Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/161/2018

G,T.Prasannakumar S/o G.K.Thipperudhrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Tahsildar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao

04 Jan 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:21.08.2018

DISPOSED  ON:04.01.2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:161/2018

 

DATED:  4^th JANUARY 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANTS	1. G,T.Prasannakumar S/o G.K.Thipperudhrappa, Major, Agriculturist, Chikkagondanahalli Village,Turuvanuru Hobli, Chitradurga.   G.T.Praveena S/o G.K.Thiperudrappa, G.K. Thipperudhrappa, Major, Agriculturist, Chikkagondanahalli Village, Turuvanuru Hobli, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	The Tahsildar, Chitradurga Taluk, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri.C.M. Veeranna, District Government Pleader)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to got mutate the M.R. in favour of complainants as per the registered sale deed dated 25.02.2017 pertains to the lands in Sy. No.139/4, 139/6 and 139/8 totally measuring 5-15 acres with cost and such other reliefs.  

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, the complainant No.1 by name G.T. Prasannakumar has purchased agricultural land bearing Sy.No.139/4 measuring 2-acre, 25-guntas situated at Chikkagondanahalli village, Turuvanur Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk for a sale consideration amount of Rs.5,20,000/- and complainant No.2 by name Sri. G.T. Praveena has purchased agricultural land bearing Sy.No.139/6 measuring 1-acre 3-guntas situated at Chikkagondanahalli village, Turuvanur Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk for a sale consideration amount of Rs.2,13,000/- from its lawful vendor i.e., Smt. Shashikala W/o Late G.R. Aravind and others through registered sale deed 25.02.2017 respectively.  After purchasing the same, the complainants have filed an application before the OP for change of khata and pahani on the basis of registered sale deed. By that time, one person by name K.A. Mahantesh S/o Adiveppa has given requisition to the OP for not change the khata and pahani in favour of the complainants as per sale deed.  After registration of the case by the OP in RRT/Vivada/Cr/43,44,45/2017-18 conducted proper enquiry by both the sides, the OP has disposed of the said case on 14.08.2017 stating that the said K.A. Mahantesh has filed a suit before the II Additional Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in O.S.No.71/2017, the OP has passed an order stating that, both parties to maintain statuesque until disposal of the case pending before the Civil Judge Court.  Further the complainant submitted that, when the document has been registered by the concerned authority, it is the bounden duty of the Revenue Authority to change the pahani on the basis of registered sale deed.  Mere filing of the objection is not a criteria for change of pahani in favour of the purchasers.  If the objector has been produced any stay order from the Hon’ble Civil Court, then only the OP is at liberty pass an order and kept the case until disposal of the civil case.  But the OP has committed deficiency of service by violating the natural justice and curtail the rights of the complainant under the constitution.  It is the main defects on the part of OP and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.     On service of notice to the OP, Sri. C.M. Veeranna, District Government Pleader appeared on behalf of OP and filed version and stated that, the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine and further this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and further u/Sec.12 of the C.P. Act is not attracted to this case.  Further it is stated that, the present complaint is exclusively civil in nature, the Civil Court and Revenue Courts have got jurisdiction to try this type of complaint.  Further the allegations made in para 2 to 5 are denied as false.  It is admitted that, the OP has registered the case vide RRT/Vivada/Cr/43m,44,45/2017-18 with respect to the registered sale deed and also pass an order on 14.08.2017 to maintain statuesque by both parties.  Further one Mr. K.A. Mahantesh has filed an objection before the OP for not to change the khata and pahani in favour of the complainants i.e., G.T. Prasannakumar and G.T. Praveena on the basis of registered sale deed dated 25.02.2017 and further it is stated that, the said K.A. Mahantesh has filed a suit for specific performance of contract before the Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge, Chitradurga in O.S.No.71/2017 is not known to this OP.  Further it is submitted that, the OP as per letter dated 25.02.2017 with respect to the complainants i.e., G.T. Prasannakumar and G.T. Praveena after registration of the sale deed from the sub-Registrar, the said registered sale deeds were brought to the OP office for change of khata.  At that time, one K.A. Mahantesh filed objection before the OP for not change the khata in favour of the complainants with respect to the registered sale deed dated 25.02.2017.  Then the OP had registered a case RRT No.RRT/Dispute/CR No.43,44,45/2017-18 and issued notice to the concerned parties and after giving opportunity to both the parties, by that time the said K.A. Mahantesh filed a document with respect to the survey numbers of the said sale deed and suit filed against the Smt. Shashikala and others on the file of Principal Civil Judge, Chitradurga in O.S.No.71/2017.  In view of the civil suit pending before the Civil Court, the OP has passed an order on 14.08.2017 to maintain statuesque with respect to the change of khata till disposal of the O.S.No.71/2017.  Against the said order, the complainants have approached the proper higher authority i.e., Revenue Court, the complainants knowing fully well that, the said dispute is civil in nature, they have approached this Forum with unclean hands and to cause harassment to the OP and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 4.    Complainant No.1 himself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and also filed sworn affidavit on behalf of complainant No.2 and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 got marked.  OP has not at all examined any witnesses and also not filed written arguments before this Forum, but the documents Ex.B-1 and 2 are got marked.

 5.    Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service while change the revenue records on the basis of registered sale deed dated 25.02.2017 and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute between both the parties that, the complainants have purchased the lands bearing sy.No.139/4 measuring 2-acres 25-guntas for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.5,20,000/- and sy.No.139/6 measuring 1-acre 3-guntas for a valuable sale consideration amount of Rs.2,13,000/- on 25.02.2017 respectively.  After purchasing the above said property, the complainants have approached the OP for change of revenue records on the basis of registered sale deed.  The OP has failed to change the revenue records in favour of the complainants.  By that time, one K.A. Mahantesh has filed an objection before the OP for not change the khata in favour of complainants while the case is pending before the Principal Civil Judge(Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Chitradurga in O.S.No.71/2011, but the OP failed to verify whether the objector has obtained any injunction order from the Hon’ble Civil Court with regard to the said survey numbers for not alienate the above said lands or not to create any encumbrance by the Revenue Authority or by any other person and simply the objector has filed the case under Specific Performance of Contract on the basis of unregistered sale agreement.  When the document was registered before the Sub-Registrar, it is their duty to send the registered documents to the revenue authority and the revenue authority has to change the documents in favour of purchaser on the basis of J-slip received from the Sub-Registrar.  But in this case, the OP has failed to do the work as per Karnataka Land Revenue Act under Section 128 and 129 of the Act.  Mere producing of the Xerox copy or certified of the plaint and order sheet, which are not the sufficient documents, the OP has refused to effect revenue documents in favour of the purchaser on the basis of registered sale deed.  When the Tahasildar has received the intimation from the Sub-Registrar, it is his bounden duty to change the documents in favour of purchaser within 30 days from the date of receiving the J-slip.  In this case, the Tahasildar failed to change the khata in favour of the complainants and simply registered the case and pass an order to maintain statuesque till disposal of the civil suit, it is not correct.  The Tahasildar has to see as to whether the objector has produced any injunction order from the Hon’ble Civil Court with regard to not change the khata.  If there are no any orders from the Hon’ble Civil Court, it is his duty to change the revenue document on the basis of registered sale deed in favour of the purchasers.  The Tahasildar has got right explain the contents in his order as to whether the objector succeeded in the Civil Suit, then automatically the same will be changed on the basis of order passed by the Civil Court.  Here the case is on hand that, there is no any orders from the Civil Court, therefore, this Forum comes to the conclusion that, the OP has committed deficiency in service for not changing the revenue records in favour of the purchasers.  The Tahasildar has not applied his mind as to whether the objector has obtained any injunction order from the Civil Court with regard to the same.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that, the OP has committed deficiency in service while changing the documents on the basis of registered sale deed.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

          9.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

          It is ordered that the OP is hereby directed to affect the revenue documents as per sale deed produced by the complainants and further if the objector succeeded in the civil case pending before the Hon’ble II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Chitradurga in O.S.No.71/2017, automatically it affects the same.

            (This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 04/01/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)     

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1 & 2:-	Registered sale deeds dated 25.02.2017
02	Ex-A-3:-	Order of OP dated 14.08.2017
03	Ex-A-4:-	Application by one K.A. Mahantesh

 

Documents marked on behalf of OP:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Order of OP dated 14.08.2017
02	Ex-B-3:-	Order sheet in O.S.No.71/2017

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**