1. Appeals against consumer forum order allowing complaints for delay in recording mutation entries and excessive fees. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
Important Points
Statutory authorities performing official duties under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for maintaining land records are not "service providers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and such disputes are not maintainable as consumer complaints.
Subject
Consumer Law - Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(o) and Section 2(1)(d)(ii) - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Sections 149 and 150 - Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 - Section 10 - Recording of mutation entries in ownership records - Whether statutory authorities performing official duties fall within the definition of a service provider - Delay in recording mutation and alleged overcharging for certified copies - Nature of duty performed is the test to determine amenability to the Consumer Protection Act - Maintaining records of ownership rights is a statutory function of the State Government - A nominal stamp fee paid on an application does not constitute "hiring of services" for consideration - Use of Citizen Charter or administrative guidelines does not transform a statutory duty into a consumer service. (Paras 9, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Seven complainants filed individual complaints before the District Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the City Survey Officer and Superintendent of Land Record for delaying the mutation of their names in the ownership records despite paying a government stamp of Rs. 5/- and allegedly overcharging for certified copies of the Record of Ownership Rights (Akhiv Patrika). The District Forum partly allowed the complaints, directing the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs of Rs. 500/- each, while holding it had no jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of the fees charged.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the appellants were performing statutory duties under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and these functions do not constitute "service" as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Furthermore, the payment of a nominal government stamp does not make the applicants "consumers."
Issues: Whether the City Survey Officer and Superintendent of Land Record are "service providers" and the applicants are "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for duties performed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the duty performed is the primary test; since the maintenance of land ownership records is a statutory function assigned by the State Government, it does not qualify as a service under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus the Consumer Forum lacked jurisdiction.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Facts of the case:
Seven complainants filed individual complaints before the District Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the City Survey Officer and Superintendent of Land Record for delaying the mutation of their names in the ownership records despite paying a government stamp of Rs. 5/- and allegedly overcharging for certified copies of the Record of Ownership Rights (Akhiv Patrika). The District Forum partly allowed the complaints, directing the opposite parties to pay compensation and costs of Rs. 500/- each, while holding it had no jurisdiction to decide on the correctness of the fees charged.
Findings of Court:
The Commission found that the appellants were performing statutory duties under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, and these functions do not constitute "service" as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Furthermore, the payment of a nominal government stamp does not make the applicants "consumers."
Issues: Whether the City Survey Officer and Superintendent of Land Record are "service providers" and the applicants are "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for duties performed under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the duty performed is the primary test; since the maintenance of land ownership records is a statutory function assigned by the State Government, it does not qualify as a service under Section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and thus the Consumer Forum lacked jurisdiction.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants: statutory authority, not service provider. Respondents: delay violates Citizens Charter; consumer forum has jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 )
3. City Survey Officer performs statutory duty under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code; not a service provider under Consumer Protection Act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
4. Statutory duty to maintain land records is not a service under section 2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 )
5. Is a City Survey Officer a service provider under the Consumer Protection Act when recording mutation entries?
No. Recording mutation entries is a statutory duty under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, not a service under section 2(o) of the Act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. Does affixing a government stamp on an application for mutation make the applicant a consumer?
No. Simply affixing a stamp does not constitute hiring services for consideration under section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. (Para 12 )
7. Can a Citizens Charter or administrative act create consumer jurisdiction over statutory functions?
No. A Citizens Charter or delay prevention act does not make a statutory function a service under the Consumer Protection Act. (Para 13 )
Final Order / Judgement
(Delivered on 14/07/2016)
Per Mr B A Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Member
First Appeal
No.
A/10/628
(Arisen out
of Order
Dated in
Case No.
cc/794 -
800/09 of
District State
Commission)
1. The City....Appellant(s)
survey office
no 3
Nagpur
Nagpur
2.
Superintendent
of Land
Record
Nagpur
Nagpur
Versus
1. Shri..........Respondent(s)
Dhanjay
Mandalekar
Nagpur
Nagpur
2. Dhanjay
Wasudeo
Madalekar
Nagpur
Nagpur
3. Shri
Anirudha
Narayan
Soman
Nagpur
Nagpur
4. Shishir
Arunrao
lokhande
Nagpur
Nagpur
5. Vijaya
Anil patki
Nagpur
Nagpur
6. Pravin
Ramadhar
Shukla
Nagpur
Nagpur
7. Sau
Sumidha
Parag
Choudhary
Nagpur
Nagpur
Nagpur
Nagpur
First Appeal
No.
A/12/194
(Arisen out
of Order
Dated
04/09/2010
in Case No.
CC/800/2009
of District
Nagpur)
1. City Survey Appellant(s)
Officer No.3
through it's
Officer
Shri.Kamalakar
Hattekar, R/
o.Administrative
Bldg,6th
floor,Civil Lines,
Nagpur
2. Supdt. of
Land Record,
Tahasil Officer(
City Bldg)
Collectorate
Premises, Civil
Lines , Nagpur
Nagpur
M S
Versus
1. ..........Respondent(s)
Sau.Samidha
Parag
Choudhary
R/
o.441,Paradise
Apartment,
Saryodya
Nagar,Nagpur
First Appeal
No.
FA/12/189
(Arisen out
of Order
Dated
04/09/2010
in Case No.
CC/09/795
of District
State
Commission)
1. The City.....Appellant(s)
Survey office
No 3 Nagpur
Administrative
BUILDING 6
TH FLOOR
nAGPUR
Nagpur
Versus
1. ..........Respondent(s)
Dhananjay
Wasudeo
Madalekar
R/o L-97
Yashwant
nagar
Nagpur
Nagpur
First Appeal
No.
FA/12/190
(Arisen out
of Order
Dated
04/09/2010
in Case No.
cc/09/796 of
District State
Commission)
1. The City.....Appellant(s)
Survey office
No 3 Nagpur
Administrative
BUILDING 6
TH FLOOR
nAGPUR
Nagpur
Versus
1. ..........Respondent(s)
Anirudha
Narayan
Soman
r/o 102
Sriuniwas
Apartments
Nagpur
Nagpur
First Appeal
No.
FA/12/191
(Arisen out
of Order
Dated
04/09/2010
in Case No.
cc/09/797 of
District State
Commission)
1. The City.....Appellant(s)
Survey office
No 3 Nagpur
Administrative
BUILDING 6
TH FLOOR
nAGPUR
Nagpur
Versus
1. Shishir.......Respondent(s)
Arunrao
Lokhande
R/o Vivek
Apartment
Pande
Layout
Nagpur
Nagpur
First Appeal
No.
FA/12/192
(Arisen out
of Order
Dated
04/09/2010
in Case No.
cc/096/798
of District
State
Commission)
1. The City.....Appellant(s)
Survey office
No 3 Nagpur
Administrative
BUILDING 6
TH FLOOR
nAGPUR
Nagpur
Versus
1. Sau ..........Respondent(s)
Vijaya Anil
Pataki
R/o Hill
Road
Gandhinagar
Nagpur
Nagpur
First Appeal
No.
FA/12/193
(Arisen out
of Order
Dated
04/09/2010
in Case No.
09/799 of
District State
Commission)
1. The City.....Appellant(s)
Survey office
No 3 Nagpur
Administrative
BUILDING 6
TH FLOOR
nAGPUR
Nagpur
Versus
1. Pravin .......Respondent(s)
Ramadhar
Shukla
R/o Cosa F F
1 Shattarka
Apartment
Suredranagar
Nagpur
Nagpur
Nagpur
1. These seven appeals are filed by the same original opposite party (for short O.P.) Nos. 1&2 against the common impugned order dated 04/09/2010 passed in seven consumer complaints bearing Nos. 794/2009 to 800/2009 by the District Consumer Forum, Nagpur, by which all the said seven complaints have been partly allowed. The common question of law and facts is involved in all these seven appeals and therefore they are being decided by this common order.
2. The original seven complainants in the aforesaid seven complaints had moved an application separately by each of them to the O.P. No. 1 for recording their respective names in the record of ownership rights maintained by the O.P. No. 1 in respect of the immovable property, by mutating their names in place of their predecessors in title. They had also affixed on their respective application, government stamp of Rs. 5/- each. All the said applications were required to be disposed of within one month from the date of the said applications. However, the said applications were not disposed of within that one month. Moreover, the O.P. No.1 ought to have charged Rs. 15/- only for grant of certified copy of Akhiv Patrika (Record of Ownership Right) but the O.P. No. 1 recovered respectively from the complainants Rs. 185/-, Rs. 260/-, Rs. 230/-, Rs 215/-, Rs 185/-, Rs 230 and Rs. 245/-. Therefore, the complainants alleged that the O.P. No. 1- City Survey Officer and O.P. No. 2- Superintendent, Land Record adopted unfair tra
