ORDER DATED. 10.03.2015.

For the Complainant                     : - D.K Patel, Adv. Associates.

For the opposite Party                  : - G.C. Sahoo, (GP).

                                                                        O R D E R                                                             

SRI ARUN KUMAR PATEL, PRESIDENT.

1. Deficiency in service, against the opposite parties is the grievance of the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that, he has got his recorded land in his name in ROR No. 102 of village Gurabasa and for demarcation of land applied application before the Tahasildar (Op) vides Misc. Case No. 151 of 2008 by depositing Rs. 420/- towards Amin fees. Thereafter the complainant rushed to the office of the Op several times and lastly on dated 15.04.2014 when he requested Op for deputes an Amin for Identification of lands refused to do so, which amounts to deficiency in service by the Op.  Hence this case is filed for claiming compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards mental harassment with cost of litigation.
3. Opposite party entered appearance, filed written version and contested the case. In her written version Opp. Party stated that, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. The Op admitting the fact of the matter of filing application for demarcation of the land and registration thereof vide Misc. Case No. 151/2008 has further stated that, she had directed Revenue Inspector Bhasma to demarcate the case land of the complainant vide Memo No. 3117 dated 12.08.2008. Since there was no Revenue Inspector posted, an A.R.I. was in charge and not conversant with the field measurement and in the meantime whereas village Gurabasa emerges in the newly created RI, Circle Baragad, the official records could not shifted and the prayer of the applicant not attended. Considering the gravity of the case pending before the Forum the Revenue Supervisor was deputed to take action and due to unwillingness of the complainant and other recorded owner demarcation was stopped as reported by the Supervisor with   obtaining signature of the party therein. And hence, as they have never adopted any deficiency in service, question of mental agony and harassment as alleged by the complainant does not arise. Accordingly the complainant petition is liable to be dismissed.  
4. Heard the case from both sides, perused the complainant petition and written version with material/documents available in the records we found that, as per the admission in written version by the Op it is true to say that, the complainant had filed application for demarcation of his land and hence the Op registered Misc Case No. 151/2008 after receiving fees of Rs. 420/ from the complainant. As per the provision of Government, the agent like Op is service provider to its local people after receipt of fees. Accordingly as the complainant deposited fees towards demarcation of his land, the Op after receipt of fees, registered Misc. Case for demarcation of the land, hence the complainant is a consumer under the Op. However the Op has challenged nothing regarding dispute on the point of aforesaid matter rather admitted the fact of failure as to demarcate the land of the complainant on receipt of fees.  The Op giving reason of failure to demarcate of land has explained the fact of inconvenience in her written version that, “R.I Bhasma was directed to demarcate the land vide Memo No. 3117 dt. 12.08.2008. Since no Revenue Inspector was posted to Bhasma Circle, an A.R.I. was kept in charge of the Circle who was not conversant with the field measurement. Further in accordance with the Government Notification, the village Gurabasa emerges in the newly created R.I. Circle Baragad. Accordingly the official record was with the mother R.I. I.e. (Bhasma) shifted to newly created R.I. Circle. Due to above hazatory circumstances, the prayer of the applicant could not be attended.”  We did not satisfy on the aforesaid explanation made by Op that, if there was no R.I. posted to Bhasma Circle and an A.R.I. in charge was not conversant with the field measurement and in the meantime whereas the village Gurabasa emerges in the newly created R.I. Circle Baragad, why the Op directed R.I. Bhasma to demarcate the land of the complainant without deputing any Amin available with her? Further defending allegation in complaint, holding complainant is liable for his default due to taking no steps to meet the R.I. along with the documents to get the applied land demarked is valueless without adducing of any supported evidence by the Op that, there was correspondence to do so. And subsequent negative report submitted by the Op during pendency of the present complaint is clear case of negligence and default by the Op. The document of Xerox copy filed by the Op as to the report enquired by the Revenue Supervisor is doubted to be the genuine that, the complainant is not interested to demarcate his land, unless filing the original with confession by the person who have signed therein. The complainant is only person who can resolve the dispute as above being the signatory in the document, if it was prepared with proper procedure having his direct knowledge and consent to withdraw his present complaint petition. To escape from the allegation of complaint as to non attendance of demarcation of land, filing forged and fabricated document of negative enquiry reported  by the Op is severe sufferance of injuries and harassment to the complainant. Since near about seven years passed on receipt of fees non-attendance of demarcation of land of the complainant is amounts to deficiency in service by the Op.                                                    
5. In view of our forgoing discussion, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled to demarcate his land by the Op with immediate effect with payment of compensation and litigation towards harassment to the complainant due to deficiency in service by the Op. For the reasons aforesaid and under the facts and circumstances we hold that, the complaint petition merit consideration against the Op. We direct Op to demarcate the case land of the complainant in his presence and pay compensation towards harassment for causing delay in demarcation to the complainant of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand) only including litigation cost thereof. Further the Op is directed to pay compensation as personal liability and compliance of this order within 30 days after receipt of the copy of order.                       

The order is pronounced in the open forum on this day of 10^th March, 2015 under the signature and seal of this forum.

                                     Accordingly the case is disposed of.