Order dated: 16/06/2016

Case no:CC/15/80

The complainant resides at Boro Rajajhar Jote, P.O. and P.S.-Naxalbari , Dist-Darjeeling,. The complainant lodged this complainant against B.L. and L.R.O. officer, Siligui, P.O and P.s. Siliguri, Dist-Darjeeling, Ld advocate of complainant filed Xeroxed documents of general power of attorney, registered in Book-iv, CD volume number-7, page from 1022 to 1034 being no.01030 for the year, 2012 at office of the A.D.S.R., Siliguri, WestBengla, a patta , of  Dist-darjeeling,sub-division-siliguri,p.s.-siliguri,Mouza-Mallaguri,J.L. no.107,Dag No.86, 0.38 satak, sett,case no.6(xii)82.83,a khajna dakhlia,vide no.7508764,dist-darjeeling,p.s. touji no. Siliguri,Circle and Tahasil block no.Siliguri, bhumi Sahayaker Rasid no. 7508764.

 Mouzar name and J.L. No. Maudlaguri-107,khatian no.- nill, Darg No. 86, Jamir Pariman 0.38 acrs, prajar name & pitar/ Swamir name and Sakin-Sumero Singh, S/O-Kanchia, Kahar Dwara(Khajna) Dakhli Haiyachhe-Mangalu Singh, Sett case no.6(XII)82-83,issued on 06.12.2012, a khajna Dakhila Vide No. 4428283, Dist-Darjeeling, Thana & Youji No. Matigara, Circle and Tahasil Book No. Siliguri,6. Tahasildarer Rasid no. 563, Mouza and J.L. No. Mallaguri-107, Khatian No. Nill, Dag nNo. 86, 0.38, sett case no. 6(XII) 82083, Sl-19, issued on 16.03.

 Ld advocate Of complainant filed evidence ( examination-in-chief) of Debabrata Kar, who is the true and Lauful attorney of the Land Dist-Darjeeling, Sub Division-Siliguri, P.s. –Pradhan Nagar, Mouza-Mallaguri, J.L. NO. 107, plot no. 6, measuring mand 0.38, acres as per Xeroxed general power of attorney issued on 04.12.2012 But this Xeroxed patta, Vide Stt case no.6(xii)82-83 .

2(গ)shows that “raয়ত নিজ শ্রমের দ্বারা বা তাহার পারিবারস্ত ব্যক্তিদের সাহায্যে যত্ন সহ কারে উক্ত ভুমি চাষ কারিবেন এবং কৃষি ভিন্ন অন্য কোন প্রকারে অকৃষি করিবার উদেদশে   না ।”

And the said patta point 4 shows that

“ উক্ত রায়তের বিরুধে প্রচলিত আইনানুজা্যি সামুচিত ব্জবস্তা গ্রহণের আধিকারি এবং হক রাজ্যপাল্র থাকিবে । ”

If Smt. Menakaswari Singha is a patta Holder of the said land, what stand of the general power of attorney and Debabrata Kar are.

Para 8 of the complainant The complain claim that “ that in the mean time inspite of paying rent by Smt. Menakaswari singha to the C of her land, the B.L. & L.R.O and R.I(Opp. parties)has converted the cmplainant’s patta land into Khatian land in the name of some other persons.”

The Ld advocate of complainant does not and can not produce the original documents. If any bonafide mistake was done by the Op it will be or may be solved by the Op .To correct the record of rights is the statutory right of the OP . This land is or will be a land of the raiyat by patta or parcha issued  by  R.O. or any appropriate officer or authority. This Ld Forum is not entertain the submission of the LD advocate of the complainant to pass an order against Op as the case proceeds exparte against the Op Consumer protection Act, 1986, Sec,13(2)(b)(ii) ” exparte on the basis of evidence  brought to its notice by the complainant. Where the Op omits or fails to take any action to represent hic case within the time given by the forum.”

 These Xeroxed documents i.e. patta, Khajna dakhila etc. are not easy to read and these are very illegible and ambiguous. However, if the complainant has the right to  use  the land agricultural purpose not non-agricultural purpose granted by patta, issued by proper authority as per statute will be acceptable.  But the complainant demands something different, which is not permissible by this law. There is no negligible on the part of the OP.

 As per W.B.E.A. Act, 1953, see.2(b) ”agricultural land” means and ordinarily used for purposes of agriculture  or horticultural and includes such land, not withstanding that it may be lying fallow for the time being;.

 As per W.B.E.A. Act,1953,sec.2(j)

“ Non agricultural land or other than land comprised in a forest.

As per C.P.Act ,1986,sec 2(d)(ii)”consumer” means any person who-

[Hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid…. For the purpose of earning his /her livelihood by means of self-employment;].

So, there is no deficiency in service from the side of the OP and no negligence on behalf of the OP is done.

 Hence, we are of the opinion that the case CC. 80/S/2015 be and the same is dismissed exparte.

 Hence, it is..

ORDERED

 That the consumer case 80/s/2015 be and the same is dismissed exparte.