The special Land acquisition Officer V/S Moolendra Kumar Gandhi & others - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2314

Moolendra Kumar Gandhi & others - Complainant(s)

Versus

The special Land acquisition Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Paras Jain

19 Dec 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2314

Moolendra Kumar Gandhi & others						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The special Land acquisition Officer						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 19th DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2314/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Sri. Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, S/o. Late Sri. Mulchand Gandhi, Aged about 53 years, 2. Sri. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, S/o. Late Sri. Mulchand Gandhi, Aged about 48 years, 3. Smt. Urmila Kumari Gandhi, W/o. Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, Aged about 51 years, 4. Smt. Baby Kumari Gandhi, W/o. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, Aged about 46 years, All are residing at C/o. Micro Strips, Avalahalli, Timber Yard Layout, Mysore Road, Bangalore 560 026. Advocate (Paras Jain) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (International Zonal Air-port Office), K.I.A.D.B. No. 3/2, Kheni Building, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate (P.V. Chandrashekar) 2. Sri. Y.M. Ram Chandra Murthy Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, (International Zonal Air-port Office), K.I.A.D.B. No. 3/2, Kheni Building, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. And presently transfer to Mysore Mineral Ltd., Chief Executive Vigilance Officer, 39, M.G. Road, Bangalore. Advocate (K.P. Nataraja) 3. Sri. T.P. Muninarayanappa, Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, (International Zonal Air-port Office), K.I.A.D.B. No. 3/2, Kheni Building, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate (P.V. Chandrashekar) 4. Sri. Kenchaiah, Manager, Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, (International Zonal Air-port Office), K.I.A.D.B. No. 3/2, Kheni Building, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate (D.C. Lakshmipathi) 5. Sri. S. Venkatesh, A.R.O. Chandra Layout, Binimill Road, Goodshed Road, B.B.M.P. Bangalore. Advocate (M.G. Vishwanath) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to disburse the payments in due in pursuance of the acquisition of schedule property and pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: These complainants purchased the disputed immovable property bearing Corporation No. 327 situated at Mysore Road, Bangalore from Smt. Narayanamma under two sale deeds dated 13.05.1986 for a valid consideration. They did move the Bangalore City Corporation to transfer the khatha in their favour. In the meantime the owner of the property Smt. Narayanamma filed a frivolous suit at O.S. No. 986/87, ultimately it came to be dismissed after two decades. Complainants have filed a suit at O.S. No. 9077/96 and 9078/96 for possession and their suits are decreed. In the meantime during the pendency of the said suits the said Smt. Narayanamma sold the disputed schedule property to the third party like Ketan Shah, Parasmal, Premchand and others and they in collusion with each other got changed the khatha in their name. The Government of Karnataka acquired the disputed schedule property for Metro Rail Project, then the said purchasers and the previous land owner in collusion with the OPs were able to get the compensation worth of crores. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants to the Land Acquisition Officers and other OPs that they being the owners of the said property, they are entitled for the compensation, went in futile. The award money is not disbursed to them. Hence complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. For no fault of theirs, they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence set out by the OPs is almost same and identical. It is contended that the subject matter of the complaint relates to disbursement of the compensation consequent to acquisition of the disputed property by the State Government. The Government officials have exercised their powers under sec 28 of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act and they discharged their statutory obligations and functions. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Complainants have not availed the services of the OP for consideration as contemplated. Hence the present dispute is not a consumer dispute. The other allegations are false and frivolous. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. It is further contended by OP.5 that the complainants have filed an earlier complaint No. 1643/08 with respect to the said schedule property and the said complaint came to be dismissed on 18.10.2008 and that order has reached the finality. The earlier complaint was for change of khatha and the present complaint is also with respect to the said schedule property relief sought is with regard to release of the award amount in pursuance of acquisition proceedings. If the complainants are aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, they have to seek remedy somewhere else not before the Consumer Forum. Among these grounds, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. It is contended by the complainant that they purchased the disputed schedule property bearing Corporation No. 327 from original owner Smt. Narayanamma under two sale deeds dated 13.05.1986 for a valid consideration. Thereafter somehow owing to the ill advise Smt. Narayanamma initiated a false and frivolous suit at O.S. No. 986/87 with respect to the said schedule property. Of course the said suit came to be dismissed after two decades. In the meantime it appears complainants filed suit for possession of the schedule property at O.S. No. 9077/96 and 9078/06. Why complainants kept mum for more than 10 years from the date of execution of the sale deed without taking possession of the property is not known. On that score alone the approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. Of course ultimately their suits came to be decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, the litigating parties have filed the appeals at R.F.A. No. 662/07 and 663/07 before Honble High Court of Karnataka. All these facts are well within the knowledge of the complainants. 7. It is also not at dispute that these complainants have filed a complaint No. 1643/08 before this Forum seeking for the relief of change of khatha with respect to the schedule property in their favour. The said complaint came to be dismissed on 18.10.2008, it appears the said order has reached the finality. Now the present complaint relates to disbursement of the compensation consequent to acquisition of the said schedule property by the State Government for the purpose of Metro Rail Project. We find there is a force in the defence of the OP that the said property is acquired by the State Government in exercise of the powers confirmed under sec- 28 of KIAD Act and the OPs being the public servants discharged their statutory duties and functions in accordance with the law. If the complainants are aggrieved by the said acquisition and the award passed by the land acquisition officers, they have got the separate remedy to redress their grievance before the competent authority and not before the Consumer Forums. 8. We also find force in the defence of the OP that the present dispute does not come under the definition of consumer dispute. Strictly speaking complainants have not availed the services of the OPs as contemplated. There is no hiring of a service for consideration. With respect to the same subject matter W.P. No. 9337/08 is pending before the Honble High Court of Karnataka. When that is so, complainants cannot raise parallel proceedings with respect to the disputed property. The compensation that is awarded is disbursed on 11.08.2008 and 21.08.2008 to the owners of the said property. As per the records it appears the said property was sold to one Ketan Shah, Parasmal, Premchand, Ram Chandra Reddy by Smt. Narayanamma and khatha stands in their name. After verification of the said public records OPs were pleased to disburse the award amount to the owners of the property. 9. The remedy is still open to the complainants to get back the said award amount if they are able to prove their title and possession to the schedule property. When the matter has reached the competent Civil Court, we do not think that this Forum has a right to decide a declaratory relief. Complainant can redress their grievance by fighting the said Civil Suits and Writ Petitions, if so advised. The schedule property is the subject matter of R.F.A. No. 662/07 and 663/07 pending before the Honble High Court of Karnataka. Considering the complex question of law, it entailed, it would require volumeness evidence for its disposal, which is not possible for this Forum to go into all these aspect in its summary jurisdiction. No such prejudice will be caused to the complainants as they have already knocked the doors of court of equity to redress their grievance. If they succeed in their attempt remedy is still open to them. 10. Viewed from any angle, it appears complainants have taken fancy in filing such consumer disputes knowing fully well the limits and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. As already observed by us, the earlier complaint is for change of khatha and present complaint is with regard to disbursement of the award amount. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be abuse of process. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Under such circumstances the complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to 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 19th day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 19th DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2314/2008 COMPLAINANTS 1. Sri. Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, S/o. Late Sri. Mulchand Gandhi, Aged about 53 years, 2. Sri. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, S/o. Late Sri. Mulchand Gandhi, Aged about 48 years, 3. Smt. Urmila Kumari Gandhi, W/o. Moolendra Kumar Gandhi, Aged about 51 years, 4. Smt. Baby Kumari Gandhi, W/o. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, Aged about 46 years, All are residing at C/o. Micro Strips, Avalahalli, Timber Yard Layout, Mysore Road, Bangalore 560 026. Advocate (Paras Jain) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, (International Zonal Air-port Office), K.I.A.D.B. No. 3/2, Kheni Building, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate (P.V. Chandrashekar) 2. Sri. Y.M. Ram Chandra Murthy Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, (International Zonal Air-port Office), K.I.A.D.B. No. 3/2, Kheni Building, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. And presently transfer to Mysore Mineral Ltd., Chief Executive Vigilance Officer, 39, M.G. Road, Bangalore. Advocate (K.P. Nataraja) 3. Sri. T.P. Muninarayanappa, Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, (International Zonal Air-port Office), K.I.A.D.B. No. 3/2, Kheni Building, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate (P.V. Chandrashekar) 4. Sri. Kenchaiah, Manager, Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, (International Zonal Air-port Office), K.I.A.D.B. No. 3/2, Kheni Building, 1st Cross, Gandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate (D.C. Lakshmipathi) 5. Sri. S. Venkatesh, A.R.O. Chandra Layout, Binimill Road, Goodshed Road, B.B.M.P. Bangalore. Advocate (M.G. Vishwanath) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to disburse the payments in due in pursuance of the acquisition of schedule property and pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: These complainants purchased the disputed immovable property bearing Corporation No. 327 situated at Mysore Road, Bangalore from Smt. Narayanamma under two sale deeds dated 13.05.1986 for a valid consideration. They did move the Bangalore City Corporation to transfer the khatha in their favour. In the meantime the owner of the property Smt. Narayanamma filed a frivolous suit at O.S. No. 986/87, ultimately it came to be dismissed after two decades. Complainants have filed a suit at O.S. No. 9077/96 and 9078/96 for possession and their suits are decreed. In the meantime during the pendency of the said suits the said Smt. Narayanamma sold the disputed schedule property to the third party like Ketan Shah, Parasmal, Premchand and others and they in collusion with each other got changed the khatha in their name. The Government of Karnataka acquired the disputed schedule property for Metro Rail Project, then the said purchasers and the previous land owner in collusion with the OPs were able to get the compensation worth of crores. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainants to the Land Acquisition Officers and other OPs that they being the owners of the said property, they are entitled for the compensation, went in futile. The award money is not disbursed to them. Hence complainants felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. For no fault of theirs, they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version. The defence set out by the OPs is almost same and identical. It is contended that the subject matter of the complaint relates to disbursement of the compensation consequent to acquisition of the disputed property by the State Government. The Government officials have exercised their powers under sec 28 of Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act and they discharged their statutory obligations and functions. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Complainants have not availed the services of the OP for consideration as contemplated. Hence the present dispute is not a consumer dispute. The other allegations are false and frivolous. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. It is further contended by OP.5 that the complainants have filed an earlier complaint No. 1643/08 with respect to the said schedule property and the said complaint came to be dismissed on 18.10.2008 and that order has reached the finality. The earlier complaint was for change of khatha and the present complaint is also with respect to the said schedule property relief sought is with regard to release of the award amount in pursuance of acquisition proceedings. If the complainants are aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, they have to seek remedy somewhere else not before the Consumer Forum. Among these grounds, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. It is contended by the complainant that they purchased the disputed schedule property bearing Corporation No. 327 from original owner Smt. Narayanamma under two sale deeds dated 13.05.1986 for a valid consideration. Thereafter somehow owing to the ill advise Smt. Narayanamma initiated a false and frivolous suit at O.S. No. 986/87 with respect to the said schedule property. Of course the said suit came to be dismissed after two decades. In the meantime it appears complainants filed suit for possession of the schedule property at O.S. No. 9077/96 and 9078/06. Why complainants kept mum for more than 10 years from the date of execution of the sale deed without taking possession of the property is not known. On that score alone the approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest. Of course ultimately their suits came to be decreed. Being aggrieved by the same, the litigating parties have filed the appeals at R.F.A. No. 662/07 and 663/07 before Honble High Court of Karnataka. All these facts are well within the knowledge of the complainants. 7. It is also not at dispute that these complainants have filed a complaint No. 1643/08 before this Forum seeking for the relief of change of khatha with respect to the schedule property in their favour. The said complaint came to be dismissed on 18.10.2008, it appears the said order has reached the finality. Now the present complaint relates to disbursement of the compensation consequent to acquisition of the said schedule property by the State Government for the purpose of Metro Rail Project. We find there is a force in the defence of the OP that the said property is acquired by the State Government in exercise of the powers confirmed under sec- 28 of KIAD Act and the OPs being the public servants discharged their statutory duties and functions in accordance with the law. If the complainants are aggrieved by the said acquisition and the award passed by the land acquisition officers, they have got the separate remedy to redress their grievance before the competent authority and not before the Consumer Forums. 8. We also find force in the defence of the OP that the present dispute does not come under the definition of consumer dispute. Strictly speaking complainants have not availed the services of the OPs as contemplated. There is no hiring of a service for consideration. With respect to the same subject matter W.P. No. 9337/08 is pending before the Honble High Court of Karnataka. When that is so, complainants cannot raise parallel proceedings with respect to the disputed property. The compensation that is awarded is disbursed on 11.08.2008 and 21.08.2008 to the owners of the said property. As per the records it appears the said property was sold to one Ketan Shah, Parasmal, Premchand, Ram Chandra Reddy by Smt. Narayanamma and khatha stands in their name. After verification of the said public records OPs were pleased to disburse the award amount to the owners of the property. 9. The remedy is still open to the complainants to get back the said award amount if they are able to prove their title and possession to the schedule property. When the matter has reached the competent Civil Court, we do not think that this Forum has a right to decide a declaratory relief. Complainant can redress their grievance by fighting the said Civil Suits and Writ Petitions, if so advised. The schedule property is the subject matter of R.F.A. No. 662/07 and 663/07 pending before the Honble High Court of Karnataka. Considering the complex question of law, it entailed, it would require volumeness evidence for its disposal, which is not possible for this Forum to go into all these aspect in its summary jurisdiction. No such prejudice will be caused to the complainants as they have already knocked the doors of court of equity to redress their grievance. If they succeed in their attempt remedy is still open to them. 10. Viewed from any angle, it appears complainants have taken fancy in filing such consumer disputes knowing fully well the limits and the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. As already observed by us, the earlier complaint is for change of khatha and present complaint is with regard to disbursement of the award amount. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be abuse of process. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Under such circumstances the complainants are not entitled for the relief claimed. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to 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 19th day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.