State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board & ... vs M. Anandraj, S/O Murugesan, on 29 November, 2023
Daily Order IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Hon'ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT F.A.NO.143/2023 (Against order in CC.NO.16/2017 on the file of the DCDRC, Villupuram) DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 1. The Director Tamil Nadu Housing Board 493, Anna Salai, Nandanam Nandanam, Chennai 2. Divisional Engineer Tamilnadu Housing Board M/s. M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim Maharajapuram, Counsel for Villupuram Appellants / 1& 2 opposite parties Vs. M. Anandraj S/o. Murugesan No.4/2, West Yamunai Street Indiranai Nagar, Vandimedu In person Villupuram Town Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.7.6.2022 in CC.No.16/2017. This appeal coming before me for hearing finally on 31.8.2023, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order: ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ opposite parties, as against the order of the District Commission, Villupuram, dt.7.6.2022 in CC.No.16/2017 praying for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.
2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is as follows:
The complainant had purchased a property from one Mr.R.Santhanam S/o.Rasupillai. The said document was registered as document No.2492/2015 in the Sub-Registrar Office. From the date of purchase, the complainant was peacefully enjoying the said property. The property was originally purchased by his vendor R.Santhanam on 23.4.1990 by document No.719/1990. Even prior to 1990, the complainant and his predecessor in title were in possession and enjoyment of the said property. When the complainant intended to alienate the said property for his personal purpose, he approached the registration office, but the official of Registration department advised him to obtain No Objection Certificate from Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Hence on 24.8.2016, he had submitted application before the 2nd opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate. He had also paid a sum of Rs.1000/- as fees for issuance of NOC. But for more than 8 months period, No Objection Certificate had not been issued. In this regard, the complainant approached the opposite party on several occasion. The non-issuance of No objection Certificate amounts to deficiency in service. Thus alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint praying for a direction to the opposite party to issue No Objection certificate to the property, and also to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakh towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.10,000/-.
3. The case of the complainant was resisted by the 2nd opposite party by filing version as follows:
The sale deed executed by Mr.Santhanam in favour of the complainant is nothing but a false, forged and a created document. The said Santhanam has no right to sell the RS.No.46/39 for which he has no title at all, and the same was owned by one Ravi, and the same was acquired by the opposite party / Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Cuddalore, by virtue of award No.12/95 dt.30.6.1995. After such acquisition, the Special Tahsildhar (LA) Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Cuddalore has delivered the same to the Surveyor, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Villupuram on 1.11.1995. After taking possession of the said land the Special Thasildhar (LA) TNHB also obtained DTCP approval under No.338/98, and the said land was converted into various HIG, MIG and LIG plots. After the approval RS.No.46/38 was sold to Tmt.Sasikala and RS.No.46/39 was sold to Tmt. Nirmala by the opposite parties. While so, said R.Santhanam has no right to sell the property. Therefore, the sale of land by said Santhanam in favour of the complainant is a fraudulent transaction under Sec.55A of T.P.Act. Further on perusal of patta and chitta it would show that Rs.46/39 is unnamed till date. No doubt the complainant applied for No Objection Certificate and paid scrutiny fees of Rs.1000/-. But mere paying of scrutiny fees does not create the right of issuing No Objection Certificate to the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The 1st opposite party was called absent and set exparte before the District Commission.
5. In order to prove the case, proof affidavits were filed on either side, alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A9 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B11 on the side of the opposite parties.
6. The District Commission, after analysing the materials available on records, came to a conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and had directed the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.1000/- received from the complainant alongwith interest @12% p.a. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties.
7. Before this commission, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants / opposite parties that the sale of Plot No.46/39 in favour of the complaint is a fraudulent transaction. Since the complainant had applied for No Objection Certificate by paying Rs.1000/-, it does not mean that he is automatically entitled for No Objection Certificate. The complainant was informed about the fact of the land acquisition and lack of surveyor in TNHB, Villupuram for carrying out the process of surveying till filing of this complaint. The only intention of the complainant was to defraud the opposite parties and grab the property.
8. The Respondent/ complainant appeared in person and advanced his submissions with regard to the allegations made in the complaint.
9. On careful consideration of the arguments advanced, I have gone through the materials placed on record.
10. As per the order impugned, the District Commission has come to the conclusion that the prayer for non-issuance of No Objection Certificate is not maintainable since the land was acquired by the opposite party.
The District Commission has further held that though the opposite parties have not issued No Objection Certificate to the complainant, they ought to have issued a proper reply for the request of the complainant who has paid a sum of Rs.1000/- as scrutiny fees, which they failed.
Having considered the submissions, this commission is also of the opinion that the complainant was made to run from pillar to post for more than 8 months to know the fate of his application. If the opposite parties could not issue No Objection Certificate, they should have replied at the earliest by stating the fact. But only after filing the complaint they are coming with the explanation that the land sold by Mr.Santhanam to the complainant was acquired by them under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, there is no doubt that the service of the opposite parties is deficient which would have created mental agony to the complainant. In such a situation, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned in directing the opposite parties to refund Rs.1000/- alongwith interest. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Commission, Villupuram, in CC.No.16/2017 dt.7.6.2022. There is no order as to cost in the appeal.
R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO