Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/2/2017

B.Karunakar Reddy, S/o B.Siva Shankar Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Sub Collector - Opp.Party(s)

In person

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 02.01.2017

Order Date:15.06.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.02/2017

 

 

Between

 

 

B.Karunakar Reddy,

S/o. B.Siva Sankar Reddy,

Occ: Business,

D.No.87-560-1, Srinagar Colony,

Near Nandyal Check Post,

Kurnool City.                                                                        … Complainant.

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

The Sub-Collector,

Tirupati Revenue Division,

Annamaiah Circle,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                  …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 02.06.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Karunakar Reddy, party-in-person for complainant, and opposite party remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  Sri.B.Karunakar Reddy, against the opposite party, The Sub-Collector, Tirupati Revenue Division, Tirupati, for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, 2) to direct the opposite party to pay the costs of the complaint, and 3)   to grant such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

            2. The brief averments of the complaint are:- that the complainant is the absolute owner of the land in an extent of Ac.0.58 cents out of the total extent of    Ac.0.97 cents in Sy.No.437/6 situated in Tiruchanoor village, as he purchased the same from its lawful owner N.Jayakanthamma and another under the registered sale deed No.640/2011 dt:11.02.2011, for a valid consideration and ever since he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

            3. That the complainant proposed to make the land into house plots, since the said land is an agricultural land, he made an application on 04.02.2016 before the opposite party through online for conversion of the said land into non-agricultural land, duly paying requisite fee towards the service tax, postal charges etc. The said application was received and assigned application No.LCR011600036163. Along with his application, the complainant also submitted the relevant judgments (what are those judgments not furnished in detail) pertaining to the subject land, wherein it is clearly substantiated the ownership and possession. An acknowledgement was issued from Mee-Seva stating that issue will be delivered within 60 working days, but inspite of several visits to the office of the opposite party, so far the opposite party did not deliver the possession and made the complainant to wander from pillar to post. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint.

            4.  The opposite party remained exparte.

            5.  The complainant filed his chief affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 and also filed his written arguments. The complainant is appearing in person and advanced his oral arguments in person.

            6.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i). Whether the complainant is the absolute owner of the said land as alleged?

                 And whether the complainant has made his application for conversion of

                 the land into non-agricultural land as contemplated under the provisions of

                 A.P. Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1956?           

          (ii). Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

            (iii). To what relief?

            7.  Point No.(i):- Complainant’s case is that he is the absolute owner of         Ac 0.58 cents of land out of Ac. 0.97 cents in Sy.No.437/6, as he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dt:11.02.2011 from N.Jayakanthamma and another. Since the said land was an agricultural land, he wants to convert the same into non-agricultural land. The land in Sy.No.437/6 is situated in Tiruchanur.

WHO IS COMPETENT TO FILE APPLICATION FOR CONVERTION:

            The applicant for such conversion should be the owner or occupier, who is in actual physical possession of the land, over which conversion proceedings are sought, is only competent to file the application for conversion, as envisaged in Rule-6(iv)(3)  of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agriculture Purpose) Act 2006.

            In this case, the complainant failed to produce evidence to prove that he is the owner / occupier / possessor of the property in question. He has to furnish the sale consideration also. Similarly, the complainant has to produce the title deed of his vendor i.e. N.Jayakanthamma, through which she got the land and she allegedly became the owner of the said land etc. The complainant simply paid a sum of Rs.35/- under Ex.A2 receipt issued by Mee-seva bearing No.AG 2019380 dt:04.02.2016 and seeking 0.58 cents of land to be converted into non-agricultural land. Section-8 of A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agriculture purpose) Act 2006, contemplates the procedure for filing application for conversion of the agricultural land for non-agriculture purpose. Ex.A1 Form of Application for Land Conversion shows that the applicant / complainant has to enclose the following documents along with his application 1) Application in prescribed format, 2) Registered documents / copies of pattadar pass books / title deeds, 3) Basic value certificate from Sub Registrar, 4) Ration Card / Aadhaar No. / EPIC Card, but the complainant herein did not submit any of / either of those documents, but it was mentioned Court Judgments in A.S.6/90 and I.A.209/11 in O.S.58/11. Those documents were not referred to in his complaint and no such documents were produced before this Forum. That apart under Ex.A1 application, it is specifically mentioned that “I request that the competent authority to accord necessary permission for the conversion of the said agricultural land to non agricultural purpose in terms of Section-4 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non Agricultural purposes) Act 2006 (A.P.Act No.3 of 2006) I enclose herewith a copy of challan bearing No. (no such number is mentioned), dated (no date is mentioned), for Rs. (no amount is mentioned either in figures or in words), paid to the Government Treasury are left blank, @ 10% basic value of the land towards conversion fee”. The application is left blank in number of columns. The complainant has to pay 10% of the basic value of the land towards conversion fee, but he did not pay such fee. More particularly, the complainant for the reasons best known, he did not mention the sale consideration i.e. for what amount he purchased 0.58 cents of land. Unless the requisite terms and conditions under Ex.A1 were fulfilled by the applicant / complainant, he may not be entitled to get the relief sought for. In the complaint also, he stated that he filed relevant judgments along with his application for conversion of agriculture land into non-agriculture, but he did not give the description of those judgments, in which suit or case those judgments were delivered? By which Court they were delivered? On what date those judgments were delivered? Result of those judgments? and even the copies of such judgments were not furnished before this Forum.

            8.  The complainant further stated in his complaint that he has purchased the land from its lawful owner N.Jayakantamma and another, who is that another person / vendor is not shown, copy of such sale deed was also not filed. So, when the application under Ex.A1 and payment of Rs.35/- under Ex.A2 are not specific and as contemplated under Section-4 of A.P. Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agriculture Purpose) Act 2006, his case cannot be accepted. Under those circumstances, we have to say, who is this complainant and on what status he made the application for land conversion and what is his locus standi to file such application. This case is interlinked with C.C.No.55/2015, filed by the same complainant in respect of the same land in which the opposite party has specifically contended that the lands at Tiruchanur village are inam lands and Tiruchanur itself is a inam village. The complainant himself stated in C.C.No.55/2015 that the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar has granted patta in favour of her vendor Jayakantamma and another in the year 1979. Subsequently on coming to know about the said granting of pattas, the then Collector moved the matter before the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, on the ground that the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar has granted those pattas without following due procedure and illegal, on it the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records has cancelled those pattas granted by the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1982. This was not challenged by the complainant or his vendor. The complainant alleged that he has purchased the land in question on 11.02.2011 i.e. about 29 years after those pattas were cancelled by the competent authority i.e. The Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, by that time neither Jayakantamma nor her son Venkatesh or any other alleged second vendor of complainant were not having any valid title or possession or right over the said land and therefore they cannot be said as owners of the property. As such either Jayakantamma or another vendor of complainant or anybody else has no right to sell the property unless the proceedings passed by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, were set aside by the higher authorities or the Government.

            9.  “DOCUMENTS” to be filed along with application for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural purpose are 1) that the applicant / claimant shall produce his title deed, sale deed, pattadar passbook, his vendor’s title deed, and other documents to prove that he is the absolute owner of the property at any point of time or his vendors were the owners of the land in question or were in possession and enjoyment of the land in question at any point of time during the period from 1979 till date or till the date of application for “Conversion”. 

In the case on hand, the complainant did not file pattadar passbook said to have been issued in favour of his vendor. Similarly the registered sale deed under which the complainant said to have purchased the land from Jayakantamma and another is also not filed. No scrap of paper is filed to prove the alleged possession and enjoyment of the vendors of the complainant or possession and enjoyment of the complainant over the land in question. Therefore, under what capacity, the complainant has filed the application under Ex.A1 for conversion of land into non-agriculture one? That the complainant also not followed the prescribed procedure under Section-4 of the A.P.Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agriculture Purpose) Act 2006, by paying 10% of the basic value of the land. In order to ascertain the basic value of the land, the complainant ought to have produced the basic value certificate from the concerned Registrar / Sub-Registrar, but no such document is filed. On all these grounds, we got a specific doubt whether the complainant has purchased the said land as alleged or making a claim simply contending that he purchased the land.

            10.  Another two cases i.e. C.C.No.06/2017 and C.C.No.07/2017 are also interlinked with the facts of this case. Those two cases were filed by N.Venkatesh, S/o. Narayanaswamy, who is none other than the son of Jayakantamma. According to him, he is the owner of the land in an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.437/5. Nowhere in any of these four complaints (C.C.No.55/2015, C.C.No.02/2017, C.C.No.06/2017 and C.C.No.97/2017) either this complainant or N.Venkatesh, S/o. Jayakantamma, stated that Jayakantamma and her son got landed property in Sy.No.437/6. During the life time of Jayakantamma, it seems she never questioned the cancellation of pattas by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad. She died in the year 2012. In each and every sale deed, there should be a specific condition undertaken by the vendor that in the event of any dispute in future with regard to the land covered by the sale deed, the vendor shall resolve them legally at their own expenses. But when the land in question fall in dispute, the complainant herein ought to have question the surviving vendor N.Venkatesh, for non-existence of the land in the name of Venkatesh or her mother Jayakantamma, but it appears that this complainant and the said Venkatesh, who is the complainant in C.C.No.06/2017 and C.C.No.07/2017 were hand in glove because in those two cases, the said Venkatesh has given authorization to this complainant Karunakar Reddy to represent his case on his behalf. So, it appears that both the complainant and his vendor were hand in glove and filing this type of complaints and writ petitions on some pretext or the other and suppressed all these facts before this Forum. We have to use this word “suppression of facts” because the complainant herein has filed W.P.No.26291/2013, C.C.No.1438/2014, W.P.No.35889/2014, that the said Venkatesh also filed W.P.No.27113/2013, those writ petitions were pending before the Hon’ble High Court, but the pendency of those writ petitions were not mentioned in any of the complaints filed by the complainant herein and another complainant N.Venkatesh. Those writ petitions were also not referred to in the complaint. The complainant did not file the orders in the writ petitions and contempt case before this Forum. Similarly, according to Ex.A1he has filed judgments in I.A.209/11 in O.S.58/11 and also in A.S.6/90, but copies of those judgments were also not filed in this Forum.

            11. COMPETENT AUTHORITY: In C.C.No.55/2015, the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Area specifically mentioned that Tiruchanur village is declared as inam village and who got rights over the said land are at liberty to file their claims before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor and seek for grant of ryotwari patta under the provisions of A.P.Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Act 1956, by producing cognizable documentary evidence. Until they obtain ryotwari patta from the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, they have no right either to issue conversion proceedings or to grant any other relief. Therefore, the complainant if got any title, right, possession, enjoyment or interest over the land, though not established here in this case, first of all he has to establish the title, right, possession, enjoyment or interest over the said land, and approach the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, who is the competent authority for redressal. Under the above circumstances, we have to state that the competent authority is the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor. That the complainant failed to establish that he is the owner and got any right, title or possession and enjoyment over the property and he has not followed the procedure contemplated for the conversion of land into non-agriculture purpose and his claim itself appears to be improper and unsustainable and accordingly this point is answered.  

            12.  Point No.(ii):-  in view of our discussion on point No.1, we have to state that the complainant failed to establish not only his title, right, interest, possession or enjoyment, and also the title, right, possession and enjoyment or interest of his vendors, in any manner at any point of time. Therefore, in our opinion, the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

            13. Point No.(iii):- in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, the complainant failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the property in an extent of 0.58 cents out of 0.97 cents in Sy.No.437/6. Similarly, he also failed to establish that either Jayakantamma or her son got any title, right, interest, possession and enjoyment over the said property and the complaint appears to be frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 15^th day of June, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: B. Karunakar Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Form of Application for Land Conversion.
	Original receipts 2 in number pertaining to the APonline payments. Dt: 04.02.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

                                                                                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                                                      President

     

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

       Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

   

           Copies to:-      1.  The complainant.

                                   2.  The opposite party.