V.A.ABDUL RAZACK vs EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PUNJAL PULIAMPATTI TOWN PANCHAYAT

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE Complainant is the President of the Sunnath Jamath Mosque Committee of Punjai Puliampatti village in Periyar district. It is his case that the Muslim burial ground is situated in Survey Nos. 269 and 271 of that village covering an extent of 1.50 acres. According to the complainant one N.K. Gopal and one Palanisamy, who owns some lands in Survey No. 268 tried to put up a road across the burial ground in Survey No. 269. THE Complainant filed a writ before the High Court, Madras in W.P. No. 11151/85 against the Collector, Periyar District and other officials and an order was passed therein restraining the Respondents in that writ petition from putting up any road in Survery Nos. 269 & 271. Accordingly, the Tahsildar of Sathyamangalam taluk passed an order on 17.11.88 granting permission to profect the muslim burial ground in Survey Nos. 269 & 271. THE aforesaid N.K. Gopalan and Palanisamy filed a writ in the High Court in W.P. No. 15954/88 challenging the order of the Tansildar. THE High Court by its order directed the Revenue Divisional Officer at Gobichettipalayam to enquire into the matter and Revenue Divisional Officer in his order dated 19.7.91 held that the burial ground in Survey No. 271 was sufficient for the muslims and that the pathway across survey No. 269 was being used by the general public. THE Complainant preferred an appeal to the District Revenue Officer, who dismissed the same. THE further appeal to the Land Adminstration Commissioner also shared the same fate. THE Complainant has, therefore, filed W.P 4409/93 against the order of the Land Administration Commissioner. Subsequently, the aforesaid N.K. Gopal and Palanisamy tried to encroach upon Survery Nos. 269 & 271. THE complainant has also filed a suit in O.S. No. 754/85 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Gobichettipalayam against them and some others and the Court has passed an order for maintaining the status quo. It is the case of the Complainant that he applied to the opposite party Executive officer for permission to construct a compound wall around Survey Nos. 269 & 271 and the Opposite Party has failed to give the necessary permission and to pass any order and this amounts to deficiency in service and hence this daim for compensation in the sum of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The opposite party contends that the Muslim burial ground is situated in a portion of Survey No. 269 & 271 and the extent is not yet demarkated. The dispute is pending in the local Civil Court and the High Court between the rival parties. It is denied that any application has been made by the Complainant for permission to put up a compound wall along with a plan. However, a reminder was received from the Complainant on 13.4.91 and the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that no permission could be granted. There is no deficiency in service.

Exhibits Al to A27 and Bl to B2 are marked by consent. Proof Affidavits are filed. No oral evidence has been let in.

THE only question which arises for determination is whether the complaint is maintainable. The Complainant claims that the muslim burial ground is situated in Survey Nos. 269 & 271 of Punjai Puliampatti village covering an extent of 1.50 acres. This is disputed by the neighbours and by the Opposite Party. According to them, a portion of these Survey Nos. are used as burial ground and these portions are not demarkated. As admitted in the complaint itself, a writ is pending in the High Court in W.P. No. 4409/93 filed by the Complainant himself against the order of the Land Administration Commissioner holding that the burial ground is only in Survey No. 271 and not in survey No. 269. A suit also has been filed by the Complainant in O.S. No. 754/85 before the District Maunsif Court against the neighbours restraining them from enforcing or encroaching upon the burial ground in Survey Nos. 269 and 271. The question as to whether the entire Survey Nos. 269 & 271 constituted the muslim burial ground is a matter, which is the subject matter of Civil Litigation and it is not the function of the Forum constituted under this Act to go into the title to immoveable property or the nature and character of the property.

ACCORDING to the Opposite Party, the Complainant did not file any petition with plan for permission to put up compound wall. But, it however received a reminder from the Complainant under Ex. Bl, dated 13.4.91 and Opposite Party has sent a reply under Ex, B2 that no permission can be granted as these two survey numbers are proboke lands. Unless and until the question of title to these survey numbers is finally decided in the Civil Court, the Complainant cannot claim any right in these survey numbers and he cannot expect the Opposite Party to grant any permission to put up a compound wall around these two survey numbers. We are unable to find any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposits Parties. Without prejudice to the right of the complainant to agitate his claim before the Civil Court, the complaint fails and is dismissed. No costs. Complaint dismissed.