Date of filing :- 15/09/2014
Date of Order :- 06/05/2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 23 of 2014.
Khiresh Mallik S/o Late Arjun Mallik, aged about 68(sixty eighty) years, Occ:- Cultivation, R/o, Vill. Kauntipali, Po/Ps/Tah. Bijepur, Dist. Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
Tahasildar, Bijepur At/Po/Ps. Bijepur, Dist. Bargarh.
R.I., Bijepur, At/Po/Ps. Bijepur, Dist. Bargarh,
.... .... .... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Himself.
For the Opposite Parties :- Sri M.P. Gartia, Addl. Govt. Pleader, Bargarh.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 06/05/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P.K. Dash, Member .
The Complainant pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provisions of C.P. Act 1986. The case of the Complainant described here under.
The Petitioner/Complainant being the permanent resident of village Keutipali is the owner and recorded tenant of land bearing M.S. R.O.R No.26/114, Plot No.2/434 of an area of Ac. 0.72 decimal, Mouza, Nuapali under Bijepur Tahasil, P.S. Bijepur, Dist. Bargarh. where in Opposite Party No.1(one) and 2(two) are Tahasildar Bijepur and Revenue Inspector, Bijepur Tahasil, Dist. Bargarh respectively.
The Petitioner/Complainant deposited Rs. 40/-(Rupees forty)only before the Opposite Parties to demarcate his above mentioned scheduled land vide demarcation Case No.40/2013 initiated before the Tahasildar, Bijepur. The Opposite parties did not opt to demarcate the land inspite of repeated approach by the Petitioner and on the instruction of Opposite Parties the Petitioner again deposited Rs.40/-(Rupees forty)only and another demarcation Case No. 01/2014 initiated before the Opposite Parties on Dt.22/01/2014.
Further the Petitioner on the instruction of Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two), several times went to the Bijepur Police Station to depute Police personals at the time of demarcation of the scheduled land. It is the allegation of the Petitioner that being gained over by the mischief mongers of the village, the Opposite Parties did not demarcate his rayati land and in that respect a grievance petition on Dt.23/06/2014 is also filed before the Sub-Collector, Padampur. Inspite of all the efforts by the Petitioner the Opposite Parties did not turn over to demarcate the land applied for and as a consequence he (the Petitioner) could not able to cultivate the said land smoothly and as a result sustained loss of Rs. 40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand)only for all accounts due to negligent act and carelessness of the Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two).
Further in the month of July-2014 and for the last time on Dt.01/09/2014 the Petitioner asked the Opposite Parties to demarcate his land and for non action of Opposite Parties, filed complaint before the Forum.
The Complainant supported with the xerox copies of the following documents.
MS ROR bearing No. 26/114 of Mouza Nuapali, under Bijepur Tahasil (One sheet).
Rent receipts for the year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 (three sheets).
Demarcation fee receipts in respect of demarcation Case No.40/2013 and 01/2014(Two sheets).
The Petitioner on Dt.20/03/2015 filed one memo of rejoinder of argument after
the case is posted for order. Petitioner seeks the redressal of the Forum to direct Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No,2(two) to pay damages and compensation along with the cost of the case to the Complainant and for further direction to demarcate and affix boundary stone around the case land.
Being noticed the Opposite No.1(one) and No.2(two) appeared before the Forum through their counsels and in their written version they have denied most of the allegations of the Complainant.
The case of the Opposite Parties described here under.
The Opposite Parties in their version denied the Complainant as a consumer and dispute as to the authenticity of the complaint before the Forum.
Further the Opposite Parties in their version contend that both the demarcation cases have been verified and tagged together and from the application Dt. 19/11/2013 in demarcation case No.40/2013 filed by the present Petitioner, Plot No. 02/434 pertaining to MS ROR Khata No. 26/114 of an area of Ac 0.72 decimal recorded in the name of the present Petitioner out of original Khata No. 25 of Mouza Nuapali as per the Order passed in Mutation Case No.64/2012. Further vide Bijepur Tahasil Office Memo No.11502 Dt.19/11/2013 a copy of demarcation case is sent to the R.I. Bijepur to demarcate the land if there is no dispute and to report compliance of the same.
Further contention of the version is that the order copy Dt.20/12/2013 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate Padampur in Criminal Misc Case No. 131/2013 U/s 144(2) Cr.PC reveals that an Execution Application No. 14/2011 is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.D) Padampur relating to this case land in original Khata No. 25 of Mouza Nuapali and accordingly prayer of the Opposite Party Srimat Naik S/o Late Shankar Naik R/o Keutipali Ps. Bijepur, Dist. Bargarh in CMC 131/2013 is accepted by the SDM Padmapur and intimated the OIC Bijepur PS and RI Bijepur for information and necessary action vide his office Memo No. 6579 Dt. 20.12.2013.
Further contention of the version is that demarcation of the case land applied by the present Petitioner can't be executed by the R.I. Bijepur i.e. the Opposite Party No.2(two) till final disposal of Execution Application No. 14/2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Padmapur and the Hon'ble Civil Court will demarcate the land by its own agency i.e. the Civil Court Commissioner to ascertain the area. All other allegations of the Complainant is categorically denied by the Opposite Parties in their version and pray for dismissal of the Complaint.
The Opposite Parties in support of their contentions rely upon the xerox true copies of the following documents.
Copy of Order sheet in demarcation case bearing No. 40/2013 (One sheet).
Demarcation petition Dt.19/11/2013 of Khiresh Mallik (One sheet).
MS ROR No. 26/114 of Mouza Nuapali (One sheet).
Order sheet in demarcation Case No. 01/2014 (Three sheets).
Report of R.I. Dated 26/02/2014.
Application Dt.06/03/2014 of Khiresh Mallik before SDM, Padampur.
Application Dt.23/06/2014 of Khiresh Mallik before SDM, Padmapur.
MS ROR bearing No.26/114 of Mouza Nuapali, Ps. Bijepur.
Fee receipt in Demarcation Case No. 40/2013.
Fee receipt in Demarcation Case No. 01/2014.
Application of advocate for Opposite Party Dt.18/06/2014 before Tahasildar, Bijepur.
Execution Application No. 14/2011 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.D) Padampur (Three sheets).
Order Copy in Criminal Misc. Case No. 131/2013 U/s 144(2) Cr. PC of SDM, Padampur.
Objection filed by Jdr No.16 in Execution Application No. 14/2011 before Civil Judge(Sr.D) Padampur (Two sheets).
Gone through the entire case record, documents and evidence present in it. Heard pleadings of the Parties, perused the memo of arguments and the points need be resolved as follows.
The Complainant has paid necessary fees for demarcation of land pertaining to MS Khata No. 26/114 Plot No. 2/434 of Mouza Nuapali, Ps. Bijepur Dist. Bargarh twice in Demarcation Case No. 40/2013 vide receipt No. AAC 946264 Dt.13/01/2014 and in Demarcation case No. 01/2014, vide receipt No. AAC 946298 Dt.22/01/2014 for Rs. 40/-(Forty) each in obedience to office order Dt.19/11/2013 of Tahasildar Bijepur and the Complainant is entitle for service to be rendered by the Opposite Parties in leu of provision of law. Hence the Complainant is a consumer under the Opposite Parties U/s 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act-1986.
Tahasildar Bijepur, Opposite Party No.1(one) of this complaint vide Order Dt.19/11/2013 has directed the Revenue Inspector, Bijepur Tahasil Office to realize the demarcation fee and order to demarcate the land and to report compliance by R.I., Bijepur in pursuance to the demarcation application bearing No.40/2013 Dt.19/11/2013 and demarcation application application No.01/2014 filed by the Complainant Khiresh Mallik for land pertaining to Ms Khata No. 26/114, Plot No. 2/434 of Mouza Nuapali for an area of Ac. 0.72 decimal. Proper demarcation fees collected by R.I. Bijepur as per the office order and went to the spot to demarcate the above mentioned land and vide its letter No. 348 Dt.26/02/2014 reported before the Tahasildar, Bijepur that demarcation for the alleged land could not be possible due to apprehension of breach of peace and resistance by one Srimat Naik as not to demarcate the land. Tahasildar Bijepur again vide its order Dt.08/05/2014 and order Dt.16/07/2014 directed R.I., Bijepur to demarcate the land with the assistance of O.I.C., Bijepur Police Station and O.I.C. Bijepur police station is also directed to provide police protection for smooth conduct of the demarcation work by the R.I., Bijepur. So also the Sub-Collector, Padampur also directed the Tahasildar, Bijepur to demarcate the case land. Neither Tahasildar, Bijepur nor Sub-Collector, Padampur have whispered any thing in their office orders about inability of performing demarcation due to pendency of Civil dispute between the Complainant and Sri Srimat Naik. Moreover the Complainant has not filed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil/Judge (Sr.D) Padampur in C.S. No. 51/2003 before the Forum. The Opposite Parties also to substantiate their claim of pendency of any Civil dispute between the Parties for the alleged land have not filed any conclusive documents before the Forum to make the Forum clear about the point. Rather Tahasildar, Bijepur vide its order Dt.16/07/2014 has hold the complainant as the recorded tenant for the alleged land for paying rent for last three years.
However the documents filed by both the Parties are absolutely incomplete in nature to conclusively arrive at any conclusion by the Forum to hold the pendency or non pendency of any Civil dispute between the Complainant and Srimat Naik which will cause as hurdle for execution of demarcation application of the Complainant.
Hence the Forum unanimously arrived at a decision that non completion of demarcation work in pursuance to the demarcation application filed by the Complainant is a negligent act by the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are hereby directed to complete the demarcation process and to complete the demarcation work left incomplete in demarcation application No.40/2013 and No.01/2014 pertain to M S Khata No. 26/114 Plot No. 02/434 of mouza Nuapali, within one month from the date of Order failing which action will be taken against the Opposite Parties as per the provisions of law.
The Case is disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
( Smt.Anjali Behera ) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
