DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No.11 of 2017
Jagabandhu Panda, S/o. Late Nityananda Panda, aged about 70 years, Occupation – Advocacy, R/o. Shantinagar (Ward No.1), P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur.
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. Premananda Mahapatra, aged about 55 years, at present Serving as Sub-Registering Officer, Subarnapur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur
2. Akshat Kumar Purohit, aged about 35 years, At present serving as Computer Operator in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Subarnapur, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur,
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for Complainant ………. Self
Advocate (G.P.) for the O.Ps. ………. Sri B.K.Dash
Present
Sri S.C.Nayak, President
Smt.S.Mishra, Lady Member
Sri H.Padhan, Male Member
Date of Judgment Dt.05.01.2018
J U D G M E N T
By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.
This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.
The factual matrix of complainant’s case as culled out from the complaint petition is described below.
The complainant purchased land measuring an area of Ac.0.200 dec. in Mouza – Subarnapur town as per 4th settlement. Out of the said land the complainant sold a portion of land measuring Ac.0.047 dec. on 2.4.2008 vide document No.665 of 2008 of the Sub-Registrar Office Sonepur. Taking both these transactions into consideration in the 5th settlement R.O.R. has been prepared in his name under khata No.162 comprising plot No.1279/2388 measuring an area of Ac.0.153 dec. of Subarnapur town.
The complainant applied for certificate of Encumbrance on the said property for last 30 years after depositing the necessary fees. The O.P. No.1 with the help of O.P. No.2 issued erroneous certificate in two sheets in which the sale of portion of land Ac.0.047 dec. was not mentioned. The complainant avers that in spite of pursuance of the matter by him producing copy of sale deed No.665 of 2008 the O.Ps. did not admit their fault and stated that the E.C.
-: 2 :-
given by them is correct. For this the complainant had to face mental agony and financial loss. So the complainant has filed this complaint case claiming that the O.Ps. should return the fees received by them and pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant alongwith cost of litigation.
The O.Ps. have filed their version. It is alleged by them that the complaint does not cover within the ambit of Consumer Act. They alleged that the complainant has applied E.C. for plot No.1279/2328 of khata No.162 measuring an area of Ac.0.153 dec. of 5th settlement of Sonepur town corresponding to 4th settlement khata No.820 plot No.65 Ac.0.005 dec. “A” Mark out of Ac.0.390 dec. and Plot No.66 Ac.0.005 dec. “A” Mark out of Ac.0.830 dec., khata No.1631 plot No.68 Ac.0.170 dec. ‘K’ mark out of Ac.1.830 dec. The O.Ps. allege that in E.C. application the complainant has not given the correct boundary.
On receipt of application E.C. was issued for a period of 18 years which was prepared manually. Similarly Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 1.1.2004 to 31.08.2016 for a period of 13 years was prepared basing in the computerized data available in the system. They allege that as per provision of Govt. Revenue and Disaster Management Department E.C. supplied to the applicant as per the data up dated in the computer since 2004.
They alleged that now issuing of E.Cs. through online depends upon the correctness of boundary. They avers that after verification of sale deed bearing No.665 dt.2.4.2016 registered before the Sub-Registrar Officer, Sonepur it is found that the complainant has sold plot No.68 measuring an area of Ac.0.047 dec. marked “K/1” out of Ac.0.190 dec. marked as “K” from plot No.68 of khata No.1631 of Mouza – Subarnapur town P.S. No.76 describing boundary as E – Self , W – Muna Kumar Mishra, N – Subal Meher, S – Road. In the E.C. application the boundary has been mentioned as E – Govt. land and Poad, W – Subal Meher and Jyotimanjari Purohit, N – Road on the plot, S – Road on the plot.
The O.Ps. allege that as the complainant has mentioned wrong boundary in E.C. application the property alleged to have been sold by the petitioner vide sale deed No.665 dt.2.4.2008 has not been reflected in the E.C.
The O.Ps. alleged that being aggrieved with the E.C. application supplied to the complainant he has submitted R.T.I. application before Sub-Registrar, Sonepur on 14.12.2016 requesting to furnish information in the E.C. The complainant was supplied information vide
-: 3 :-
office letter No.01 dt.2.1.2017 and he was also advised to furnish the correct boundary of plot as mentioned in the sale deed and apply for E.C. once again. But the complainant turned a deaf ear and filed this complaint case.
The O.P. members aver that they are never careless and they have supplied the E.C. to the complainant basing on his own application. They further alleged that the computerized E.C. data are supplied on the feed back and never prepared on their own way. The fees were collected properly as per the fees prescribed by the Government. Hence, they pray that they have not committed any deficiency of service and as such this complaint case be dismissed with cost.
Stemming on the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed :-
1. Is the complaint petition maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act ?
2. Hence the O.Ps. committed deficiency of service ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the O.Ps The learned counsel for the O.Ps. submitted that the petition is not maintainable in the eye of law since the complaint is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act. We find that the complainant has paid fees of Rs.1272/- in order to get the E.C. So he is a consumer within the meaning Section 2(I)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. So the first issue is answered in favour of the complainant.
The other issues are taken together as they are inter related. The counsel for the O.Ps. pointed out that5 as the boundary mentioned in the application and the boundary mentioned in the sale deed No.665 dt.2.4.2008 is different, the transaction covered under the aforesaid deed has not been mentioned in the E.C. Further more he submitted that since 2004 E.Cs. are issued to the applicant through computerized E.C. as per data up dated in the computer. Issuance of E.Cs. through on line depends on the correctness of boundary. So he submitted that the O.Ps. have not committed any deficiency of service.
Per Contra, the complainant in person submitted that when Khata No. and Plot No. is same, boundary is of no significance. Be it as it may we have perused the copy application of the complainant. In his copy application the complainant has mentioned that all three plots
-: 4 :-
are in a single boundary. The boundary has been described as follows :-
E – Govt. land and Road, W – Subal Meher and Jyoti Manjari Purohit, N – Road on the plot,
S – Road on the plot.
After verification of the sale deed in question the O.Ps. in paragraph 5 of their version have mentioned the boundary described in the sale deed as follows :-
E – Self, W – Muna Kumar Mishra, N – Subal Meher, S – Road. So the boundary described in the E.C. application is different from the boundary described in the sale deed in question.
We have also perused the foot note (1) of Form No.25 of the Govt. of Odisha which is supplied to the Registry Offices of the State for issuing of E.Cs. to the applicants. The same is reproduced below :-
(1). If the properties have been described in registered documents in a manner different from the way in which the applicant has described them in the application the transaction evidenced by such documents will not be included in the certificate. In the case in hand as the boundary in the application has been described in a manner different from the way it has been described in the sale deed in question it has not been reflected in the E.C. Further more as per provisions of Govt. Revenue & Disaster Management Department E.C. is supplied to the applicants through computerized E.C. as per the data up dated in the computer since 2004. and E.Cs. are generated automatically from on line. It is apt to quote the legal maxim “Expressio Unius exclusion alterius i.e. if a statute provides a thing to be done in a particular manner then it should be done in a particular manner, then it is to be done in that manner and any other means are barred. ”
For the reasons stated supra we are not in a position to fix any liability on the O.Ps. In the wake of aforesaid we are left with no alternative but to dismiss the complaint.
Resultantly this complaint case is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
Dated the 5th January 2018
Typed to my dictation
I agree. I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri H.Pradhan, Smt.S.Mishra, Sri S.C.Nayak
Male Member Lady Member President
Dt.05.01.2018 Dt.05.01.2018 Dt.05.01.2018
