Adv.for the complainant- Sri G.N.Panigrahi & C.S.Mishra.
Adv.for the Opp.Party - Sri S.K.Mishra, & Sri N.K.Tripathy.
Date of filing of the case – 25.06.2014
Date of order - 17.08.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
1. In the matter of an application u/s.12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service against the O.P.
2. In brief, the complainant is the recorded tenant of Khata No.133/169 of Mouza Patrapali is in interest to sale the plot No.248/1476, 247/1596 to Purnanda Kampa of village-Dangarpada.
3. The complainant also averred on dated 20.06.2014 presented the sale deed before the O.P for the registration. The O.P called for the R.O.R. Copy in computerized format, but the submission of R.O.R. computerized copy was refused on ground that the tenant name in column is not present.
4. It is also stated as per the rule computerized certified copy was issued after payment fees by compared with the original R.O.R. kept Tahasil Office and discrepancy is corrected after thorough verification .Thus the O.P has no authority to challenge. The record keeper of Tahasil office, Titilagarh after verification has found that the name of the R.T. is not endorsed, it was written in ink with seal and signature.
5. The petitioner urged no power has given to question the genuineness of the R.O.R. to the O.P under (Indian Registration ( amendment) Act 2013. So under the circumstance refusal to admit the sale deed for execution is beyond the provision of law, which amounted to deficiency of service. Relied sale deed endorsed copy, computer khatiyan page, Gazette publication of amendment, the registration Act 2013 and affidavit.
6. Pursuant to the notice, the O.P appeared and filed the version admitting that the complainant filed a document on dt.20.06.2014 ,out of Khata No.138/169 of Mouza-Patrapali and O.P party being the registering authority has asked the complainant to produce ROR in compliance of section 22A(2) of Registration (Odisha Amendment) Act 2013. Absent of tenant’s name in column three of the computerized format so to say in writing by hand is clearly doubtful document.
7. As the registering officer doubted the genuineness of the ROR as because the doubt was confirmed as the opposite party obtained a copy of the said ROR from the Bhulekh Website of Govt. of Odisha as no name was found in column No.2 of Khata No.138/169 of Mouza-Patrapali. The O.P has never challenged the R.O.R.
8. The other submission is that the R.O.R must contained the column i.e serial No.1 to 12 properly filled in along with seal and signature of the Tahasildar but surprisingly no name and address of the tenant is found/recorded in the R.O.R. produced by the complainant. The discrepancy give rise to made compliance of the section 22A(2) of the Registration ( Odisha Amendment) Act 2013 notified on dt.22.02.2014,so no deficiency has committed on the part of the registering officer as alleged.
9. The contentions as raised is false and denied rather the complainant failed to comply the basic required document for entertaining registration by the Registering Authority and he is not entitle to any relief. Thus the complaint petition may be dismissed with cost in the interest of justice.
10. Heard the complaint petition and submissions at the learned counsels. Perused the document and records at hand.
11. Perusal of the case records reveal no contention survives except exclusively being the section 22A(2) of the Registration (Odisha Amendment) Act 2013 as because both parties relied on the provision and the principles of the section.
The Registration (Odisha Amendment) Act 2013 Section-22A(2) reads- “ the registering officer shall not register any document presented to him for registration unless the transferor produce the record of right for the satisfaction of the registering officer ;that such transferor has right, title and interest over the property so transferred”.
12. The bare perusal confers the right in asking the genuinity in case so also the genuineness of the document as required under the provision as entrusted. In the present case, the complainant although placed the ROR, still it did not constitute to complete one in absence of the column in complete filled again, writing in column-3 by hand written is as much as a document of doubtful integrity and to substantiate the truth calling for competent document is no more a fault or latches rather an act of conscientious and deligent manner within the provision of such section. We also do not find deficiency in rendering service to the O.P within section 2(g) of the C.P.Act.
Thus in view of our above made discussion, the complainant has no merit in the case, hence the case is dismissed and nor order as to cost.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014.
I agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
