raised before the Commission under Section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 could not be admitted. 
9. Accordingly, dismissed the complaint as not admitted with costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the Legal Aid Account of this Commission.

PRESIDENT

 

 

JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

MEMBER

CV*