DATE OF FILING :02.02.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.28/2011

Between

Complainant : Vijayan S/o Raman,

Karottu House,

Karippilangadu P.O,

Arakkulam Village,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Party : The Villge Officer,

Village Office,

Arakkulam.  

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant is the owner and in possession of 3 acres 9 cents of land in Karippilangad Kara, Arakkulam Village. The only income of the complainant and his family is the agriculture from that property. In the year 1999 a Rosewood stood in his property, which was not in the records, has stolen by somebody and the then Village Officer who colluded with them and a fabricated case was charged against the complainant. So the complainant was an accused and he was convicted in this case. After that without giving any information, the property of the complainant, 1 acre of land in survey No.248/1 of Arakkulam Village was attached and kept in auction sale by the opposite party. So the complainant has filed a complaint before the District Collector. Thereafter when the complainant approached the opposite party for paying the tax and getting possession certificate of the property, in order to renew the loan from the SBT, Moolmattom Branch, the application was rejected by the Village Officer. He told that the said tax receipt and possession certificate will be issued only if there is an order from the appellate authority. The District Collector has stayed the proceedings of the Village Officer to attach the property of the complainant. The Village officer is entitled to receive the tax of the balance 2 acre 9 cents of land in the property and so the complainant caused a loss of Rs.56,000/- due to the act of the Village Officer. So this petition is filed for getting compensation from the Village Officer due to the illegal act done by him. 

2.In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is stated that the complainant is entitled to pay an amount of Rs.1,19,228/- to the Government as per the Revenue Recovery Order dated 18.06.2007 as No.B7-10747/07, because the complainant has illegally planned to remove a rosewood in his property. But the complainant never paid the amount as per the order. So the property in Resurvey Block No. 24, T.P No.900 and Resurvey No.248/1 with an extend of 0.4047 hector was attached by the then Village Officer as per the order of the Tahsildar dated 2/08/2008 as Order No.B7-10747/07 and a mahazar was also prepared for the same. The property was taken over by the Government. As per the attachment order, the property cannot be pledged or transferred or make any other relief or gain. As per the resurvey reports the property in Survey No.248/1, which is with Thandper No.900 owned by the complainant, which is an extent of 1 acre is already attached by the village Officer. It is also written in the attachment mahazar prepared by the Village Officer. The said property was kept in auction on 27.11.2008 as per the order of the Tahsildar dated 23.10.2008 as No.B7-10747/07. But the auction was not done on that day. After that a re-auction was also fixed as per the order of the Tahsildar, Thodupuzha dated 26.07.2010 on 30^th August, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. But it was not conducted because a telephone message was received from the office of the District Collector that the proceedings were stayed for two weeks and the auction was postponed. No other order has been received in this office. On 25.01.2011, the complainant approached this opposite party for getting the tax receipt of the property in old survey No.857/1 and Thandaper No.1377 of 1.05 sq.feet of land without producing any stay order. The revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the same Thandaper Number(in old survey records and resurvey records)and the attachment details has been mentioned in the concerned documents, by the then Village Officer, the attachment has not been withdrawn and the property has not been entered in the name of the complainant. So the opposite party was not able to receive the tax of the property and the matter was informed to the complainant. The recovery file Number and other details were given to the complainant and it is also revealed to the complainant that, if the attachment proceedings were withdrawn from the Taluk office and the property has been resurveyed in the name of the complainant, the opposite party is ready to receive the tax of the property. The Tahsildar several times intimated about the matter and it was revealed by the Tahsildar that Rs.1,19,228/- is to be remitted by the complainant and the property has been attached. The procedures were written in file No.B7-10747/07 and it was told by the Tahsildar that if the person is a party in the recovery proceedings, the tax may not be received from that person. The complainant never produced any stay order to the Village Officer and it was revealed only from the notice from the Forum that the stay proceedings has been initiated by the District Collector. If that proceedings of the stay has been received by the complainant he ought to have produced the same before the Tahsildar and the attachment proceedings should be withdrawn. The complainant was paying the tax upto 2005-2006 in old survey No.857/1 with Thandaper No.1377, but the proceedings were effected in 2007 and that was not done. The Village Officer is not empowered to receive tax of any of the property in the old Thandaper Number. As per the resurvey documents, the property of the complainant is in Resurvey No.248/1 with Thandaper No.900 and in the joint possession of Vijayan S/o Raman, Karottu House, Karippilangad Kara, Balakrishnan S/o Raman, Kadukummackal House, K.R.Ammini, Kakkattu House and Meenakshi D/o Raman, Chamaramplackal House with an area of 3 hector 9 are and 92 square meter. An application should be filed before the Resurvey Superintendent, the property should be sub divisioned, Thandaper should be made in the name of the complainant and so the tax can be received from all the persons. One Mr.Balakrishnan, Kakkattu House has given an application to the Survey Superintendent in survey Adalath No.549/06 and a Thandaper was received as No.2506 in the name of the said person and tax receipt was given to that person. For the last 5 years, tax was not received from the complainant’s property because the property is the balance of the attached property. The predecessors of the opposite party also never received the tax for the complainant’s property because of the same. The matter should be decided by the Tahsildar and the Survey Superintendent. The complainant has concealed the same and the petition is filed before this Forum. The opposite party who is a Village Officer is entitled to receive the taxes of all persons in that village and the matters are intimated to the persons through post cards, notices and is willing to receive all tax dues from the applicants. The Village Officer is not the only person responsible for the non-receipt of the tax of the complainant. The attachment order signed by the Tahsildar should be withdrawn and an order should be received in a prescribed form for the same and on receipt of a new Thandaper number in the name of the complainant from the Survey Superintendent, the Village Officer can receive the tax of the complainant. So the Village Officer is not at all the person authorised to receive the tax of the complainant. Hence the petition may be dismissed.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 

4. No oral evidence adduced by both parties. Heard both sides.

5. The POINT :- It is admitted by the complainant himself that he was convicted in a forest case in which a rosewood theft was the allegation. The opposite party initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings against the complainant for an amount of Rs.1,19,228/-. As per the order of the Tahsildar dated 23.10.2008 as No.B7-10747/07, 1 acre property of the complainant was attached by the Tahsildar and it was put in auction twice. But the complainant is having more than 3 acres of land and so the complainant is entitled to get the tax receipt of the property after receiving the tax deducting that 1 acre land, which was attached by the Government. A stay order from the District Collector was received by the complainant against the attachment and sale of the property. But as per the opposite party, the property belongs to the complainant is in the joint possession of Vijayan S/o Raman, Karottu House, Karippilangad Kara, Balakrishnan S/o Raman, Kadukummackal House, K.R.Ammini, Kakkattu House and Meenakshi D/o Raman, Chamaramplackal House and the properties are also in re-survey No.248/1 with Thandaper No. 900. Moreover, no letter or proceedings of the District Collector has been received to the Village Officer. The property was attached by the Government and put in auction as per the order of the Tahsildar as file No.B7-10747/07. So if the complainant should receive an order from the Tahsildar stating the RR proceedings has been withdrawn and if the complainant got a new Thandaper Number after resurvey, the opposite party is ready to receive the tax of the complainant.  

As per the written version, the opposite party claimed that the Thandaper Number has been changed after the resurvey and now the property is in the joint ownership of Vijayan S/o Raman, Karottu House, Karippilangad Kara, Balakrishnan S/o Raman, Kadukummackal House, K.R.Ammini, Kakkattu House and Meenakshi D/o Raman, Chamaramplackal House with an area of 3.09 acres. In that property 1 acre of land including the same area has been attached and put in auction sale by the Village officer in order to realise the amount Rs.1,19,228/- as per the conviction of a forest case. Only if the complainant gets an order from the Tahsildar withdrawing the attachment, the Village Officer can receive the tax of the property. But a Thandaper also should be received as per the proceedings of the Survey Superintendent. Sri. Balakrishnan, Kadukummackal House, who is also a joint owner of the same property has received a new Thandaper as No.2508 when he filed an application in the Survey Adalath for receiving the tax and tax receipt has been given to that Balakrishnan. So the Village Officer is not at all responsible to receive the tax of the property of the complainant. For the last 5 years, the tax of the complainant’s property was not receiving because of the pending case and change in the Thandaper Number. So the Tahsildar and Survey Superintendent are the authorities who clear the defects of the property of the complainant by fixing the boundaries of the property after attaching 1 acre of land and issue Thandaper in the name of the complainant after resurvey. So we think that the Survey Superintendent and Tahsildar are necessary parties to this litigation and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no deficiency is proved against the opposite party.

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.

 Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2011

Sd/- 

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/- 

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)  

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

Nil

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Nil

On the side of Opposite Party :

Nil