State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt.Lakshmamma vs Deputy Commissioner on 25 January, 2022
1 Appeal No.715/2020
Date of Filing :12.10.2016
Date of Disposal :25.01.2022
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY-2022
PRESENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.715/2020
Smt. Lakshmamma,
W/o Late Narayanappa,
Aged about 75 years,
R/at Kurudi Village,
Hosur Hobli, Gowribidanur
Taluk, Chikkaballapur Dist. ... Appellant
(Party In-person)
-Versus-
1. Deputy Commissioner,
1st Floor, District Offices
Complex, Chikkaballapur-01.
2. The Deputy Director of Land
Records, 1st Floor, District
Offices Complex, Chikkaballapur-01.
3. The Asst. Director of Land Records,
New Taluk Office Complex,
Gowribidanur-561 208.
4. Munnegowda
Government Surveyor,
O/o ADLR, new Taluk Office
Complex, Gowribidanur-208. ...Respondent
ORDER
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This is an appeal filed u/s 47 of C.P Act, 2019 aggrieved by the order dated 19.09.2020 passed in CC-No.04/2020 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chikkaballapur. 2 Appeal No.715/2020
2. The facts in brief as stated by the appellant/complainant before the Forum below, raising complaint u/s 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 would be that, he has paid certain charges for land demarcation services to Nadakacheri on 04.01.2020 and he has paid Rs.135/-, such charges to demarcate Sy.No.141 of Kurudi Village. The OPs have failed to render such service property sought for a direction against them to complete survey of Sy.No.141 of Kurudi Village and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation charges, which came to be received by the District Forum and issued notice of this complaint against Opposite parties No.1 to 4, thereby keeping in mind the age of complainant as 75 years a village woman being senior citizen of Gowribidanur Taluk in Chikkaballapur District made genuine efforts to see that, her grievance would be settled, proceed to pass order on 03.08.2020 with a note as complainant and Opposite party.No.4 are present and as Opposite party.No.4 has undertaken to order for resurvey the property of complainant, if ordered by the Court, for which complainant agreed to close the case and thereby case came to be closed, which is assailed in this appeal by the special power of attorney 3 Appeal No.715/2020 holder of complainant, contending that the order is contrary to facts and law, is liable to be set aside.
3. Commission heard special power of attorney of appellant, he is none other her Son and O.P.No.4. We have gone through the impugned order and records submitted along with appeal memo. Now we have to decide on this appeal, whether relief sought in CC-No.04/2020 and in this appeal would be allowed under C.P Act, 1986 or 2019?.
4. The OPs herein are the Deputy Commissioner, Deputy Director of Land Records, the Asst. Director of Land Records, they are impleaded as Opposite parties.No.1 to 3, whereas one Munnegowda, the Government Surveyor- office of Asst. Director of Land Records, Gowribidanur as Opposite party.No.4. In fact on 07.04.2021 when this appeal came to be heard by this Commission, the Son of appellant and O.P.No.4 were very much present of whom O.P.No.4 Mr.Munnegowda.R submitted copy of resolution along with copy of sketch drawn in Sy.No.141 of Kurudi Village. We could see his report, notice, panchanama and sketch to show that, Sy.No.141 is re-surveyed and demarcated by him, this is dated 17.07.2020 is one aspect of 4 Appeal No.715/2020 the matter and the fact remains that determination of boundary, survey settlement of lands and boundary dispute are the domain of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Amendment Acts thereon. In fact Chapter No.12 and 13 of the said Act provides for boundary/s marks commencing from Section-137 to 152 and these disputes cannot be entertained by the Consumer Commissions giving effect to the provisions of S.3 of CPA, 1986. It is therefore, this Commission at the very outset expressed its view that, Commission below with an object to get redress the dispute of an old aged Woman of 75 years, did something and thereby closed the complaint, which cannot be assailed before this Commission either u/s 15 or u/s 47 of C.P Act, 1986 and 2019, respectively. In such conclusion, we proceed to dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.
5. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal.
Lady Member Judicial Member *J*