A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD
FA 1033/2007 against C.D.No.673/2006 District Forum III, Hyderabad.
Between:
The Managing Director,
Narne Estates (Pvt.) Ltd,
Rep.by its chairman,
Col.N.Ranga Rao (Retd)
No.1, Gunrock Enclave,
Secunderabad.
… Appellant/Opposite Party
And
Wg. Cdr. P.S.Rao (retd)
Aged 42 yrs,
S/o. Sri P.Venkata Subbaiah,
H.No.207 , Asoka Amber Residency,
Vidyanagar, Hyderabad – 500 007.
… Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.K.R. Koteswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Dr. A.V. Ramana Rao
FA 467/2007 against C.D.No.673/2006 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad.
Between:
Wg. Cdr. P.S.Rao (retd)
Aged 42 years,
S/o. Sri P.Venkata Subbaiah,
H.No.207, Asoka Amber Residency,
Vidyanagar, Hyderabad – 500 007.
… Appellant/Complainant
And
The Managing Director,
Narne Estates (Pvt.) Ltd,
Rep.by its chairman,
Col. N.Ranga Rao (Retd.)
No.1, Gunrock Enclave,
Secunderabad. … Respondent/Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant : Dr. A.V. Ramana Rao
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.K . R. Koteswara Rao
Quoram : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPARAO, PRESIDENT,
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI. R. LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE TWENY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order : (as perHon’ble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1. These two appeals are preferred one by the complainant and another by the opposite party against the order of the District forum. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the complainant preferred FA. No. 467/2007 while the
Opposite party preferred FA.No. 1033/2007 directing him to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.2,000/-. We describe the
Parties as arrayed in the complaint for felicity of expression and avoid confusion.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased plot Nos. 3 and 4 admeasuring 666 sq. yds in J Block, Sector I of East City in Survey No.72, near Bibinagar from the opposite party and got it registered under registered under registered sale deed dated 25.1.1991 on payment of entire sale consideration. While so, he received a communication from the opposite party on 11.11.2005 stating that the government has acquired the said property for establishing a Medical University and directed him to approach the R.D.O. Bhongir for compensation. In fact the opposite party did not furnish copy of the resolution passed by the gram Panchayat, Bibibagar converting the agricultural land into non-agricultural land. Under sec.61 of Land Revenue Act due approval of converting agricultural land into non-agricultural land must be obtained from the concerned revenue authorities before the agricultural lands are divided into plots. Unless this approval is obtained the layout plan purported to have been approved by gram Panchayat cannot take effect. When he contacted the R.D.O. it was informed that the property did not belong to Narne Estates and the land belongs to Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board. Thus he was cheated by the opposite party. In fact he learnt that a Suit, OS. No.1/2002 was filed by the said Bhoodan Yagna Board before the Principal District Judge Nalgonda wherein the opposite party was shown as Defendant No.17. On that the opposite party filed O.S.No.238/1989 before the second Sr.Civil Judge, city civil Court, Hyderabad against the A.P.Bhoodan Yagna Board to transfer the property in S.Nos.19, 21, 32, 34,53,54,51 (part ) , 69,71,72,74,79,80 and 85 of Rangapur revenue village to an extent of Ac.57.8 guntas. There is yet another W.P.No. 9211 of 1990 before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. Claiming the property belongs to A.P.Bhoodan Yagna Board. The fact that the property was involved in litigation was not informed to him. It being a company ought not to have indulged in such unfair trade practice. Therefore, he filed the complaint claiming the value of the plots together with compensation and costs.
3. The opposite party resisted the case, however it admitted that the complainant was allotted plot No.s 3and 4 admeasuring 666 sq.yards in Block J, Sector – I of East City for which it had executed a registered sale deed in the year 1991 in favour of the complainant and he was in occupation thereof. While so, the Government has acquired the said land for establishing Medical University. In fact the complainant approached RDO, Bhongir calming compensation and his petition is pending before the RDO. He was not entitled to claim refund of the amount he having taken the sale deed. The suits that were pending were false and frivolous. The complaint was filed on speculations and presumptions that the property does not belong to it. The complainant can as well move the appropriate Court or Forum for recovery of the value of his land taken under acquisition proceedings. Therefore, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Exs. A1to A13, while the opposite party did not file any documents except an affidavit of its Managing Director.
5. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the opposite party did not provide the link documents to the complainant in order to show that it had title to convey the rights to the purchaser of the plots, which amounts to deficiency in service and therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred FA .No. 464/2007 contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in its correct perspective. When a competent authority converted agricultural land into non-agricultural land and the layout plan was approved by the Gram Panchayat, the opposite party ought to have provided the link documents to him in order to show that it was having rightful title to the property. The property was sold under the guise that it was the owner of the property. The District forum ought to have directed the opposite party to refund the entire money paid towards sale consideration besides other reliefs.
7. Equally, the opposite party preferred FA.No.1033/2007 contending that the order of the District Forum in awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000/-was unjust. As the complainant did not ask, the link documents were not provided to him, and as such he was not entitled to compensation. When the Suit was pending and he himself having received notice from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir, for payment of compensation, it cannot be said that he was not having title. At any rate, having obtained sale deed and having been in possession for the last 15 years, he cannot turn round and claim the amount covered under the sale deed. This Forum had no jurisdiction in this regard.
8. The complainant along with the appeal filed certain documents and they are marked as Ex. A14 to A20.
9. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of facts and law in this regard?
10. It is an undisputed fact that the opposite party executed a sale deed in favour of the complainant under Ex. A1 dated 25.1.1991 pertaining to plot Nos. 3 and4 situated in Survey No.72 of Bibinagar. For the first time , he filed the complaint in 2006 alleging that the vendor, the opposite party was not having title to the property and was liable to refund Rs. 8,00,000/- and odd on the ground that it represents the market value though he purchased the property at Rs.19,980/- about 15 years ago. The other allegation was that the opposite party did not provide link documents to him.
11. The complainant has presumed that the opposite party has no title in view of the fact that the Suit, OS.No.1/2002 was pending before Sr.Civil Judge, Nalgonda and W.P.No.9211/1990 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh filed by A.P. Bhoodan Yagna Board. The complainant for the reasons best known did not file either the plaint copy or the W.P. copy in order to find out as to the actual dispute between those parties. That apart, admittedly the complainant has been in possession of the property although and he himself had received a notice, Ex. A20 dt.18.10.2006 from the Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer , Bhongir wherein it was informed that the land purchased by him in Sy. No.72 was acquired by the Government and he being an interested person in the apportionment of the compensation, directed to be present before the said Officer, within seven days and put his claim. In other words, the Government itself has taken cognizance of his title and sought for his claim about the apportionment of the amount for the property acquired. Probably there was dispute in regard to title also. However, it is for him to approach the RDO and in case the authority declines to grant any compensation on the ground that there was no title, it is for him to take action against the opposite party before the civil Court, as the question of title would be in question. There is no consumer relationship in between the complainant and the opposite party in regard to the transaction, which he had entered into. The relationship is that of vendor and vendee. In regarded to dispute on hand, we may also mention herein, that the case was already referred under Sec.30 of Land Acquisition Act to the District Court, Nalgonda as evidence under Ex.A.18 letter obtained by him under Right of Information Act. It is not as through the complainant had ever disputed the title. In fact the asserted title in himself by sending representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer by his own letter dated nil wherein he stated that
“I had purchased this house plot bearing Nos. 3 & 4 at Block J in sector I of East City falling under Survey No.72 way back in the year 1991 through sale deeds registered as Document No 183/91 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Bhongir, Nalgonda District from M/s. Narne Estates Private Limited promoters and developers of East City. The property in question has been in my peaceful possession since then and I hold a valid and clear title for the same. Copy of the sale deed is enclosed for your ready reference. It is, therefore, requested that compensation at the current market rate of Rs.1200/- per square yard amounting to Rs.7,99,200/- may be granted to me. Please also favour me with further course of action on the subject.”
He has been claiming compensation over the land before appropriate authority.
12. Obviously as no court fee need be paid, the complainant filed the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum. We may add here that the complainant never prayed that the link documents were not given and therefore he could not claim compensation. Curiously, the District forum granted relief, that was not claimed. The relief that was granted was altogether different from the reliefs that were prayed by the complainant. Ata any rate, the quantum of compensation is pending before the competent Land Acquisition Officer under Ssec.30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complaint is mis-conceived. We do not see any merits in the complaint filed by the complainant.
13. In the result, the appeal, FA.No.1033/2007preffered by the opposite party is allowed. Consequently, FA.No.467/2007 filed by the complainant is dismissed. As a corollary, the complaint is dismissed. However, no costs.
* VVR
MEMBER
MEMBER
DATED: 21.09.2010
