State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
G.Ramu, S/O.Late R.Govindarajulu, ... vs The Chittoor Municipality, Rep. By Its ... on 13 September, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.982/2011 against C.C.No.46/2010 District Consumer Forum, Chittoor. Between: G.Ramu, S/o.late R.Govindarajulu, Aged 52 years, Hindu, Occ: Business, Residing at 2-4-139/5, Usha Nagar Colony, Chittoor District. Appellant/Complainant. And The Chittoor Municipality, rep. by its Commissioner, Chittoor. Respondent/Opp.Party. Counsel for the Appellant : M/s.A.V.Sesha Sai. Counsel for the Respondent : M/s.Chalakani Venkat Yadav. QUORUM: THE HONBLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE.
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President) *******
1. The appellant is an unsuccessful complainant.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a house bearing Door No.24-109/2 in Sy.No.300-8 of Sai Nagar Colony of Chittoor Municipality from P.Ramagopal under registered sale deed dated 25.09.1989, who in turn purchased from C.Thayaramma under registered sale deed dated 28.08.1985.
The original owner was one K.S. Radhakrishnan under registered sale deed dated 11.03.1985. (The property belongs to Chittoor Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd.) The schedule mentioned property was situated in Gandlapalle Gram Panchayat, Chittoor. K.S.Radhakrishnan obtained sanction from Gram Panchayat, Gandlapalle to construct residential house in the schedule mentioned property, wherein he constructed a room, which was allotted D.No.24-109/2 of Sai Nagar Colony.
Electricity connection was also given and the Municipality has been collecting tax. Later he applied for approval of the plan by paying Rs.9,625/-, Rs.5,525.50 paise, Rs.2,600/- and Rs.10/- by way of challan. However, the opposite party refused to approve the plan on the ground that it was shown as an open space. Having permitted to construct residential house, it cannot turn round and refuse to approve the plan. It was made with malafide intention. Therefore, he filed the complaint directing the opposite party to approve the plan and pay Rs.1,000/- towards damages and costs.
2. The opposite party-Municipality resisted the case, while admitting that the complainant sought for approval of plan for construction of residential house in the property shown as open space in the approved layout approved by the Director of Town Planning, vide L.P.No.30/70. Since it is an open space, a public property, the same cannot be sold, nor the complainant can purchase and seek approval for construction of a house. The allegation that approval was given to K.SRadhakrishnan, who constructed the property is false. At any rate, the complainant cannot be termed as consumer and there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint
3. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Ex.A1 to A.16, while the opposite party filed affidavit evidence of its manager and did not file any documents.
4. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the schedule property which the complainant had purchased is an open space as per the plan approved by the Director of Town Planning vide L.P.No.30/70 and the open space was vested in the opposite party Municipality. Since it is a public property no approval can be given and holding that there was no deficiency in service dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that he had valid title, having purchased the property under the sale deed. The District Forum ought not to have gone into the merits of the case when it came to conclusion that other remedies are available for him. He prayed that the appeal be allowed.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard?
7. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a property from P.Ramagopal under the notarized sale deed dated 25.09.1989 for a valid consideration of Rs.16,500/-. It is his further case that his vendor purchased the property from C.Thayaramma, who in turn purchased the property from R.S.Radhakrishnan, who was a member in the Chittoor Co-operative House Building Society Limited. It may be stated that none of the sale deeds were registered. They were all notarized copy of sale deeds. If the immovable property is worth more than Rs.100/-, it cannot be sold away by way of notarized sale deed, vide Sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. It can be only by way of registered sale deed. Sec.54 of Transfer of Property Act lays down that no transfer of property can be made except by way of registered instrument if the value is more than Rs.100/-.
Since the value of the property is more than Rs.100/-, necessarily the transaction has to be entered into by way of registered instrument.
8. Be that as it may, the complainant when he sought for approval of layout plan No.30/70, vide Ex.A.14, to construct a residential house, the opposite party Municipality refused permission on the ground that the layout shows that it is an open space.
The layout plan was approved by none other than Director of Town Planning. The tax receipts, electricity receipts, etc. did not disclose that they relate to the house purchased by the complainant in the open space. At any rate, when the very layout plan shows that it is open space vested in the Municipality, it could not have granted permission to construct a house. The contention that the District Forum ought not to have gone into the merits has no meaning.
The complainant having got an order by filing a complaint cannot turn round and say that the complaint cannot be adjudicated on the documents filed by him. When the approval is contrary to the rules, obviously the Municipality cannot issue permission. If really the complainant is of the view that he is the owner of the property having purchased the property from the original owner he ought to have filed appropriate proceedings before appropriate court for the reliefs. When the Municipality is contending that the complainant is not the owner, it cannot grant permission for open space, nor the complainant can seek relief on the ground that he is a consumer vis-a-vis the Municipality. We are in full agreement with the view expressed by the District Forum that it is not a consumer case where the District Forum can assume jurisdiction.
We do not see any merits in the appeal.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, no costs.
____________________ PRESIDENT _____________________ MEMBER 13/09/2012.
Vvr.