Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/6/2017

N.Venkatesh, S/o Late Narayanaswamy, aged 63 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal - Opp.Party(s)

In person

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 09.01.2017

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.06/2017

 

 

Between

 

 

N.Venkatesh,

S/o. late. Narayanaswamy,

D.No.10-35, Ponnakalva Mandapam Road,

Tiruchanur village,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                  … Complainant.

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

The Tahsildar,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                  …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 07.06.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.N.Venkatesh, 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 N.Venkatesh, against the opposite party The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati, for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and for causing mental agony to the complainant, 2) to award 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 and possessor of the land admeasuring Ac.1.00 cents situated in Sy.No.437/5 of Tiruchanur village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. He purchased the said land from its lawful owner Chintakunta Abbaiah under the registered sale deed bearing No.3003/1960 dt:20.09.1960, on his name and on the name of his mother  Smt.N.Jayakanthamma. Some unconcerned persons filed suit in O.S.No.420/1997 on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge against the complainant and his mother, and the same was dismissed on merits  vide judgment and decree dt:06.07.2004, establishing their right and title in respect of the above said land property. Against the judgment and decree dt:06.07.2004 appeal in A.S.No.67/2004 was filed on the file of VI Additional District Judge (FTC) Tirupati and the same was also dismissed on 09.02.2012 and it became final. That the mother of complainant died on 17.08.2012, the complainant being the only legal heir succeeded to the said land of Jayakantamma and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land.

            3.  That the complainant proposed to develop the said land by making the same into house plots, and since the land is an agricultural land, he made an application on 26.05.2016 before the opposite party through online for mutation by paying requisite fee of Rs.135/- towards the service tax, postal charges and existing charges etc. The opposite party received the said application and assigned No.MU011602383243. Along with the said application, he filed relevant judgments pertaining to the subject land, wherein it clearly substantiated the ownership and possession of the complainant. An acknowledgement was issued from Mee-seva wherein it was mentioned that the issue will be delivered within 30 days. The opposite party did not deliver the decision to the complainant despite several visits to the office of the opposite party. Thus the opposite party caused much mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant was made to roam around the office of the opposite party on several occasions and also visited Hyderabad to contact his counsel for legal opinion for initiating legal proceedings before the High Court by spending transportation charges, lodging and boarding etc. The opposite party therefore is liable to pay compensation. He relied on a decision of National Commission in Chintamani Mishra Vs. Tahsildar, Kandapara, reported in LAWS (NCD)-1991-4-8 dt:19.04.1991. Hence the complaint.

            4.  The opposite party remained exparte.      

            5.  The complainant filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. He also filed his written arguments. Heard the party in person through his authorized agent B.Karunakar Reddy, who is the complainant in C.C.No.55/2015 and C.C.No.02/2017.

            6.   Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the mutation? and whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 

(ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation sought for? 

            (iii) To what relief?

            7.  Point No.(i):- Though the opposite party remained exparte, the complainant has to firstly establish his title, right, possession and enjoyment over the subject       Ac. 1.00 cents of land in Sy.No.437/5, in order to get his name mutated in the revenue records. Though the complainant had mentioned in his complaint that he has purchased the land in question from one Chinthakunta Abbaiah Naidu under the registered sale deed dt:20.09.1960 under the document No.3003/1960. He failed to file the said sale deed or its copy before this Forum and also did not file the same along with this application for mutation before the opposite party. Similarly, the complainant further contended that some un-concerned people filed the suit in O.S.No.420/1997 on the file of VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, against the complainant and his mother and the same was dismissed on 06.07.2004. The complainant also failed to file a copy of the said judgment dt:06.07.2004 before this Forum. He further contended that against the said dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.420/1997, an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.67/2004 on the file of              VI Additional District Judge (FTC) and the same was also dismissed on 09.02.2012. The complainant is also failed to file a copy of the judgment in A.S.No.67/2004 dt:09.02.2012 before this Forum. Unless the complainant himself establishes that he is the absolute owner of the land, his name cannot be mutated. As per Ex.A1 also the following documents are to be submitted by the complainant along with Form 6(a) i.e. 1) xerox copy of tax receipt, 2) title deed of vendor / passbook of vendor, 3) passport size photo, 4) copy of sale deed. None of those four documents were filed along with his application under Ex.A1, but it is mentioned that he filed a judgment in O.S.420/1997, and order of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.12854/2016, copy of those two documents were also not filed before this Forum.

            8. The complainant further contended that he purchased the land from Chintakunta Abbaiah Naidu on 20.09.1960, as per the complaint. The complainant is aged about 63 years as on the date of filing of this complaint (on 09.01.2017). So, by the date of alleged purchase of the land under sale deed bearing No.3003/1960, his age was 6 years only. How he could purchase the land at the age of 6 years, i.e. when he was a minor. If at all, the land is purchased in the name of minor also there should be some guardian, who represented him also not mentioned anywhere. Whether the mother of the complainant was acted as guardian while purchasing the said land?

            9.  The important points to be considered in the four cases C.C.No.55/2015, C.C.No.02/2017, C.C.No.06.2017(present case) and C.C.No.07/2017 are interlinked on material facts. C.C.No.55/2015 was filed against the Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati, who is also the opposite party in this case. Under the said case, the opposite party i.e. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati, placed contest and specifically contended that Tiruchanur village was declared as “inam village” and the lands of Tiruchanur village were also declared as “inam lands”. Therefore, if any party wants to get any relief against those lands, necessarily they have to approach the designated and competent authority i.e. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, and obtain pattas, unless such pattas were obtained, the names of such persons cannot be mutated in revenue records. That the opposite party is not at all concerned with the lands at Tiruchanur village, as they were already declared as inam lands and Tiruchanur also declared as “minor inam village”. Though the opposite party in this case remained exparte, the complainant should not automatically be entitled for the relief sought for, and the dismissal of O.S.No.420/1997 filed by some other party against the complainant herein itself does not create title to the complainant over the land in question. The complainant necessarily should establish his title by filing the title deed under which he purchased the land from Chinthakunta Abbaiah Naidu. Similarly, he also failed to file the title deed of his vendor Chinthakunta Abbaiah Naidu. Similarly, the complainant also did not file any document to prove his possession, enjoyment and right at any point of time during the period from 1960 till date over the land in question. But for the reasons best known, the complainant failed to file any of the said documents, which are necessary to prove his title, right, possession and enjoyment over the land in dispute. For the simple reason, that the opposite party remained exparte, it does not itself create title or right to the complainant. It is settled proposition of law that a person cannot convey title or right, what he does not have because the same opposite party in C.C.No.55/2015 specifically contended that the patta granted in favour of Jayakantamma in the year 1979 by the then Inams Deputy Tahsildar, were cancelled by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records in the year 1982, as those pattas were granted without following due procedure of law. Therefore, those lands were specifically declared as “inam lands”, and either the complainant or the vendor, mother of the complainant have got no rights unless specific proceedings or pattas were given by the concerned Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor, were restored or the proceedings issued by the then Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records in 1982 were set aside by the competent authority. No such documents were filed before this Forum, in order to establish his title, right, possession or enjoyment or any interest over the property in question. In the decision reported in Hon’ble National Commission reported in Laws (NCD)-1991-4-8 / CPJ-1991-2-333 – Chintamani Mishra Vs. Tahsildar, Khandapara., the complainant has filed an application for certified copies of certain documents before the Tahsildar, Khandapara, who is the custodian of such records. As certified copies were not furnished within the time, the complainant approached the Sub Collector, Nayagarh, who is the immediate superior and controlling authority of Tahsildar and also represented before the District Collector who is the next superior authority and in overall charge of the district administration making grievance of non-availability of certified copies, which were sent by registered post and have been received by them. Inspite of it they remained silent. The complainant therein, in support of his assertions filed corroborated documents and therefore the Hon’ble National Commission held that the complainant therein entitled for the certified copies and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. But in the case on hand, the complainant is seeking mutation over the inam lands, in respect of which there are no pattas granted in favour of complainant or his mother or his vendor. The pattas already granted by the then Deputy Tahsildar by name Shaik Kasumaiah in the year 1979 were already cancelled by the competent higher authority i.e., the Commissioner, Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad in the year 1982. In this regard, we are relying on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dt:11.07.2005 in Case No. Appeal (Civil) 4500 of 2004 between N.V.Srinivasa Murthy and Others Vs. Mariyamma (dead) Held: that the foundation of suit does not seem to be the adverse orders passed by Revenue Courts or Authorities in MUTATION PROCEEDINGS. The foundation of suit is clearly the registered sale deed of 1953, which is alleged to be loan transaction and the alleged oral arguments of re-conveyance of the property on return of borrowed amount. It is further held: that after examining the pleadings of the plaint as discussed above, we are clearly of the opinion that by clever drafting of the plaint the civil suit, which is hopelessly barred for seeking avoidance of registered sale deed of 05.05.1953 has been instituted by taking recovers to orders passed in MUTATION PROCEDINGS by the Revenue Courts. Further held:  that there is a fit case not only for rejecting the plaint but imposing exemplary costs on the applicant on the observations of this Court in the case of T.Arvindam Vs. T.V.Satyapal (1977(4) SCC 467) and the appeal is dismissed with costs incurred throughout by the respondent and further cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for prosecuting and prolonging litigation in a hopelessly barred suit.  Thereafter no pattas were granted to anybody else and those lands were declared as inam lands. Therefore, all these four cases are themselves interlinked and the complainant herein has filed application before the opposite party for mutation of records without any documents providing his title, right, possession and enjoyment or interest over the land. Under those circumstances, we cannot say that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and we can safely hold that the complainant is not entitled for mutation. Accordingly this point is answered.   

            10.  Point No.(ii):-  since the complainant failed to establish his title, right, possession and enjoyment or interest over the land in question in any manner or at any point of time, in our view he is not entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

            11.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish his case and he is also failed to establish that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and he is entitled for the compensation sought for and complaint therefore 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: N. Venkatesh (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
	Office copy of the application Form 6(A) in Survey Number 437/5.
	Original receipt issued by the APonline pertaining the service charges paid by the complainant. Dt: 26.05.2016.

 

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.