DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                            C.C NO. 34OF 2014

Present:  Sri Rabindranath Mishra         - President

                Miss Sudhira Laxmi Pattanaik – Member.

Smt. Priyambada Ray, aged -55 years

W/O: Sri Naresh Ray.

At/PO: Bamunigaon Dist: kandhamal                          ………………   Complainant.

                         Versus.

1. Tahasildar, Daringbadi

At/PO: Daringbadi Dist: Kandhamal.

2. Revenue Inspector, Bamunigaon.

At/PO: Bamunigaon. Dist: Kandahmal                         ……………. OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant:  self.

 For O.P No.1 - Self.

 For O.P No.2 –Sri M.Sahu & Sudarsan Nayak, Advocates.

Date or Order: 30-05-2015

                                                                                               O R D E R

                                    The case of the Complainant in short is that on 17-04-2013 she had applied to the O.P No.1 for demarcation of her plot No. 103 bearing Khata No. 176/321 of Mouza Bamunigaon by depositing Rs. 20/- as demarcation fees. The Opposite party No.2 failed to demarcate the said land in spite of order of O.P No.1 and repeated request of the Complainant.She is suffering mentally due to negligence of the Opp. Parties as in the meantime one year has already been passed. Hence, she has filed this complaint due to deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties and for a direction to demarcate the above land by the O.P No.2, to grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards her mental agony and sufferings and to award cost of litigation.

                                    As per version of O.P No.1 one RMC Demarcation Case No. 92/2013 was instituted by him on 17-04-2013 and the O,.P No.2 was directed to demarcate the above mentioned land as applied by the applicant. He has immediately ordered for demarcation and never harassed the Complainant.

                                    As per version of O.P No.2 the Complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable as she is not a Consumer as per C.P Act. She has not deposited the required fees either with the Nazir of the Tahasil Office Daringibadi or with the O.P No.2 for the purpose. Further no order has been received from the O.P No.1 to demarcate the land of the Complainant.

                                                                                                           -2-                     

                                   We have heard the Complainant and the learned counsel appearing for O.P No.2. We have gone through the complaint petition and the versions filed by the O.Ps and the documents filed by the Complainant in support of her case. On perusal of the documents it is seen that the O.P No.1 has admitted that the Complainant had applied for demarcation on 16-04-2013. It is also admitted that the O.P No.2 was directed by him to demarcate the land as per his order dated. 17-04-2013 and also on 13-03-2014. Non compliance of the order is amounting negligence in duties on the part of the O.P No.2. However as the receipt of demarcation fee is not available in the record we are not awarding any compensation in favor of the Complainant. But both the O.Ps are directed to take necessary steps for demarcation of the land of the Complainant bearing plot No. 103 and Khata No. 176/321 of Mouza Bamunigaon after verification of their record . In case of non availability of the receipt the Complainant may be asked to deposit fresh demarcation fees for the purpose. This order be complied within 30 days from the date of this receipt of this order. The Complaint is allowed in part.

                                    Supply free copies of this order to both the parties. The C.C is disposed-of accordingly.

                                                                            MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT