Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President . <br /> The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> The Complainant along with his son Sasi Bhusan Sahu has applied for mutation case in respect of their purchased land vide Mutation Case No. 1793/2006 and 1794/2006 before the Court of Additional Tahasildar, Bijepur. The said Mutation Case were allowed by the learned Court and as per the direction, the Complainant has deposited necessary Amin Fees of Rs.40/-(Rupees forty)only each vide Receipt No.910491 and No.910492 Dt.11/01/2007. The Complainant alleges that, as per the procedure, the Opposite Party No.1(one) has the administrative duty to issue the corrected Record or Right in favour of the Complainant and his son, but the Opposite Party No.1(one) demanded Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) illegally to issue the corrected ROR in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant served pleader notice on Dt.01/10/2008 through his advocate requesting the Opposite Parties to issue the patta but the Opposite Parties remain silent over the matter.<br /> <br /> Alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the case with prayer to issue necessary direction for issuance of Record of Right in respect of above noted Mutation Cases and to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation towards harassment and mental agony suffer by the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In its version, the Opposite Parties denied to have cause any deficiency in service towards the Complainant and also denied the others allegations made by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties challenges the maintainability of this case under the Consumer Protection Act-1986 and says that the Complainant is not competent to raise any objection so far it relates to Mutation Case No.1793/2006. <br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties contends that no regular order sheet regarding allowing Mutation Case and directing to deposit of Amin Fees to the Complainant is available in the Mutation Case record. Any notiing in the top corner of the Title Page is not a final order and it must be written in the order sheet of the case record with signing of the presiding officer, so the Mutation Case have not yet been disposed off and still pending in the court of Tahasildar, Bijepur.<br /> <br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) has joined as Tahasildar, Sohella on Dt.27/04/2008, prior to that he was serving as zone officer, Subarnarekha Irrigation Project, Baripada. So, the Opposite Party No.1(one) having never been the presiding officer for disposal of Mutation Case in question no action is warranted against him.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.1(one) prays for dismissal of the case with heavy exemplary cost.<br /> In its version the Opposite No.4(four) challenges the maintainability of the case, being the Complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.4(four) denied to have any cause of action for the present case and submitted that, the Opposite Party No.4(four) has joined as Tahasildar, Bijepur since Dt.22/04/2008. Prior to that he was working as Additional Tahasildar, Barpali. The Opposite Party No.4(four) contends that in the cover page of the Mutation Case record, the Mutation has shown to be allowed on Dt.19/08/2006 but their is no order sheet of Dt.19/08/2006. The Order Sheet in the format has been filled up but the same has neither been signed nor dated by the then Presiding Officer. So it is not correct to say that the case has been disposed off by the that Tahasildar.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party No.4(four) submitted that the Mutation Cases have not yet been disposed of in accordance with law. Soon after the disposal of this case, the Opposite Party No.4(four) will take necessary steps for disposal of the Mutation Cases in accordance with law and after hearing of the parties, if the Mutation Case is allowed, certainly corrected R.O.R will be issued in favour of the Complainant after 45(forty five) days from the date of order as per provision.<br /> <br /> There is no any deficiency in service by the Opposite Party No.4(four) towards the Complainant and prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the pleading of the Parties, documents available on record and also heard the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and found as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant has filed the case praying for a necessary order directing the Opposite Parties to take necessary and firm steps for issuance of Record of Right in respect of Mutation Case No. 1793/2006 and 1794/2006 and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> Admittedly, the Complainant with his son have applied for Mutation Case of their purchased land by filing Mutation Case No.1793/2006 and 1794/2006 before the Additional Tahasildar, Bijepur. The Complainant alleges that the above Mutation Case was allowed and as per direction the Complainant has deposited the required Amin Fees vide money receipt No.910491 and 910492 Dt.11/01/2007 for issuance of corrected R.O.R to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> There after the Complainant ran several time to Opposite Party No.1(one) and ultimately he issued a pleader notice through his Counsel praying for issue of patta but the Opposite Party remain silent.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Parties after entered their appearance challenges the maintainability of the case, being the Complainant is not a Consumer of Opposite Parties as per provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The Complainant has not paid any consideration to the Opposite Parties for heiring such services. The Amin Fees paid by the Complainant is legal requirement for the purpose of augmentation of the revenue of the state and there is no element of service connected there in. So the Complainant is not a Consumer and is not entitled to any service sought for. In support of this the Opposite Parties relied on a decision reported in 1998(I) OLR(CSR) where in it is held that,-Complainant claiming compensation for not being granted certified copies he had applied for. The stamp duly payable on the application for applying for certified copy is for the purpose of augmentation of the revenue of the state and there is no element of service connected there with- Held on facts of the present case the Complainant not a consumer entitled to any service sought for. <br /> <br /> <br /> In view of above discussion, the Complainant is not a consumer under the Opposite Parties and the case is not maintainable under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986.<br /> Consequently, the Complaint is dismissed.<br /> <br /> Complaint disposed of accordingly.