Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/10/89

Chakali Laxmamma W/o late Narayana, 45 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Thasildar, Devarkadra and others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri G.Narsimha Murthy

05 Sep 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Monday, the 5^th day of September, 2011 

                                                                 Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

       Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member     

     Smt. D. Nirmala, B.Com., LL.B.,Member

C.C.NO. 89  Of   2010

Between:-

Chakali Laxmamma W/o late Narayana, age: 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o 1-8-89/14, T.D. Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

                                                           … Complainant

And

1. The Tahsildar, Devarkadra.

2. The R.D.O., Narayanpet.

3. The Collector, Mahabubnagar.

   … Opposite Parties

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 26-8-2011 in the presence of Sri G. Narasimha Murthy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and Sri P. Bal Reddy, Govt. Pleader, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

                                                                                                     O R D E R

 (Sri P. Sridhara Rao, President)

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to initiate proceedings for grant of succession of the lands in Sy.Nos.137/A3, 49/E and 57 to an extent of 01-03Acres, 00-23Gts., and 00-37Gts., situated at Devarkadra in the names of all the legal heirs of original pattedars and award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony besides costs of the complaint.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are that:- One late Moosapet Chakali Chinnaiah is the owner and pattedar of the land in Sy.Nos.137/A3, 49/E and 57 to an extent of 01-03Acres, 00-23Gts., and 00-37Gts., situated at Devarkadra.  The said Moosapet Chakali Chinnaiah died leaving his wife Buchamma, son Narayana (husband of the complainant) and Sathyamma (daughter). The complainant is the wife of the said late Narayana and daughter-in-law of original pattedar. The complainant has filed an application to the OP-1 for grant of succession of the said lands in the name of legal heirs of the said pattedar. After giving such application the complainant approached the OP-1 several times but they did not take any action. Thereupon, the complainant got issued a legal notice on 7-9-2008 but they did not give any response.  So, for not giving proper reply to the legal notice the OP-1 is liable for civil punishment.  Again the complainant also got issued notice U/s 80 C.P.C. on 22-6-2009.  But the opposite parties even did not give any reply to the said legal notice.  The complainant again got issued another notice on 5-6-2010 and also marked a copy of the same to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration and the OP-2 R.D.O. Narayanpet. The Public Information Officer and the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar, under Right to Information Act on receipt of the said notice got issued by the complainant intimated the OP-1 to take steps within 30 days or otherwise the officer will be held responsible for not furnishing the information in time. Even then there is no response from any of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are bound to give reply to the applications and to the legal notices got issued by the complainant while discharging the duties as public servants otherwise it amounts to deficiency on their part.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The opposite party No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the complaint and stated that according to the entries in R.O.R. of Devarkadra village the name of late Moosapet Chakali Chinnaiah is not recorded as pattadar or an occupant against the land in the said survey numbers, that on receipt of the notices from Sri G. Narsimha Murthy, Advocate proper replies were accordingly given to him.  It is further stated that in fact one Sri G. Narsimha Murthy, Advocate has filed an application under Right to Information Act on 7-6-2010 requesting to take action and issue succession proceedings, but the Advocate has not filed any vakalath from the complainant or any authorization from her to request for supply of the said information under R.T.I. Act, and that the information in that regard has been dispatched to the said Sri G. Narsimha Murthy vide office letter No.B/5696/2010, dt.10-7-2010 and also a letter No.B/5696/2010,              dt.15-10-2010 and the same have been served on him on 25-10-2010 treating him as a citizen U/s 3 of Right to Information Act and therefore the information requested by the said Sri G. Narsimha Murthy, Advocate cannot be considered as “information” as defined under sub section (f) of Sec.(2) of Right to Information Act. It is also further stated that the complainant Chakali Laxmamma has not filed any application under the provisions of Right to Information Act by paying the required fee nor she has legally authorized any counsel or other person for seeking information on her behalf under the Act, as such she cannot attribute any deficiency of service under Consumer Protection Act, and that the discharge of official duties by government officials cannot be termed as service under the Act and the opposite parties are government officials and discharging the official and statutory functions and therefore the complainant has no locus standi before this Forum and thus the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.         

4. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 filed memo adopting the counter filed by the opposite party No.1.  

5. Thereupon the complainant in support of her claim filed her affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On the other hand, the opposite parties except filing their counter with above said contentions did not choose to file any separate affidavit evidence and got no documents marked.  

6.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in 

          rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

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

     (iii)  To what effect? 

7.  Point Nos.1 and 2:- It is the case of the complainant that her father-in-law late Moosapet Chakali Chinnaiah is the owner and pattadar of the land in Sy.Nos.137/A3, 49/E and 57 to an extent of 01-03Acres, 00-23Gts., and 00-37Gts., situated at Devarkadra and the said Moosapet Chakali Chinnaiah died leaving his wife Buchamma, son Narayana (late husband of the complainant) and Sathyamma (daughter).  It is the further case of the complainant that after the death of her father-in-law late Moosapet Chakali Chinnaiah she filed an application with the OP-1 for grant of succession of the said lands in the name of legal heirs of the said pattedar.  But as rightly contended by the opposite parties the complainant did not file any such copy of the application filed by her with the OP-1.  There is no date even furnished by the complainant showing the date on which she applied the OP-1 for grant of succession certificate. A perusal of the recitals of the documents marked on behalf of the complainant as Exs.A-1 to A-5 clearly goes to show that one Sri G. Narsimha Murthy, Advocate is the person who had given application on behalf of the complainant for grant of succession of lands but not by the complainant.  It also appears from Ex.A-5 memo that Sri G. Narsimha Murthy, Advocate is the person who paid the required fee of Rs.10/- in the shape of court fee.  It also further appears from Ex.A-5 that the said Sri G. Narsimha Murthy, Advocate signed the said memo as the applicant. So, as rightly contended by the opposite parties it appears that the applicant is the said Sri G. Narsimha Murthy, Advocate but not the complainant. Therefore, under the said circumstances the complainant, without giving any application to any of the opposite parties and without paying any consideration or giving any such authorization to anybody cannot allege any deficiency against the opposite parties.  It may be no doubt true that the said Sri G. Narsimha Murthy, Advocate issued notices to the opposite parties. In this regard, the contention of the opposite parties is that they have properly replied to him and they have been served on him even on 25-10-2010 which is not disputed by the complainant.  Therefore, we find that the complainant, without giving any application or paying any consideration to the OP-1 or without giving any authorization to her counsel, cannot allege deficiency against the opposite parties. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant failed to establish any deficiency of service against the opposite parties as alleged by her.   Furthermore, though it is her case alleging deficiency against the opposite parties but in the prayer portion of the complaint her specific and clear request is to direct the opposite parties to initiate proceedings for grant of succession of said lands in the names of all the legal heirs of original pattadars which is not covered by Sec.14 of the C.P. Act. So, we are of the firm opinion that this Forum has no jurisdiction to grant such relief which is not covered U/s 14 of the C.P. Act to the complainant. Hence, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to seek the relief to direct the opposite parties to initiate proceedings for grant of succession of the said lands in the names of all the legal heirs of original pattadar. So when the complainant is not entitled for the above said relief sought for by her we further hold that the question of awarding compensation against the opposite parties does not arise and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.       

8. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to the costs.

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 5^th day of September, 2011.    

 

    I agree                                          I agree                                              

 

 MEMBER                                      MEMBER                             PRESIDENT                       

  Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

 

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                      - Nil -

                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

                        Ex.A-1: Copy of Notice U/s 80 C.P.C., dt.7.9.2008.

Ex.A-2: Copy of Notice U/s 80 C.P.C., dt.22.6.2009.

Ex.A-3: Copy of Letter, dt.5.6.2010.   

Ex.A-4: Copy of Letter, dt.16.6.2010.  

Ex.A-5: Copy of Memo.    

On behalf of OPs.:                   

                                 - Nil –                                                                                                                                                               

 

                                                                                 PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                    

 

Copy to:-

1. Sri G. Narasimha Murthy, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the complainant.

2. Sri P. Bal Reddy, Govt. Pleader, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.