IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 103/S/2015.                              DATED : 22.12.2017.   

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

                      MEMBER                : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA.

COMPLAINANT             : SRI TARINI ROY @ SINGH,

  S/O. Late Falin Roy,

  Bairagipara, Narayan Jote,

  P.O. & P.S.- Phansidewa, Dist.- Darjeeling.     

O.P.                                         : B.L. & L.R.O OFFICER,

  Phansidewa, 

  P.O. & P.S.- Phansidewa, Dist.- Darjeeling. 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Kausik Das, Advocate.

J U D G E M E N T

Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.

The facts of the complaint case in brief are that the grandfather of the complainant Late Dasha Roy @ Singh purchased a land measuring an area of 1.34 acres in Mouza-Narayan, J.L. No.75 under P.S.- Phansidewa, Dist.- Darjeeling about 50 years back by virtue of a registered Deed being No.698/1936.  After purchase of the said land he constructed a house thereon and lived with his family and he also constructed a Kali Temple and a Shiva Temple on the said land.  While in possession the said land was recorded in his name in R.S. Khatian No.89, Plot No.150 under Mouza – Narayan, J. L. No.75, area-1.34 acres, under Pargana-Patharghata, Touzi No.91, Dist.-Darjeeling and said Dasha Roy during his lifetime used to pay rent to the Govt. of West Bengal regularly.  Dasha Roy died living behind his only son Falin Roy @ Singh who became the absolute owner of the about land.  After death of Falin Roy the complainant being his only son of Falin Roy has become the owner of the above mentioned land.  Meanwhile one of the neighbour of the complainant falsely declared that Tokai Singh, S/O Late Dharan Singh was the brother of Late Falin Singh to the BL & LRO, Phansidewa and accordingly the BL & LRO of Phansidewa falsely recorded the name of Tokai Singh in the R.S. Khatian.  There is no relation between Late Falin Roy @ Singh and Late Tokai Singh.  The BL & LRO, Phansidewa has recorded half share of the land of the complainant illegally in a separate khatian in the name of the sons of Tokai Singh in L.R. Khatian No.87 & 185.  The complainant is paying rent regularly to the Govt. of West Bengal being the absolute owner of the land in question and he is one of the consumers of BL & LRO, Phansidewa, Govt. of West Bengal.

Complainant is the absolute owner of the land in question by way of inheritance from his grandfather and he is regularly paying rent of the land but in spite of that the BL & LRO, Phansidewa intentionally and purposely recorded 50 % of the complainant’s khatian land in the name of some other persons.  When the complainant went to the office of the OP for an enquiry, the OP misbehaved with the complainant and in spite of several request denied to record the entire land in question in the name of the complainant.  Hence, this case.             

OP entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complaint have been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable.  It has been contended by the OP that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case.  It has been further contended by the OP that the complainant is not a consumer under the OP as per meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this Forum has no right to pass any order directing the BL & LRO, Phansidewa under the State of West Bengal to rectify or cancel the record of right as prayed by the complainant and the instant case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.   

To prove the case, the complainant has filed the following documents:-

1.       Lad Purchase Deed - Annexure-1.

2.       Land Khatian - Annexure-2.

3.       Rent receipt - annexure-3.

4.       Legal heir certificate - Annexure-4. 

          Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.

Complainant has filed written notes of argument.

OP has filed evidence-in-chief.

Points for determination

1.       Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this case ?

2.       Is the complainant a consumer under the OP as per meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

3.       Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?

4.       Is the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?

Decision with reason

All the four issues are taken up together for discussion for the sake of brevity and convenience.

The complainant has filed the instant case with a prayer to give direction to the OP for correction of record of right.  The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant is the owner of the land in question measuring an area of 1.34 acre in Mouza - Narayan which was originally purchased by his grandfather and subsequently the father of the complainant inherited the said land and after demise of his father the complainant has inherited the said land as the legal heir of his father.  The further case of the complainant is that in the R. S. record of right the OP has intentionally and purposely recorded 50 percentage of the case land in the name of one Tokai Singh, S/O Late Dharan Singh and when the complainant requested the OP to correct the R.S. Khatian the OP did not entertain him and refused to correct the same.  The further case of the complainant is that he is paying rent of the land to the Govt. of West Bengal regularly and he is a consumer under the OP, but the OP failed to give him service. 

It is the settled principle of law that the Consumer Forum is not empowered to give such a direction to the OP for correction of record of right.  In fact the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this case.  In case of declaration of his right in the land in question, complainant has to file a civil suit before the Civil Court.  Complainant could also prefer an appeal before the District Land & Land Reforms Officer (DL & LRO), Darjeeling against the erroneous record of right of the OP.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such a case for declaration of title and correction of the record of right.  Moreover, we find that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the OP.  OP being a public officer of the Govt. of West Bengal is performing his duty as BL & LRO, Phansidewa and collecting rent as revenue which cannot be treated by any means as payment of any service charge.  So, the complainant is not a consumer under the OP as per meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Under such circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to get relief and the instance case is liable to be dismissed.

The above issues are thus disposed of against the complainant. 

In the result, the case fails.        

Hence, it is

                     O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.103/S/2015 is dismissed on contest against the OP but without cost.

Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.