Kerala

Idukki

CC/109/2020

Jecob kurian - Complainant(s)

Versus

Deputy director - Opp.Party(s)

Adv:K M Sanu

23 Mar 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 25.8.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the      23^rd   day of   March, 2023

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR                   PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P.                             MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S.                           MEMBER

CC NO.109/2020

Between

Complainant                                           :    Jacob Kurian,

                                                                   Kolasseril House,

                                                                   Cheenikkuzhi P.O.,

                                                                   Thodupuzha.

          (By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                     : 1. The Deputy Director (Resurvey),

                                                                   Survey and Land Records,

                                                                   Collectorate, Idukki,

                                                                   Painavu P.O.

                                                                2.  The Tahsildar,

          Thodupuzha Taluk,

          Thodupuzha P.O.

      3. Taluk Survey Superintendent (LR),

                                                                   Thodupuzha Taluk Survey

                                                                             Superintendent Office,

Thodupuzha P.O.

      4. The Village Officer,

Udumbannoor Village,

Udumbannoor P.O.

      5. The District Collector, Idukki,

Collectorate, 

Painavu P.O.

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

1. This case originates from a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short). Case of complainant is briefly discussed hereunder :

                                                                                                              (cont….2)

 

• 2  -

          Complainant is a retired school teacher and senior citizen.  1^st opposite party is Deputy  Director of Resurvey, 2^nd opposite party is Tahsildar of Thodupuzha Taluk.  3^rd opposite party is Taluk Survey Superintendent (LR), Thodupuzha, 4^th opposite party is Village Officer of Udumbannoor Village and 5^th opposite party is District Collector of Idukki.  Complainant owns 1 acre 80 cents of land as per document No.1944/1994 of Karikkode SRO.  At the time of purchasing the property as per this document, prior title deed along with basic tax receipt were given to complainant by the prior owners.  Complainant was  convinced of the extent and boundary of the property from these documents, at the time of purchase.  Besides, complainant had got the property measured also.  He has been owning and possessing the aforesaid 1 acre 80 cents land as per this title deed and is paying basic tax for the same.  However, after resurvey, opposite parties are accepting basic tax for an extent of 172.6 cents only, from the complainant.  Complainant had not sold a single cent from 1 acre 80 cents of property purchased by him.  Resurvey was done by opposite parties upon external influences.  Though complainant had repeatedly contacted opposite parties and lodged a complaint with regard to the measurement, opposite parties have taken a defiant stand.  Upon enquiry, complainant had come to know that a portion of land measuring about 8 cents, which is 2.5 meter wide is shown as extension on the eastern side of complainant’s property as part of property on one Valiyamplakkal Mathachan.  However, the plot is in the actual possession of complainant.  Opposite parties had kept aside this portion of land for favouring others.  A case has been filed by complainant in this regard which is pending before Thodupuzha Munsiff Court.  There is mistake in resurvey conducted and this amounts to deficiency in service on the side of opposite party.  Complainant therefore seeks a direction against opposite parties to rectify this mistake and to permit him to pay basic tax for 1 acre and 80 cents.  He also prays for damage at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day for each day of default by opposite parties in rectifying the mistake.  He further prays for Rs.1,25,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs. 

 

2. Opposite parties 1 to 5 were served notice.  Opposite party No.1 alone has filed written version.  According to 1^st opposite party, there is no deficiency in service as per the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter K. Mohana Sundaram Vs. K.V. Gopalakrishnan Nair ([2016 NCJ 564(NC)], activities of Revenue authorities will not come within the ambit of deficiency in service.  This aspect had been made clear by Hon’ble State Commission in AP 165/2017, copy of decision is submitted along with written version.  As per Government Order 303/2017, all complaints with regard to resurvey are to be preferred before LA Tahsildar.  If the decision is objected to, appeal is to be preferred before Revenue Divisional Officer.

 

3.  After filing of written version, considering contentions taken in the written version, we had posted the case for preliminary hearing with regard to maintainability.                                                                                                       (cont…..3)

- 3  -

Complainant was heard in the matter.  As opposite parties were not present, they were not heard.  Now the points which arise for consideration are :

1)  Whether complaint is maintainable ?

2)  Order to be passed ?

 

4.  Point No.1:

 

          We have gone through the judgment in Appeal 165/2017 of Hon’ble Kerala State  Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  It covers an identical case which is CC No.320/2015 of this Commission.  It has been observed by the State Commission that a  complaint alleging deficiency of service against government servant on his failure or default in discharging his official duties cannot be maintained before a Consumer Fora.  Decision of National Commission in the matter of K. Mohana Sundaram Vs. K.V. Gopalakrishnan Nair [2016 NCJ 564(NC)] is referred in the judgment.   Therefore we are of the view that present complaint cannot be maintained before this Forum.  Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

5.  Point No.2 :

 

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs.  Parties shall take back extra copies furnished, without delay.

 

                          Pronounced by this Commission on this the  23^rd  day of March, 2023

 

                                                                                             Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                          Sd/-

         SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

                                Sd/-       

        SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

                                                                                Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

                                                                           ASSISTANT REGISTRAR