O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on 24..1..2007 is as follows: Petition is for getting compensation, as per the direction in order No. OP 635/91 CDRF, Kottayam. As per the order in O.P 635/91 this Forum allowed an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for not rectifying the mistake of the re-survey records of the petitioner. In persuent to the order Dist. Collector, Kottayam directed petitioner to contact with the Tahsildar, Kottayam for rectification of re-survey mistake. Petitioner states that even after contacting the Tahsildar mistakes remained un corrected. Petitioner on 18..9..2006 issued a notice to the District Collector Kottayam, and the same was so far not replied. According to the petitioner opposite party has not complied the order of this forum. So, petitioner prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay compensation for the injury caused to the petitioner. -2- Opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint version contenting that petitioner is not a consumer and the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation. Opposite party contented that in persuance of the order in O.P 635/91 first opposite party, as per order dtd: 26..10..94, had given direction to the second opposite party to include the properties of the petitioner in his Thandapper account. As per the order dtd: 8..12..94 Tahsildar, Kottayam included the properties of the petitioner in his thandapper account with vide T.P No. 4177. Petitioner had given an application under the Right to Information Act for getting information regarding the properties of the petitioner, extent of the property, nature of the property, and which properties of the petitioner were used as public pathways. Second opposite party conducted a local inspection for satisfying the demands of the petitioner. During inspection 38 peoples of the locality through District Collector, Kottayam had given a complaint to the opposite party stating that the property which were used by them as public pathway had not been included in the thandapper of the petitioner. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and petitioner is not entitled for getting any compensation. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties . Ext. A1 to -3- A4 on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B6 documents on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 The order copy of the consumer forum in O.P No. 635/01 is produced and is marked as Ext. A4. In Ext. A4 order forum stated that the forum has no power to issue direction to the Deputy Director, survey and land records for rectifying the re-survey mistake. Forum can only order the opposite parties to pay compensation to the consumer for the loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party. The forum further ordered that the petitioner is free to approach this forum again for claiming compensation for the losses and damages which he had suffered . O.P 635/01 is filed by the petitioner for getting direction for rectifying re-survey records. According to the opposite party as per order No. C-3/27397/94/K/Dis Dtd: 26..5..94 District Collector directed the second opposite party to include properties comprised in block No. 27 resurvey 3/11, 4/11 etc. in the thandapper account of the petitioner. As per the order of the Tahsildar, properties were included in the tandapper account of the petitioner (vide thandapper No. 4177). Opposite party produced the relevent page of Basic Tax registrar of Athirampuzha Village Office said document is marked as Ext. B4. From Ext. B4 it can be seen that the properties were included in the Tandapper account of the petitioner. Other allegation of the petitioner is that even though he had given application. to the opposite party for getting information about t which property comprised in which survey number -4- were used as wet land, nilam and pathway, its extent etc. Petitioner alleged that some properties which belongs to the petitioner were not included in his thandapper account. . According to the opposite party the properties , which were applied by the petitioner to be included in his thandapper account were used by the general public as pathway and the inhabitants of the locality had given complaint to the District Collector, Kottayam, for non inclusion of the pathway in patitioner’s thandepper. In the light of the said complaint 2nd opposite party had not included that portion of property in the petitioners thandapper account . In our view from the available records we find no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Title to a property, its possession inclusion of the same in village records viz a viz are not at all a ‘ consumer dispute’ as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Question of title, possession, inclusion or exclusion of a property in Revenue records etc. are matters to be tried and disposed by a competent Civil Court. So,. Point No. 1 is found accordingly Point No.2 In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition dismissed. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of May, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- -5- APPENDIX Documents for the Petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of judgment in OS 95/1997 Ext. A2: Copy of judgment in OS 163/89 Ext. A3: Copy of order in appeal in OS 95/77 Ext. A4: Copy of order in OP 635/01 Documents for the Opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of affidavit of Sri. A.S Ravendran Ext. B2: Copy of objection of 2nd opposite party Ext. B3: Relevant page of Thandapper account of petitioner Ext. B4: Relevant page of B.T.R register of the petitioner Ext. B5: Copy of memorandum to District Collector, Kottayam Ext. B6: Reply to the application submitted by the petitioner under R.I.T Act. By Order, Senior Superintendent. | 
