Karnataka

Gadag

CC/47/2016

Sri Chandrashekar.V.Navalagund - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Tahasildar, Nargund - Opp.Party(s)

C.V.Padubidre

06 Aug 2016

ORDER

ORDER DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

ORDER ON MAINTAINABILITY

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Party (herein after referred in short as OP) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OP. 

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is resident of above said address he had purchased an agriculture land bearing R.S. No.326/1 measuring 01 acre 20 guntas from one Hanamantappa S/o Kristappa Malali, Pandappa Kristappa Malali and Smt.Venkawwa W/o Laxmappa Matnur G.P.A. Holder of above Pandappa Krishnappa Mallali by executing the registered Sale Deed on 08.03.2016. The said Complainant became the owner in possession (Kabjedar said portion). The Complainant purchased the above said land by obtaining 11E sketch from the concerned authority. 

 

3.      The Complainant further submits that the Sub-registrar of Naragund had send a J Form for necessary step.

 

4.     The Complainant further submits that Smt.Venkawwa W/o Laxmappa had filed a case against the Hanamappa Krishnappa Bellary and Pandappa Krishnappa Bellary and against the Complainant also before the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadag in O.S.No.67/2016 on 13.04.2016 and obtained the expert temporary injunction order. 

                           

5.      The Complainant further submits that there is no injunction order against the present Complainant on a said purchased portion of land and submits that Injunction has been granted against the above said two persons Hanamantappa Krishnappa Mallali and Pandappa Krishnappa Mallali. and also submits that there is no extension of Injunction Order by the Court and there is no prohibitory Order regarding the change of Hakku Badalavani to the Opposite Party (Tahasildar) and submits that the Complainant had applied before the OP for entering his name in column of Hakku Badalavane and he has furnished all the documents related to the portion of land.

6.      After receiving the said documents the OP had not made any effort’s to enter the name of the Complainant by mutating in concerned record and not provided the fresh R.R. hence, this case filed praying the Forum to direct the OP to enter the name of the Complainant in concerned record and award RS.25,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges.    

 

7.      On the basis of above said pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.	Whether the Complaint filed by the Complainant is maintainable?
2.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Negative,

Point No.2 – As per the final order.

R E A S O N S

 8.  POINT NO.1:  The Complainant filed a case against the OP is that the Complainant purchased an agricultural land bearing Survey No.326/1 by obtaining 11E sketch from concerned authorities. The sellers by name Hanamappa S/o Kristappa Mallari and Pandappa Kristappa Mallari and Smt.Venkamma W/o Laxmappa had sold the property to the Complainant. By virtue of sale deed the Complainant applied for changing of R.R. in the name of Complainant and submits that the OP had not came forward to change the Khata in the name of Complainant. After perusing the record, it is clear that there is a civil dispute pending before the Civil Court, Gadag. Moreover the Complainant himself had stated in his Complaint that the temporary injunction had been granted by the Hon’ble Court against the Suit Scheduled property. Further, the Complainant sought for the land records in the name of Complainant. Such being the fact, if the matter is pending before the Civil Court, this Forum had no jurisdiction to try the case. Hence, the Complaint is not maintainable.  

 

9.   POINT NO.2:   For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above point, we proceed to pass a following:  

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is dismissed.
2. The Complainant has directed to approach a proper Court.
3. No order on cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 06^th day of August, 2016)

 

Member

Member

President