BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2009

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.233/2008

Between

Complainant : Kuttappan,

Kombanaparambil House,

Ward NO.4, Muthalakkodam P.O,

Sasthampara, Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Party : The Scheduled Caste Welfare Officer,

Idukki District Scheduled Caste Welfare Office,

Thodupuzha,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT

The complaint is filed for directing the opposite party for distributing the Government acquired land to the complainant, who belongs to scheduled community.

Heard both sides. There was an agreement created by the opposite party with 57 persons, in 10 rupees stamp paper in 1969. The Government accrued 64 acres of land in Anjiri and it was for distributing among 57 persons who are not possessing any property, those who belongs to SC community. The complainant also entered into an agreement with the opposite party. But only 41 persons received the land. Now out of that 64 acres, one acre of acquired land is situated at Anjiri and the complainant is entitled for the same. The counsel for opposite party filed written version. As per the written version, the opposite party admitted that, in 1969, the Government acquired 57 acre of forest land for distributing 1 acre each to the families belongs to scheduled cast. The persons who are having property not more than 25 cents are entitled for the same. The complainant was having only 4cents of land at that time. But when 57 acres of land was measured, 16 acres were rocky land. One acre was remained for general public purposes. So the property was distributed for 40 persons by taking lots. In that one acre one temple is situated in 10 cents of land and an Agro service centre is situated in 5 cents of land. The balance 85 cent is given for cultivation by lease. If any public institutions are needed, that is to be allowed from the 85 cents of land. Now the Government had stopped the scheme. As per the complainant, an agreement was created with the complainant for getting the property, distributed by the opposite party. The agreement was not produced. The agreement was created in 1969. As per the opposite party there is no Government land vacant to distribute among the public.

So we think that, it is the Government policy to distribute land acquired by the Government from the forest to the poor people who belongs to SC. Now the Government has stopped the scheme. The Government is a statutory body acted upon the policy and that will not come into the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The agreement created by the complainant is also in 1969, it is barred by limitation. Hence the petition is not maintainable. But without going into the merit of the case, we, record the submissions made by both parties.

The complainant is disposed of with the direction to the opposite party to complete the formalities expediately to consider the claim of the complainant in a lenient way at the earliest possible time.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2009

Sd/-

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)