This is a complaint under section 12 of C.P Act praying for compensation of Rs.80,000/- and Rs.10000/- litigation expenses for not demarcating the land of complainant and seeking a direction for demarcation.
The case of complainant in brief is that his application for the demarcation of his land measuring area 13 decimal appertaining plot No.775/1624 and Khata No.329/155 in Mauza Nabarangapur Sasan was allowed by Tahasildar Khandapara. Demarcation case No.29/2014 was initiated and being directed he paid Rs.20/- on dated 31.3.2014. As stated by the complainant despite his repeated approach, no Amina was deputed to measure the land. Instead on 24.6.2014the OP Tahasildar refused to demarcate the land. The compensation is asked for towards mental agony and harassment. This complaint was filed on 1.7.2014 along with copy of money receipt and copy of record right.
The OP Tahasildar filed written version admitting institution of demarcation case and deposit of fees it is stated that R. J . Singhapada was directed to demarcate the land on 19.4.2014. But one Jageswar Sarangi, the neighbor of complainant filed objection stating that Civil suit No. 15/2009 introductory application (IA) 26/2010 was pending in the Civil Court in respect of plot No.776 which is adjacent to complainant's land and for that demarcation has been stopped.
Both the parties have filed evidence on affidavit and written arguments. The OP has filed the photo copy of order sheet in Civil Suit No.15/2009 and IA No.36/2009 and IA 26/2010 and application of the parties. The OP has also filed the copy of the order dated 16. 6. 2014 in demarcation case No.39/2014.
The point for determination is :
1. Whether the petitioner is a consumer for getting demarcation order in respect of land under OP Tahasildar.
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Ans to point No.1 : There is no dispute that complainant made an application for demarcation of boundary as he had boundary dispute with his neighbor. The OP Tahasilldar registered such prayer vide demarcation case No.39/2014 and complainant had deposited Rs.20/- on 31.3.2014. It is also not disputed that the complainant's neighbour owner of adjoining land had Civil proceeding in the court in which Tahasildar himself is a party and on the neighours objection, the Tahasildar stopped the demarcation till the disposal of the proceeding.
So the fact remains that a proceeding instituted for demarcation is kept pending by Tahasildar himself till disposal of the Civil Proceeding.
Tahasildar is a statutory authority to get the land demarcated as per procedure prescribed under law. He is a public servant and his action in this regard is in accordance with official discharge of his duty. The payment of fees by the complainant is the regainment as per the official procedure and would go to the Govt. exchequer . So if a proceeding initiated under law before any authority and the same is stayed by the authority for a measurable distance of time (here till finalization of Civil proceeding), a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the consumer court to get the order of that authority to move in a particular way. In other wards the nature of order lo be passed by the authority in a proceeding can not be adjudicated in another Forum like Consumer Redressal Forum, Tested in this way the complainant is not a consumer under OP Tahasildar. This reason gets supported from the decision reported in Akhil Bharatya Grahak Panchayat Vrs State of Gujarat J (1994 ) CPJ (NC).
Resultantly we are of the considered opinion that complainant being not a consumer under OP, this complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed without cost. Hence we order :
ORDER
The complaint stands dismissed without cost on contest.The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 24th October , 2014.
