Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/244

Gurnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Halqa Patwari - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

06 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                     244 of 2017

Date of Institution:            2.08.2017

Date of Decision :             6.03.2019

 

Gurnam Singh aged 43 years son of Jarnail Singh r/o Village Kabal Wala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Halqa Patwari, Village Kabalwala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
2. Halqa Kanungo, Village Kabalwala, Tehsil and District Faridkot.
3. Naib Tehsildar, Faridkot.
4. Incharge, Suvidha Centre, Mini Secretariat, Faridkot.

                                            ....Opposite parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:        Sh Ashu Mitta, Ld Counsel for complainant,     

                    Sh Hari Singh Sekhon, Ld Counsel for OP-1 and 2,

                    Sh Gagandeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-4,

                   None for OP-3.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

 

 

cc no. 244 of 2017

                                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops for not demarcating the land and seeking directions to them to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment  suffered by him.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is the owner of land measuring 15 kanals and 18 marlas as share of land measuring 318/1531, share of land measuring 76 kanals 11 marlas, being co-sharer, situated in the revenue estate of village Kabal Wala. It is submitted that some people alleged that complainant is having more land than his share and they demolished some part of his passage to land and mixed the site of passage in their own land and therefore, complainant moved an application before OP-4 for demarcation of his land on 5.06.2017 and also deposited Rs.215as requisite fee, but despite passing of 10 days no body came to his site for demarcation. Complainant approached OP-3, who told complainant that demarcation is to be done by OP-1 and 2 and then, complainant appeared before OP-1 and 2 and requested them to make demarcation, but they replied that there is some technical defect in his application and complainant is required to move fresh application and assured to make demarcation within 7 days of receipt of application. Thereafter, complainant again moved application and deposited requisite fee vide receipt dated 19.06.2017, but despite completion of more than 10 days nobody came from OPs for making demarcation of his land. Complainant approached them and made several requests but they kept putting him off on one pretext or the other. Legal notice dated 7.07.2017 issued by complainant through his counsel also served no purpose.

 

cc no. 244 of 2017

Despite repeated requests, OPs did not do the needful. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.08.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                       OP-1  and OP-2 filed reply wherein took preliminary objections that complainant is not their consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the present case. It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and they have already done the duty entrusted to them by their superiors as two applications received from complainant have already been disposed off by them. It is admitted that complainant moved his first application on 5.06.2017 for demarcation of land comprising of khasra no. 379, 380 and 381 and his application was marked to OP-2 by ld Tehsildar, Faridkot and after verification of same OP-2 found that land to be demarcated was out of joint khewat and has many co-sharers and total area is 76 kanal and 11 marlas and land out of joint khata cannot be demarcated. Accordingly, OP-2 made report about the Revenue Rules to Tehsildar on 7.06.2017 and Tehsildar disposed off the application of complainant on 8.06.2017. only remedy for complainant was to get his share partitioned. It is asserted that complainant moved his second application on 19.06.2017 for demarcating his land bearing khasra no.911/379/0-18, 915/380/7-3, 916/381/0-2, 918/381/13-3, bearing khewat no.9, khatauni no.21 situated in village

cc no. 244 of 2017

 

Kabal Wala and his application was marked to OP-2. It is further averred   that   OP-2  is  the Incharge of 10 Halqa  Patwaries  and  was  having  very  busy  schedule and on receiving the application of complainant, he was trying to fix date for demarcation of land of complainant but meanwhile, he received legal notice from advocate of complainant wherein he directed answering OP to make demarcation with 10 days. It is further averred that as per provision of Right to Service Act, 45 days are provided to perform demarcation of land and this time can be delayed due to busy schedule and as per rules complainant was not competent to serve such notice to them. OP-1 and OP-2 asserted that 20.07.2017 was date fixed for demarcation of land and complainant was informed through chowkidar regarding this, but on 20.07.2017, complainant did not appear on spot for getting demarcation of his land though OP-1 and OP-2 were there alongwith relevant record and material required for the purpose of demarcation. Neither complainant nor any other person on his behalf made his presence on the spot and then answering OPs prepared list of persons present there and got their signatures over the list and returned helplessly. Thereafter, OP-2 fixed 3.08.2017 date for the purpose of demarcation and on 31.07.2017 they gave notice in writing to Op-1 to get the services effected regarding confirmation for date of demarcation to complainant and on 3.08.2017, demarcation was completed and neither complainant nor any other person raised any objection on demarcation made by them. OP-2 submitted report pertaining to demarcation of land of complainant to Tehsildar on same day i.e 3.08.2017 and on 7.08.2017 Tehsildar disposed off the application. It is came to the notice of answering Ops that complainant has again moved an application for demarcation of his land through Local Commission and

 

cc no. 244 of 2017

Tehsildar has marked his application to Harinder Singh,Kanungo, Halqa Faridkot.  It is averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and complainant has filed the present complaint only to cause harassment to them. All  the other allegations are also refuted with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                                                        OP-3 filed reply wherein asserted that complainant is not their consumer and complaint filed by him is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OP-3 admitted that complainant moved an application for demarcation of his land and they forwarded the same to OP-2 and duty of demarcation of land lies only with OP-1 and OP-2. OP-3 have denied all the other allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                                        OP- 4 also filed reply and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and no cause of action arises against them. It is admitted that complainant moved an application and deposited fees for demarcation of land on 5.06.2017 and again moved the application alongwith fee for demarcation of land on 19.06.2017 and it was received by concerned department on the very next day. It is further averred that only duty of OP-4 is to receive the application and forward the same to concerned department and on receipt of prepared copy from concerned department to hand over the same to applicant. Answering OP acts like a mediator between complainant and concerned department. Receipt of legal notice and all other allegations of complainant have

cc no. 244 of 2017

been totally denied being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-4.

7                                    Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-12 and then, closed the evidence.

8                                                                  To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 and OP-2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Jaspal Singh Ex OP-1 &2/1 and documents Ex OP-1 & 2 /2 to Ex OP-1 & 2 /10 and closed the same on behalf of OP-1 and OP-2. Counsel for OP-4 tendered in evidence affidavit of Nikhil Gupta Ex OP-4/1 and document Ex OP-4/2 to Ex OP-4/3and also closed the same.

9                                                                   From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that he wanted to get his land demarcated and for this purpose he moved an application before OPs on 5.06.2017 and also deposited requisite fee, but they did not do any demarcation on pretext that there was some technical fault on his application and he was asked to file another application. On advice of OPs, complainant again moved application for demarcation of land to OPs on 19.06.2017 and again deposited the fee against proper receipt, but despite repeated requests OPs did not do the needful. Legal notice served by complainant also served no purpose. All this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, OP-1 and 2 admitted before the Forum regarding receipt of

cc no. 244 of 2017

two applications dated 5.06.2017 and 19.06.2017 from complainant regarding demarcation of his land. As per OP-1 and OP-2, the application dated 5.06.2017 was disposed off as there is some technical defect and regarding second application dated 19.06.2017 they submitted that their schedule is very busy and on receiving the application of complainant from Tehsilder, they were trying to fix the date for demarcation of land of complainant but meanwhile they received legal notice and then they fixed date 20.07.2017 for demarcation of land and due intimation regarding this was given to complainant, but complainant did not appear on date fixed for getting demarcated his land and then 3.08.2017 was again fixed for demarcation of his land and on said date, land of complainant was duly demarcated and neither complainant nor any other person raised any objection on their task. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP-3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that they have no role to play in demarcation of land of complainant as task of making demarcation is being done by OP-1 and OP-2. OP-4 also reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and asserted that OP-4 acts only as a mediator and their work is only to receive application from applicants and forward the same to the concerned department and on receiving the information from departments to hand over the same to the concerned applicants.

10                              We have thoroughly gone through the file and have carefully perused the documents produced on record by parties. It is observed that grievance of complainant is that despite his repeated requests and legal notice served by him through his counsel, OPs did not demarcate his land and caused harassment and mental agony to him. On the other hand plea taken by OP-1 and 2 is that ten halqa

cc no. 244 of 2017

patwaries come under OP-2 and his work schedule is very busy and due to over work, they could not do the demarcation in time. However, on receiving the notice  from complainant they fixed the date for demarcation, but complainant did not appear on spot and they returned from their helplessly. They again fixed date for 3.08.2018 and performed their task of demarcation very well. OP-1 and  2 stressed mainly on the point that as per Service Rules, 45 days’ time is given to them for   completing the task of demarcation, but they have not placed on record any document mentioning the said rule. In the Notification No. 1/22/2011–PGRC/757 dated 26.07.2011, it is clearly mentioned that demarcation of land is required to be done within 21 days of receipt of application by the Revenue Department. Complainant moved his first application for demarcation of land on 5.06.2017, but Ops did not take any action on his application. Thereafter, he moved second application to Ops on 19.06.2017 and again deposited requisite fee against proper receipt dt 19.06.2017, but OP-1 and OP-2 did demarcation of land on 3.08.2017 after 45 days of receipt of application from complainant and caused much delay in process of demarcation. It is observed that complainant filed the complaint on 2.08.2017 and they did the task of demarcation on 3.08.2017 and complainant had to file the complaint under compelling circumstances. OP-1 and OP-2 have performed their part of work but they did this after a long delay, which amounts to deficiency in service.  

11                                            From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by respective parties, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-2 in causing delay in performing the work of demarcation assigned to them, which makes them deficient in services. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 and OP-2and both are

cc no. 244 of 2017

directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. OP-1 and OP-2 are further directed to pay  Rs.2000/-to complainant on account of litigation expenses incurred by him on present complaint. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint against OP-3  and OP-4 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 6.03.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

          Member                               President