SRI BIJOY KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency is service in respect of not issuing the R.O.R. in favour of Complainant after compliance of all the official formalities are the allegations arrayed against the Opp. Parties.
2. Complaint, in brief reveals that, in order to avail a newly published R.O.R. in the name of the Complainant in OLR Case No.63/17, U/S19(1)( c) and fees of Rs. 80/- was deposited before Tahasildar, Kendrapara on dt. 18.1.2017 and money receipt bearing No. 0154216 was granted in favour of the Complainant. It is alleged that though the newly published R.O.R. displayed in the website of land records of Govt. of Odisha, but Op No.1-Tahasildar with an ill intention is not issuing the R.O.R., for which Complainant met Op No.2, Sub-Collector, Kendrapara, but all went invain. Such action of the Ops by not issuing the R.O.R., the complainant is facing a lot of trouble and sustain mental agony, hence the complainant before this Forum. It is prayed that a direction may be issued to Ops for issue of R.O.R. (Patta) in favour of the complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 2000/- for cost of litigation.
3. On receipt of Notice Tahasildar, Kendrapara, OpNo.1 appeared into the dispute and filed written version admitting the filing of OLR 63/17 U/S 19(1)( c) and deposit of Rs. 80/- as user fee on dt. 25/10/2017 and the schedule property was partitioned in favour of the complainant and the scheduled partitioned property was sent to Dist. Sub-Register for registration. It is also averred that after completion of official formalities the records are updated on computerized method. But the R.O.R. of Narayan Nayak, S/o- Bhagabart Nayak, Malati Nayak W/o- Bhagabat Nayak of Vill- Purusottampur does not displayed any Plot No. for which the computerized R.O.R. could not delivered. In the circumstances the problem was brought into the Notice of A.D.M., Kendrapara vide office letter No. 5548 dtd. 25.08.2018 and intimation was also given to NIC/Asst. Programmer for rectification of the defects in the computer programming. It is categorically averred that due to technical problem in computer programming the R.O.R. could not be given and the Op No.1 has no ill intention for not providing the R.O.R. and the complainant has to wait to get the R.O.R. till the process is OK. Accordingly, it is preyed that the complaint is not entitled to any cost and compensation.
Notice was served to Sub-Collector, Kendrapara OP No.2, but OpNo.2 did not prefer to appear into the dispute, hence set ex-parte.
4. Heard the Authorized Representative of complainant and case of OpNo.1 on merit as non-appears on behalf of Op no.1 on the date of hearing and ex-parte hearing against Op No.2. Complainant to substantiate his case filed attested Xerox copy of M.R. dtd. 18.11.17 and attested copy of land records Web Portal of Odisha. Op No.1Tahasildar filed Xerox copy of letter bearing No. 5548 dt. 25.08.18 and Memo No. 5549 dt. 25.08.18 addressed to A.D.M., Kendrapara also filed Xerox copies R.O.R. (Khatian)( 3sheets) published in the name of Narayan Nayak, Bahagabat Nayak and Siba Nayak. The admitted facts of the dispute are that, complainant by filing a OLR Case U/S 19(I)( C) deposited an amount of Rs. 80/- to availed a mutated R.O.R. (Khatian) in his name alongwith other co-sharers, but till-date the Op No.1 has not provided newly published R.O.R. (Khatian).
In the dispute countering the allegations of the complainant, It is the sole defence plea of the contesting Op No.1 is that due to error in computer programming new R.O.R.(Khatian) could not published and the same can’t be delivered to the applicant and the error in computer programming has been intimated to the higher authorities, so no deficiency in service is attributed on issuing authority. Op No.1, Tahasildar to substantiate his pleas files photocopy of R.O.R.(Khatian) published in the name of Narayan Nayak, S/o- Bhagabat Nayak, Malati Nayak, W/o- Bhagabat Nayak of Vill- Purusottampur. The backside of the said R.O.R.(Khatian) does not bear the Plot No., which according to Op No.1 is an error in computer programming. The error appears in the R.O.R.(Khatian) has been communicated to the higher authorities for rectification on computer programming. But in the Case in hand OpNo.1 files photocopy of computerized R.O.R.(Khatian)published in the name of Siba Prasad Nayak (complainant of this case) which reveals that the copy of the computerized R.O.R. (Khatian) produced by Op No.1 before this Forum is complete in all respect.
The published R.O.R.(Khatian) of the present complainant has no connection with the defective R.O.R.(Khatian) published in the name of Narayan Nayak(C.C.Case No. 52/2018) as averred by the OpNo.1 and is the only plea for delayed delivery of R.O.R. to the complainant. The plea of error in computer programming in case of Narayan Nayak is no-way applicable in case of Siba Prasad Nayak the applicant. It is difficult to digest that if computerized R.O.R.(Khatian) of complainant was ready in the office of the OpNo.1, Tahasildar and copy is produced before this Forum, what obstacles are there to issue the said computerized R.O.R.(Khatian) to the Complainant-Applicant. It clearly shows that all is not well within the official functioning of Op No.1, Tahasildar, Kendrapara. The Office of the Op No.1 is functioning in a very causal manner ignoring the time limit prescribed in ORTPS and complainant like applicants are suffering a lot for the casual functioning of the staffs of the Op No.1. In addition to the same OpNo.2, Sub-Collector when remained absent into the proceeding the actual facts of the dispute are not disclosed before this Forum and as no evidence of written intimation to Sub-Collector, Kendrapara is produced before this Forum, we cannot liable Sub-Collector, Kendrapara to be a part of the Op for the said allegations and with the following directions, we close the dispute.
Having observations reflected above, it is directed that Op No.1, Tahasildar, Kendrapara shall issue the original mutated R.O.R. to the complainant by Regd. Post with A.D. in the address of the Complainant on completion of official formalities within one month of receipt of this order, or complainant is at liberty to receive the rectified computerized R.O.R. (Khatian) by furnishing proper acknowledgment, failing which action will be initiated against the Op no.1 as per the provisions of C.P.Act-1986.
Complaint is allowed in part on contest against OpNo.1 and ex-parte against Op No.2. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this 18st day of June-2019.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
