Date of Filing-11.9.2012
Date of Disposal-5.2.2014
O R D E R
Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President
The case of the complainants in a nutshell is that the complainants No.1 and 2 purchased a piece of homestead land of an area Ac 0.020(6/10) decimal each out of extent Area Ac 0.099 decimal of Mouza Ankuli bearing Plot No.1825 of 4367 and Khata No.867/1444 vide Registered Sale Deed No.2651 dated 19.4.2005 being executed by one Smt.Ranjita Padhi, the Record of Rights(R.O.R) holder. The complainants are alleged to be two brothers. After purchase of the land, the complainants filed petition before the Mutation Officer,Berhampur(Opposite Party) in the prescribed forms by depositing a sum of Rs.10/- vide Receipt Book No.0129350 and 0129351 respectively dated 18.8.2011 by affixing stamp worth Rs.9/- to obtain the mutation and record the name of the complainants in the R.O.R and grant of Patta . The Opposite Party registered the case as Mutation Case No.16661/2011 and 16662/2011 respectively. In the meantime, more than one year has already been elapsed and when the Opposite Party did not pass mutation order despite several approaches, the complainants finding no other way out but to file this consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and prayed for sanction of R.O.R. and Patta in their favour and compensation and cost of litigation for the harassment, mental agony caused to them during the relevant period.
2- The Opposite Party entered its appearance through Government Pleader and filed the written version wherein the Opposite Party denied all the allegations of the complainants as false and frivolous. It is stated that as per the R.O.R, the Plot No.1825/4367 in Khata No.863/1444 as alleged to have purchased, stands in the name of Smt.Tanaya Panda W/o.Sri Prafulla Kumar Panda. The plot number of the complainants does not tally with the Khata number of the present R.O.R. The complainants filed Mutation Case No.16661/2011 and Mutation Case No.16662/2011 wherein the Khata number has been wrongly mentioned as 863/2630 instead of Khata No.863/1444 as mentioned in the registered sale deed. It is further stated that during field enquiry the complainants did not cooperate with the Enquiring Officer and could not able to produce relevant papers establishing their rights, as a result the Mutation Cases were dropped. According to the Opposite Party, complainants have no locu-standi to file the present consumer complaint before this Forum and the case is deserved to be dismissed in limine.
3- The complainants in support of their cases have filed certain documents which are placed on record. On the other hand, the learned G.P. on behalf of the Opposite Party has also tendered a list of documents in support of his case.
4- On the date of hearing we heard the learned counsels for the respective parties at a length and perused the documents relied on by both the parties as well as the written arguments filed by the learned counsels for the respective parties. It is not disputed that the present complainants are the consumers and the complaint filed by them is the consumer complaints. In a catena of decisions it has been well settled that the cases like issuance of possession certificate, encumbrance certificate, mutation certificate, etc. are amenable to jurisdiction of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
5- It is a fact that both the complainants had purchased a piece of land on dt. 19.4.2005 as per the title deed registered by the Sub-Registrar,Berhampour bearing R.S.D.No.2651/2005 dt.19.4.2005 in Khata No.863/1444, Plot No.2185/4367 under Mouza Ankuli bearing area of each Ac.0.020 6/10 . Subsequently, the complainants filed Mutation Case to make mutation and Patta in their names. While going through the registered sale deed, we come to know that the disputed Tanaya Panda wife of Prafulla Kr.Panda purchased the land from the said Ranjita Padhi from whom the complainants had also purchased. In fact, Tanaya Panda, wife of Prafulla Kr.Panda purchased the land vide Regn.No.2851 dt.25.4.2005 from Khata No.863/1444 bearing Plot Nos.1826/4364 of area Ac.0.026, Plot No.1834/4366 of area Ac.0.080, Plot No.1825/4366 of area Ac. 0.018 ,Plot No.1825/4367 of area Ac.0.099 and Plot No.1826/4368 of area Ac.0.025 respectively under Ankuli Mouza. But it is revealed that when Tanya Panda applied for mutation vide M.C.No.828/2007, the Opposite Party without verifying the relevant papers and seeking for objections, if any, sanctioned the R.O.R. in Khata No.863/2630 bearing Plot No. 1825/4367 of area Ac.0.099 and Plot No.1826/4368 of area Ac.0.025 respectively totaling Area of Ac.0.0124 under the said Ankuli Mouza. It is clearly manifested that in Khata No.863/1444 out of Plot No.1825/4367 of area Ac.0.099, the complainants were sold Ac.0.41 ½ in total. But while issuing R.O.R to Tanya Panda the entire Area of Ac.0.099 were made in her favour. So there is a wrong committed by the Opposite Party while allowing mutation in the name of Tanaya Panda. Therefore, whatsoever, pleas taken by the Opposite Party are not to be accepted on the ground that the complainants are genuine purchaser of land from Ranjita Padhi in Khata No.863/1444, Plot No.2185/4367 having area of Ac.0.020 6/10 each under Ankuli Mouza and it is the obligation on the part of the Opposite Party to grant mutation in favour of the complainants in the above stated land possessed by the complainants by rectifying the wrong committed by them. The action of the Opposite Party clearly reveals that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in rejecting the Mutation Case of the complainants.
6- In view of the above and considering to the facts of the case, we allow the case of the complainants and direct the Opposite Party to rectify the wrong committed as stated above and allow Mutation on the plots possessed by complainants and to issue R.O.R and Patta in favour of the complainants observing necessary formalities within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Under the facts and circumstances, we are of the lenient view not to award any compensation in favour of the complainants as claimed. The case is disposed of accordingly without any order as to cost. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 5th February,2014
I AGREE(MEMBER) I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT
