Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

K.Malairaja vs Tashildar ,Ariyalur on 5 April, 2017

  	 Cause Title/Judgement-Entry 	    	       Heading1  Heading2             First Appeal No. A/200/2015  (Arisen out of Order Dated 29/04/2015 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/21/2013 of District Perambalur)             1. K.Malairaja  Ariyalur ...........Appellant(s)   Versus      1. Tashildar ,Ariyalur  Ariyalur ...........Respondent(s)       	    BEFORE:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S. TAMILVANAN PRESIDENT     S.M. MURUGESSHAN MEMBER          For the Appellant:  For the Respondent:    Dated : 05 Apr 2017    	     Final Order / Judgement    

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE       Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN                      PRESIDENT 

 

                   Thiru.S.M.MURUGESSHAN                                         MEMBER
  F.A.NO. 200/2015

(As against the order in CC 21/2013 dated 29.4.2015 on the file of DCDRF,Perambalur)                         WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH  DAY OF APRIL 2017 K.Malairaja Alias Alwinraj S/o, Kani Nadar Opp.G.H, Periyar Nagar, 2/366-A, Chendurai 621 714   Ariyalaur District                                        ..Appellant/Party in person                                            Vs The Tahsildar, N.P.Road, Taluk Office Chendurai 621 714 Ariyalur District                                       ..Respondent/Opposite party   For Appellant/Party in person         : M/s K.Malairaja, party in person For Respondent/Opposite party      : M/s T.Ravikumar, counsel          This appeal is coming before us for hearing finally on 04.04.2017, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Perambalur, this commission made the following order.

 

                                ORDER By Hon'ble Dr. Justice S.TAMILVANAN  PRESIDENT            This appeal is preferred by the complainant against the order passed in CC.No 21/2013 dated 29.4.2015 on the file of DCDRF, Perambalur.

 

2.         The appellant/party in person approached the Respondent, Tahsildhar, Chendurai, Ariyalur District to issue Patta pass book for the Natham Poromboke land where he had constructed a house. The Appellant stated that he asked to issue a Patta pass book as per Rule 4 (23) of Tamil Nadu patta pass book Rule 1997. Further the F.M.B was wrongly prepared in favour of the some other persons, he had given a complaint on 27.2.2017 on Public Grievance Day, and the said petition was numbered as SS/12/03548. There is no action taken by the Respondent/opposite party, again he reported on 4.6.2012 and given a complaint. However the patta was not issued in favour of the appellant.  Though he sent a complaint to the Higher Officials of Revenue Department with alleged cause of action that the Appellant has paid Rs.40/- each for preparing F.M.B Sketch for Survey No. 258 and Survey No.149/10B, based on the averments, the appellant has claimed Rs. 3,90,000/- towards mental agony and hardship and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses and totally Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost to be paid by the Respondent herein.

 

3.          The District Forum has given its finding that the Appellant/complainant has not stated properly in Survey Number and Patta number. Further the same Appellant filed an earlier complaint in CC. 54/2008, praying that the same prayer.

 

4.            Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appeal was preferred and pending before the State Commission in F.A.394/2010 as per the aforesaid decision, it was pointed out that the appellant can approach only on civil court or criminal court and get remedy. The judgment there also relied on CC.54/2008 ordered by the District Forum is as follows:

    "The concept of levying fee is discussed in the case of Muthu Raja  Vs Kadauanallur Panchayat Union (ILRC 1965) 2 Madras page 501 - AIR 1965 MAD-289.
 
  Incurred in rendering service of a special nature to the persons from who the fee is collected a tax on the other hand is not correlated to particular service rendered but is entered to meet the expenses of the government".
 

5.        It  is  well  settled that only a consumer to seek any remedy under Consumer Protection Act  1986.    When  there  is  deficiency  in  service, any  consumer  can   approach the consumer Forum and the State Commission or National Commission subject to the Peculiar Jurisdiction.

 

6.         However, the Appellant cannot prove in his case, the party cannot seek patta, it is clear that the Civil suit pending before the Civil court with regard to the property. The Appellant has not produce any supporting documents to decide the extent of land, Patta Number and also Survey number of the land for which he sought issuance of patta pass book merely because he is residing in a Natham Poromboke land. Hence he can approach the District Forum based on dispute facts with reference to the title possession and enjoyment of property. In the list of Documents, the appellant has stated that on 27.3.2016, the patta was issued in favour of Mr.Chokkalingam for S.No.260/2011-C1. He had also stated that on 5.11.2013, joint Patta was issued based on self service, the averments on that dispute of facts. The appellant cannot seek patta from the Respondent/Tahsildar by way of filing a complaint merely because he had paid Rs.40/- each for two Survey numbers vide 258 and 149/10b. It is well settled that a sale deed is not a document to entitle the compensation.  In this case, the appellant has produce a copy of sale deed dated 2.11.1992 unless it is supported by other relevant documents to prove the title.

 

7.               In the impugned order, the District Forum has given a point as per the averments of the Appellant on 27.7.2012, since he had constructed a house and church in the Poromboke land. The Opposite parties demolished the same by using bulldozer when the property belonging into the Appellant/complainant. However there was any illegal demolishing, the appellant/complainant could have approach the Police or Criminal court for seeking remedy.  In the above said circumstances, the appellant has filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum without supporting materials and seeking the relief could not be maintainable under the Consumer       Protection Act 1986. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no infirmity and error in the District Forum order. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

      In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost.

      Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 5th day of April 2017.

   
   S.M.MURUGESSHAN                                           DR.JUSTICE. S.TAMILVANAN

 

          MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT

 

           

 

              [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S. TAMILVANAN]  PRESIDENT 
     [ S.M. MURUGESSHAN]  MEMBER