D.O.F:08/07/2020
D.O.O:08/09/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.69/2020
Dated this, the 08th day of September 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Suresh K P, aged 48 years
S/o Late K Puttaraj
Kottavayal House, Kundamkuzhi Post
Chengala Via, Kasaragod Taluk & Dist – 671541 : Complainant
And
1. The Village Officer
Puthur Village Officer, Kudlu Post
Kasaragod. : Opposite Parties
2. The Tahasildar
Taluk Office, Kasaragod – 671121
3. State of Kerala Represented by District Collector
Civil Station, Vidyanagar Post
Kasaragod – 671123
(Adv: Dist. Govt. Pleader)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The brief facts of this case is that the complainant is the owner of the landed property comprised in RS No.293/10 PT of Puthur village of an extend of 7.5 cent. The complainant purchased the said property from one M.A. Muhammad, S/o M. Abdulla of Puthur village as per document No. 1109/2013 of SRO, Kasaragod dated 23/02/2013. Thereafter, the property is in procession and custody of the complainant by paying land revenue and making all improvements. On 16/07/2019, the complainant went to first opposite party’s office to remit the basic tax of the land for the financial year 2019-2020. The first opposite party refused to accept the tax by stating that resurvey is required in this property and also directed the complainant file application for resurvey. The staff of the second opposite party called the complainant and the complainant had taken them to the site and they surveyed the property twice, but they could not submit the report and finally on 30/10/2019, one of the staff namely Mr. Chandran M.K called the complainant and the complainant had taken him to the site and he surveyed the property and asked the complainant to remit the survey charge of Rs.255/- and the same is paid accordingly. Thereafter, from last week of May 2020 onwards the complainant approached the first opposite party to remit the land revenue, but the first opposite party refused to accept the tax by stating that resurvey is required for the said property. Thereafter the first opposite party demanded the documents of the property for verification ,after perusing the records, first opposite party directed the complainant to collect the survey report. But it was not ready then. The first opposite party demanded the complainant to collect the file number and date. When it is given, the first opposite party informed that date is not correct. Hence the complainant again went to the office of the second opposite party to collect the date. They failed to furnish the date. Finally, on 30/06/2020, the complainant went to the first opposite party and informed that second opposite party failed to furnish the date and also accept the tax. But the opposite party refused to accept the same. The complainant had an intention to sell this property. Due to depreciation of market price on land, the complainant did not get a good purchaser. Then the complainant got a purchaser with good market price on land. Due to non-acceptance of the land tax, the complainant could not transfer the property to the purchaser and thereby the complainant suffered huge loss and severe mental agony at a minimum estimate the complainant is entitled for Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation. The complainant had an apprehension that he will loose the purchaser, if the opposite party continue his negligence. The attitude of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore the complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- along with interest @12% annum from 30/10/2019 till the date of realization from opposite party. Again the complainant is seeking RS.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost from opposite parties.
The opposite party No.1,2&3 filed version through District Government Pleader. According to opposite party No.1&2, the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable before this forum. The opposite parties are government servants and they are doing their official duty. There is no latches on the part of opposite parties and the complainant did not sustain any injury as claimed by him. Absolutely there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in this case. As per the Basic Tax Registry (BTR) maintained in Puthur Village Office an extend of 0.20291 hector of land stands in the name of one Muhammad Kunhi M.A of Puthur Village and an extend of 0.0303 hector was transferred in the name of the complainant. As per the title deed, after the remittance of the basic tax, the complainant has filed a LRM application for separation of sub division allotment in survey reports before the Tahasildar and the same was transferred to LRM Surveyor Puthur for survey work. There were 450 files pending for resurvey. In the meanwhile Head Surveyor Puthur was transferred and the Draftsman was called back delayed on account of imposition of lock down, the attendance of office staffs were restricted to 32%, which slowed down the processor survey measurement by the officials. Due to the tendency of lots of files later the same was submitted to the
Assistant Director of resurvey on 19/6/2020 and the same was retained from that office on 12/7/2020 and handed over to Taluk Office on 13/7/2020. After cross-checking, the village officer of Kudlu approved the same and proceedings in the file is completed on 12/8/2020. Thereafter, the complainant remitted the land tax on 21/8/2020. The allegations in the complaint are not at all correct. The total extend of resurvey in RS No.293/10 is 0.2091 hectors out of which complainant is holding only 0.0303 hector. On account of the covid pandemic, the delay was caused in LRM resurvey work. There is no latches on the part of opposite parties in their official duties and there is no willful negligence. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with cost.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined by the counsel of opposite parties as PW1, the documents produced are marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Both sides heard and documents perused. The main questions raised for consideration are,
- Whether there is any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in resurvey work?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
The first contention raised by the opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant availed service from first opposite party and basic tax is paid for resurvey also the complainant had paid charges. Hence the complainant is a consumer and the case is maintainable before this commission.
For convenience, issue No. 1 to 3 can be discussed together. The complainant is the owner of 07.5 Aces of land compressed in RS No.293/10 PT in Puthur Village. On 16/07/2019, the complainant approached first Opposite Party to remit the basic tax for his property. But op No.1 refused to accept the land tax and stated that resurvey was required and directed him to file an application for resurvey. The complainant filed an application on the same day itself. Thereafter twice the surveying was done and did not submit report. On 30/10/2019, one Chandran called the complainant and asked him to remit the survey charge. He remitted the same and waiting for remittance of the basic tax. The grievance of the complainant is that due to the non-acceptance of basic tax of his property by Opposite Party No.1, he could not sell his property. When a purchaser approached him with good price. Opposite Parties filed a proper explanation for non-acceptance of basic tax during that time. The complainant has filed LRM application for separation allotment in survey reports before the Tahasildar and the same was transferred to LRM surveyor Puthur for survey works. There were 450 files pending for resurvey. In the meanwhile Head surveyor Puthur was transferred and the Draftsman are called back delayed on account of imposition of lock down, the attendance of office staff were restricted to 33%., which slowed down the process of survey measurement by the officials. Due to the pendency of lots of file, later the same was submitted to the Assistant director of resurvey on 19/6/2020. And same was returned from that office on 12/7/2020 and handed over to Taluk Office on 13/7/2020. After cross-checking, the Village Officer of Kudlu approved the same and proceedings in the file is completed on 12/8/20202. Thereafter the complainant remitted the land tax on 21/8/2020. According to opposite parties, there is no negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. The complainant had not adduced any evidence to prove that due to the non-acceptance of basic tax, he could not sell his property and a purchase was available then with good market price. The complainant had only 7.5 cents of property before resurvey. But after the resurvey, he is having 8.64 cents in RS 293/16. He got one out of lan in addition to his 07.5 cents The Opposite Party is had given a proper explanation for the delay if any caused in resurvey and the covid pandemic is affected the entire world during that period. So the Commission holds that there is no negligence or deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint. Moreover the complainant is benefited with one cent of land in addition to 7.5 cents. The complainant is not entitled for any relief in this case as there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Tax receipt
A2-Possession certificate
A3- Copy of the application for re-survey
A4- Challan remittance for re-survey charge
Witness Examined
Pw1- Suresh K P
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
