IMPORTANT POINT
Purchaser of land must be made party in suit.

Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member—Revision Petition No. 4875 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioner/opposite party against the order dated 27.9.2013, passed by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (short, “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.817 of 2011.

2. The facts of the present case as per the respondent/complainant are that the respondent is a resident of Village Dholavas, Teh. Lalsot and his land is situated at Village Ramsar and Dholavas. He is disabled and member of Schedule Tribes.

3. The respondent made an application for grant of seven and half HP agricultural connection in his land at Village Ramsar in the office of the petitioner/opposite party no.2 (before the District Forum) on 1.9.1993 and also deposited the fees as per rules. On the maturity of his application as per serial the petitioner issued a demand notice no.166 dated 10.4.2008 for a sum of Rs.22,260/- which amount was deposited by the respondent in the office of the petitioner vide receipt no.245 on 8.5.2008. Thereafter, the respondent moved an application in the office of the petitioner to shift the said connection from his land at Ramsar to Dholavas and also deposited a sum of Rs.75/- vide receipt no.24560133 dated 13.5.2008. On this application orders for shifting the connection from Ramsar to Dholavas were passed and shifting charges of Rs.75/- were recovered from the respondent. From this, it was clear that shifting orders had been passed by the petitioner and shifting charges had been deposited.

4. Inspite of passing the orders of shifting and getting the amount deposited, neither the connection had been given nor the connection had been shifted from Ramsar to Dholavas. Thus, in this way there was a grave deficiency of service on the part of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner vide its letter no.1673 dated 29.5.2008 which was received by the respondent on 3.6.2008 had informed the respondent that since he had sold the land in Khasra No.42, Ramsar his application for transfer of connection from Ramsar to Dholavas was rejected. The said letter of petitioner was completely illegal and improper because till date the respondent was recorded as khatedar in the revenue record of Vill. Ramsar from which proved that the letter of rejection sent by petitioner was baseless, untrue and had been sent without verifying the record.

6. The petitioner in their written statement before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dausa (short, ‘District Forum’) stated as follows :-

“1. The complainant has not mentioned in this para that on 1.9.1993 he has applied for an agricultural electric connection in which Khasra no. of land at Vill. Ramsar. The pleadings made in this para are not correct. Because on 1.9.1993 the Balu Ram S/o Sharvan Meena has applied for an agricultural electric connection in the well situated in khasra no.42 of the Vill. Ramsar by Balu Ram has sold that above agricultural land referred Khasra no.42 to Gobind Singh s/o Adial Singh, Tikam Bhai wd/o Kalyan Singh, Gopal Singh, Gobind Singh sons of Adial Singh, Prema wd/o Madho Singh Rajput. Thereafter, that land was sold by them to Manna Lal, Kanihya Lal, Sant Kumar, Harinarayan, Prabhu Dayal r/o Vill. Bar Karol, Teh. Sanganar Distt. Jaipur. In this way on the above in the land of the above said khasra no.42 continues to be possessed by Manna Lal & Ors. and they are irrigating the land and they have deposited the demand note amount of Rs.22,260/- on 8.5.2008 in the office of the opposite party. Because the purchasers have not got transferred the connection in their name, therefore, the demand note of that agricultural connection was issued in the name of Balu Ram. On the application filed by the complainant for shifting of the agricultural connection from Ramsar to Salavas in the office of the opposite party on 13.5.2008, only an application fees of Rs.75/- were deposited in the office of opposite party no.2. No demand notice has been issued by the office of the opposite p