State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Ervadi ... vs The Thasildar, Cheranmagadevi, ... on 13 February, 2023
1
IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.
Present: THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.11/2020
(Against the order made in C.C.No.216/2018 dated 24.07.2019 on the file of the District
Commission, Tirunelveli.)
MONDAY, THE 13rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
Mohamed Ali Jinnah,
S/o S.M.Ahamed Musthafa,
37/3, 4th Street, Ervadi - 627 103,
Tirunelveli District. Appellant/Complainant
-Vs-
1. Tha Thasildar,
Cheranmahadevi Taluk Office,
Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. 1st Respondent/1st Opposite Party
2. The Zonal Deputy Tahsildar,
Cheranmahadevi Taluk Office,
Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. 2nd Respondent/2nd Opposite Party
3. The Village Administrative Officer,
Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District. 3rd Respondent/3rd Opposite Party
Counsel for Appellant/Complainant : In-Person.
Counsel for Respondents-1to3/Opp.Parties-1to3 : Mr.Makson Lobo, Govt.Pleader.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 13.01.2023 and upon perusing
the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.N. RAJASEKAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1 2
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the learned District Commission, Tirunelveli made in C.C.No.216/2018, dated 24.07.2019, dismissing the complaint.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission Tirunelveli.
3. The complainant suffering by an order, dismissal of the complaint, in the hands of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tirunelveli (hereinafter in short "District Commission") have preferred this appeal before this Commission.
4. The case of the complainant's is as follows: The complainant is retired from service as Physical Educational Director, Government Secondary School and residing at Erwady Village. During his service he purchased a Punchai land measuring 7 acre 99 cent in the year 1996 in Cheranmahadevi Taluk, Cherankovil, Pathu Village from Muthulakshmi, residing at Veervanallur and registered the sale deed on 13.06.1996 in Sub-Register Office, Cheranmahadevi. The Government acquired extent of 2 acre 93 cent for the construction of houses for Adi-dravider, the remaining extent of 5 acre 6 cent with the complainant. The complainant approached the 1st opposite party for issuance of patta for the piece of land belongs to the complainant. As per the advice of the opposite party on 08.03.2008 the complainant remitted Rs.60/- through E-Service Centre and applied for Patta transfer by uploading the necessary documents. The 2 3 complainant found on verification through online website on 21.03.2018 he found the application of the complainant was approved by Zonal Deputy Tahsildar on 21.03.2018 and also approved on that date itself. As per the Government Order M.S.No.117 dated 09.03.1999 the transfer of patta should be completed within the period of one month as per G.O. The opposite parties not furnished the information to the complainant it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is suffered with mental agony. Therefore, directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and the amount paid by the complainant of Rs.60/- and also cost of the proceedings.
5. Written version filed by the 2nd opposite party and adopted by 1st and 3rd opposite parties are as follows: The complaint itself is not maintainable since the dispute with regard to Revenue Department are does not comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act,1986. Necessary order was passed by the Zonal Deputy Tahsildar on 21.03.2018 and the same was communicated to the complainant the complaint was only filed to harass the opposite parties and the same may be dismissed with cost.
6. The Learned District Commission after taking into account of the evidences adduced by both parties and held that, the complaint is not maintainable before the consumer Commission and dismiss the complaint by relying upon the citation 2014 (4) CLT Page 521 (NC) V.B.Ambedkar -Vs- District Collector it was held that "Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 (1) (d) & 2 (1) (o) - Demarcation of land - Revenue officials failed to measure land despite of depositing prescribed fee by complainant - 3 4 Whether consumer complaint maintainable? -Held-No Act of measurement of land is not a commercial activity - it is statutory function under the Revenue Act - Therefore, it cannot be said that respondent was rendering any kind of service for consideration".
7. Aggrieved against the above order the complainant challenging it by filing the appeal stating that, the opposite parties failed to prove their contention by producing any evidence the complainant paid Rs.60/- for availing the service of the opposite party. Therefore, he comes under the purview of Section 2 (d) (1) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and to set aside the District Commission order.
8. No additional evidences were adduced by both parties in this appeal before this Commission.
9. Point for consideration is;-
Whether the order passed by the Learned District Commission, Tirunelveli in C.C.No.216/2018, dated 24.07.2019 is sustainable under law or not?
10. Point: The complainant is retired Government Servant purchased some piece of land during his service and he has applied for transfer of Patta in his name. In the meantime part of the land was acquired by the Tamil Nadu Government for the construction of houses for Adi Dravider. The complainant approached the opposite party for issuance of patta in his name for the remaining extent of land and he produced the xerox copies of sale deed encumbrance certificate, and other documents through online mode he also paid Rs.60/- for issuance of patta in his name. He found his application was attended and the transfer of the patta in the name of the complainant approved by 4 5 the Deputy Head quarters Tahsildar but, no patta was issued in his name. Even, after approaching the opposite parties he filed the consumer complaint and the same was dismissed by District Commission on the ground that, issuance for patta is not because under the category of any service rendered by Government Servant by relying upon the citations 2014 (4) CLT Page 521 (NC) V.B.Ambedkar -Vs- District Collector.
11. Now, it was challenged by the complainant before this Commission that, he has sent some citations through post to this Commission he claimed the function of land measurement is not sovereign function. But, an administrative function for which fees are payable he enclosed only some printed incomplete papers which could not be considered for deciding the question in the appeal.
12. But, at the same time, the same question was answered by this Commission as well as our Principal Commission Chennai in several appeals which were produced by the learned Government Pleader with their written arguments. In the above earlier order passed by this Commission it was considered the following points. The main contentions of the learned Government Pleader is the payment of fees for measuring the property does not comes under the category of consideration. The Government Officers are doing their statutory duties which do not comes under the category of service provider and service under the Consumer Protection Act.
13. Surveying a land is done pursuant to the same and not solely on the application of parties. It is a part of Sovereign duties, such functions are performed by the Government under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act - 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Patta passbook Rules - 1987, and Tamil Nadu survey and Boundaries Act, 5 6 Tamil Nadu Patta passbook act, vested with the Revenue Officials certain powers and the following citations were relied by the Government Pleader in the above versions passed by this Commission.
(1) Reported in - (2010) 11 SCC 159 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - in the case of - Maharshi Dayanand University -Vs- Surjeet Kaur.
(2) Reported in - AIR 2010 SC 93, - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - in the case of - Bihar School Examination Board -Vs- Suresh Prasad Sinha.
(3) Reported in - 1996 AIR 839 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - in the case of - S.P.Goel -Vs- Collector of Stamps, Delhi.
(4) Reported in - CDJ 2011 TNSCDRC 389 - The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai - in the case of The District Collector, Ariyalur & Another -Vs- K.Malairaja & Others.
(5) Reported in - CDJ 2011 TNSCDRC 469 - The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai - in the case of - Mrs.Vijaya -Vs-
The District Collector Theni.
(6) The order passed by The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in F.A.No.656/2007 dated 29.11.2010 - in the case of - The Tahsildar -Vs- Chellamuthu.
(7) The order passed by The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in F.A.No.283/2007 dated 29.11.2010 - in the case of - The Tahsildar, Jayamkondam Taluk -Vs- Lakshmi.
6 7
(8) Reported in - CDJ 2004 TNSCDRC 012 - The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai - in the case of - The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Cuddalore -Vs- D.Kanakavalli & Another.
(9) Reported in - CDJ 1996 TNSCDRC 055 - The Hon'ble Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai - in the case of The Tahsildar -Vs- Sundararajan.
By relying upon those citations the Circuit Bench has been already decided the payment of fee fixed for effecting sub-divisions and issuance of patta would not come under the category of consideration and there is no question of hiring or availing of any Government service and payment of any consideration would not arise in such cases.
14. Now, the complainant raised the same question in this appeal also. He enclosed with the written arguments sending by post the xerox copy of order passed by the Hon'ble Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Writ Jurisdiction, and the xerox copy of order passed by the State Government of Maharashtra's which are not having any finding precedent to be followed by this Circuit Bench.
15. Among, the citations considered by this commission in the reported Judgement of Apex Court in - 1996 AIR 839 - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - in the case of - S.P.Goel -Vs- Collector of Stamps, Delhi. The point was observed and reiterate that a Government Officer may be held liable in tort if, in the discharge of his official administrative duties. Therefore, the acts maliciously or with oblique motive or mala- fied is not the case of the complainant. The opposite parties have not issued patta in the name of the complainant with malicious intention.
7 8
16. The learned Government Pleader also correctly mentioned in the written arguments that the payment of Rs.60/- through E-service as fees or charges are only statutory obligations of the complainant and in no ways can be termed as a consideration paid as far as issue of patta is concerned it is governed by the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act 1983 and the Tamil Nadu Pass Book Rules 1987 and Tamil Nadu Pass Book Act vested with Revenue officials certain powers. It is a part of sovereign duties such functions are performed by the Government under the provisions of these Act through Revenue officials.
17. Moreover, the complainant himself admitted that the second opposite party has issued an order dated 21.03.2018 in response to the applications of the complainant dated 08.03.2018 and as such the applications was attended as far as the office of the opposite parties concerned. No dereliction on the duty on the part of the opposite party there is no deficiency in their service. The complainant if aggrieved there is an opportunity to prefer remedy and measure before concerned Appellate authority instead of filing a complaint before the District Commission. For the above going reasons, the above points considered by the District Commission and it passed the order.
18. The learned Government Pleader also produced the citations II (2016) CPJ 78 (NC) in the case of C.K.Mohanasundaran -Vs- K.U.Gopalakrishnan Nair - Revenue Department of State Government being the Administrative and Land Management of Department of State performs mostly the statutory functions - CP Act, 1986 is not applicable because remedy in such cases is already available under Revenue Laws of State Government the above citations also in squarely applicable to the present appeal. 8 9 Therefore, the order passed by the District Commission is sustainable under law and answered accordingly for the point for consideration.
19. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the learned District Commission, Tirunelveli made in C.C.No.216/2018, dated 24.07.2019. There shall be no order as to cost in this appeal.
Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 13rd day of February 2023.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx
S.KARUPPIAH, N. RAJASEKAR,
JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
.
.
9
10
10