DATE OF FILING : 22.4.2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.134/2016
Between
Complainants : 1. Paul, S/o. Francis Joseph,
Poothottathil House,
Nedumkandam P.O.,
Kalkoonthal, Idukki.
2. Rosamma, D/o. Francis Joseph.
3. Annakkutty, D/o. Francis Joseph.
4. Mariyakkutty, D/o. Francis Joseph.
5. Joseph, S/o. Francis Joseph.
6. John, S/o. Francis Joseph.
(All by Adv: Vikraman Nair N.G.)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Village Officer,
Kalkoonthal Village,
Nedumkandam P.O.,
Idukki.
2. The Tahsildar,
Udumbanchola Taluk,
Nedumkandam P.O.,
Idukki.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complainants are the legal heirs of late Francis Joseph who was in possession of 35 cents of landed property in Kalkoonthal Village and he obtained patta in this property as LA1273/73 dated 5.2.1977 under taluk cutcherry settlement. Thereafter mutation has been effected under TP No.4732 of Kalkoonthal Village and land tax has been paid from 1979 to 1999. While so, in the year 1999, the said Francis Joseph executed 2 settlement deeds in favour of the complainants as deed No.494/99/1 dated 23.2.1999 and deed No.360/99 dated 11.2.1999, of Sub Registrar Office, Kattappana. By virtue of this settlement deeds, the complainants are in possession and enjoyment of the said property since 1999. (cont....2)
- 2 -
After the registration of settlement deed, the complainants approached the Village Officer with necessary documents for effecting mutation in their name. At that time, the application of mutation was rejected by the Village Officer, Kalkoonthal on the ground that there was no proper records for patta. The complainants further submitted that it was the legal obligation of Revenue authority to keep records properly, since they are the custodian of the LA records. Denial of such application on the vague ground is a clear case of deficiency in service.
In the year 2001, complainants approached the then Revenue Minister and repeated the claim and the Revenue Minister directed the concerned officer to produce records and detailed report of the same. The Village Officer, Kalkoonthal Village reported that the documents prepared is eligible for mutation. By seeing no results in this matter, the complainants filed a representation before the Chief Minister in his Janasambarka Programme in Idukki District. The Chief Minister directed the District Collector for a favourable action in this matter. Thereafter the complainants approached the Village Officer and enquired the matter, at that time, the Village Officer behaved towards them indecently. The complainants further submitted that they had paid the building tax to the building situated there in as No.16/138 of Nedumkandam Grama Panchayath, till 2016. Under this circumstance, the complainants approached this Forum alleging deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and filed this petition for getting reliefs such as; to direct the opposite parties to effect mutation immediately and also direct them to pay ₹25000 as compensation and cost.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version. In their version, opposite party admitted the claim of the complainants to some extent and further stated that on verification of records, it is found that the above TP No.4732 is not existing now in Kalkoonthal Village office. Mutation can be allowed only after the verification of the genuineness of the concerned records. The non-sanctioning of mutation in the year 2001 might have been occurred due to the absence of proper records or the genuineness of former records. Opposite parties further stated that 1st opposite party reported the matter to 2nd opposite party on 29.7.2016 and requested his involvement in reinstating the TP account.
(cont....3)
- 3 -
Then 2nd opposite party through vide letter No.A9-9917/16 dated 22.8.2016 has reported this matter to the Sub Collector of Devikulam, the competent officer and requested his sanction for reinstating the TP. Hence the opposite parties are acted bonafidely and there is no deficiency in service happened from their part.
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. Ext.P1 is copy of patta No.1518 of Kalkoonthal Village, in the name of Francis Joseph. Ext.P2 is the copy of representation submitted before the Chief Minister dated 11.2.2015. Ext.P3 is copy of proceedings of 1st opposite party dated 14.8.2001. Ext.P4 is the copy of title deed. Ext.P5 is the copy of TP Register. Ext.P6 is the copy of tax receipts. Ext.P7 is the copy of building tax receipt. Ext.P8 is the copy of reply letter from the opposite party dated 29.8.2016. Ext.P9 is the copy of statement of 1st opposite party. Ext.P10 is the copy of letter submitted by the 2nd opposite party to the Devikulam Sub Collector.
The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
Heard both sides.
The POINT :- We have heard the counsels of the parties and have gone through the written version and exhibits. It is an admitted fact that the late Francis Joseph, none other than the father of the complainants, possessed an extent of 35 cents of land as described above and he remitted land tax till 1999. The execution of the settlement deeds have No.360/99 and 494/99 of Kattappana SRO is also an admitted fact. It is seen that the problem arises when the present owners of the property approached the Village Officer for effecting mutation in their favour. At that time, the Village Officer objected to effect mutation, due to the reason that the patta issued in favour of the deceased Francis Joseph is not genuine or due to the absence of proper records. From the record, it is also seen that, the present owners remitting the tax for the building situated in the property till now to the Nedumkandam Grama Panchayath.
(cont....4)
- 4 -
Moreover, from Ext.P6, it is revealed that, patta was issued to the adjacent property of one Vilasiniamma in the same area. From Ext.P10, we can came to know that, the 2nd opposite party seeking further opinion of the Sub Collector, Devikulam, for further action. At this juncture, it is very pertinent to note that, the struggle started in the year 2001, complainant filed so many petition and approached from the top to the bottom to redress the grievance till now. No favourable action is taken by any one of the Revenue authorities. It is also to be noted that eventhough the Chief Minister and Revenue Minister interfered this matter, the related revenue authorities handled this in a negligent and careless manner, without considering the pain and sufferings of complainants. The act of the 1st opposite party is sheer deficiency in their service. Such activities cannot be allowed for a moment and the opposite parties are legally bound to compensate the complainants adequately.
Hence the complaint allowed. The Forum directs the opposite parties 1 and 2 to mutate the property stated above, in favour of complainants, based on Ext.P4 settlement deed, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay ₹300 per day to the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2017
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
(cont....5)
- 5 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Rosamma.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Copy of patta No.1518 of Kalkoonthal Village,
in the name of Francis Joseph.
Ext.P2 - Copy of representation submitted before the Chief Minister
dated 11.2.2015.
Ext.P3 - Copy of proceedings of 1st opposite party dated 14.8.2001.
Ext.P4 - Copy of title deed.
Ext.P5 - Copy of TP Register.
Ext.P6 - Copy of tax receipts.
Ext.P7 - Copy of building tax receipt.
Ext.P8 - Copy of reply letter from the opposite party dated 29.8.2016.
Ext.P9 - Copy of statement of 1st opposite party.
Ext.P10 - Copy of letter submitted by the 2nd opposite party
to the Devikulam Sub Collector.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
