J U D G M E N T
Sri Rama Chandra Das, President - The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of C.P Act for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost from the OP and directing him to demarcate the land of the complainant
The complainant case is that she is the recorded owner of plot No.1250/3676 a pertaining to Khata No.216/393, Mauza Kantilo under Khandapara Tahasil. As the ;land is vacant the boundary tenants are creating disturbance on her possession. So on 10-3-2014 applied before the OP affixing court fee of Rs.4.00 along with copy of ROR, rent receipts and voter ID card. The OP on receipt of the application registered Demarcation case No.56/2014 and asked her to deposit Rs.20/- for demarcation. The complainant deposited Rs.20/- on 30-4-2014 and obtain the receipt. In summer season the complainant approached the OP for times to demarcate the land but all her approach went in vein. In this manner five months passed but did not get any result. She has also approached R.I for demarcation who did not listen. Lastly on 21-7-2014 she approached the OP with money receipt and requested to demarcate the land but he replied that there is no time and it is rainy season. She was demanded bribe and harassed by the OP due to which she got mental and financial shock and harassment. For the above reason the complainant filed this case with the above prayer as stated in first para.
The OP filed the written version stating that the complainant filed an application on 10-3-2014 for demarcation of Plot No.1250/3676 measuring A 0.6 Dec in Khata No.216/393 of village- Kantilo and deposited Rs.20/- on 30.4.2014 in Demarcation case No.56/2014. Order to demarcate was sent to R.I Kantilo who on visit the field found the total area of land is A 0.18 dec and one Satyabadi Maharana the brother of the complainant claims A0.10 dec out of A0.18 dec . The R.I further reported that there was Civil suit on the total land and it was divided in 3 equal share. The complainant or her brother failed to produce the partition order of the Civil court in course of demarcation. There is no availability of village map and in the map it has not been divided in 3 shares. So the demarcation could not be conducted by concern R.I . The R.I never demanded bribe but in other hand advised the complainant to settle the dispute amicably with other co-shores. The complainant was not harassed deliberately. The demarcation stopped due to above reason and the case is dropped . There is no deficiency in service from the side of OP and not liable for compensation.
On the above pleading of the parties the following issues have been casted for the disposal of this case.
Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the OP not demarcating the land of the complainant ?
2. Whether non production of partition order by complainant was the sufficient cause not to demarcate the land of the complainant ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief prayed in her complaint ?
The complainant in order to prove her case has filed evidence on ;affidavit and relied on the xerox copies of documents filed with the complaint. The OP filed the evidence on affidavit and relied on the xerox copy of order dated 14.7.2014 in dropping he demarcation proceeding of the complainant.
Findings
Issue No.2 : It is admitted fact of both the parties that the complainant applied on 10-3-2014 for demarcation of plot No.1250/3676 under Khata No.216/393 of Mauza Kantilo measuring area A 0.06 decimal. She had filed the xerox copy of ROR prepared in her favour. The xerox copy of ROR filed in this case shows that the above Khata has been carved out from Khata No.1152 in Mutation case No.862/12 on 8-12-2012 and the ROR has been prepared on 10-4-2013 being signed by the OP on 12-4-2013. As per the Odisha Mutation manual 1962 Rule-52 Mutation on account of partition of landed properties shall be allowed only when the partition has been effected in conformity with the provisions of law for the time being in force. No parathion of a holding among co-share shall be valid unless made by (a) a registered instruments, or (b) a decree of a court or (c) on order of the Revenue Officer in the manner prescribed on mutual agreement. ( As per see-19 of OLR Act ). As per Rule 60 the field inquiry has to be done and Amin submit the inquiry report accompanied by a separate tracing map. Objection are invited when no objection filed the Tahasildar pases the final order. As per Rule-75 the record of the rights including the map according to orders passed are made after 45 days of the final order . As per Rule 84 , after correction of ROR an intimation slip with a map showing correcting forwarded to Naib-Tahasildar to retain the same in separate guard file and he corrects the copy of ROR as per the intimation slip. As per Rule-91 the Inspecting Officers ensure that the Naib-Tahasildar ( R.I ) copy of ROR and Map are maintained up-to-date . As per Odisha Survey land settlement Rules, 1962 Rule-32 the ROR and map finally published supplied to the Tahasildar shall be maintained and kept up-to-date in accordance with Rules. As per Rule-44 the charges in the entries in the ROR shall be carried out under attestation by the Tahasildar. The copy of the map finally published shall be corrected conformity with the changes carried out in the ROR.
From the above provision of the Rules it reveals that the ROR and the map which are finally published are corrected as per the order of the Tahasildar which are kept with him and Naib-Tahasildar (Revenue Inspector) in mutation proceeding. The OP in this cae in his evidence stated that during demarcation one Satyabadi Maharana claimed A 0.10 decimal out of A0.18 decimal which was partioned in 3 equal shares in a Civil suit. As per the mutation Rule the OP has corrected the ROR by issuing ROR in new Khata in favor of the complainant and the intimation slip with sketch map must have been sent to R. I for correction of ROR and map. It is the duty of the OP to maintain and make up-to-date the ROR and map kept with him and with the R.I. The OP says the said A0.18 decimals has not been divided in 3 shres in the map which clearly proves the deficiency of service on his part. It shows the OP has not followed the mutation Rule. Further he says no village map is available . As per survey and settlement Rule the Tahasildar shall maintain and keep up-to-date the ROR and map with him. Since no village map is available with the Tahasildar and R.I further it proves the OP is negligent in maintaining the map in the record room and with the R.I. The plea taken by the OP that the R.I asked for partition order but the complainant or Satyabadi Maharana could not produce the same for verification. Since new ROR has been prepared basing on the partition order passed in the Civil Suit and new ROR has been provided to the complainant, there was no necessity to verify the partition order at the time of demarcation or to hear the claim of Satyabadi Moharana. So the cause shown by the OP not demarcating the land is not plausible and can not be accepted as partition order was not required for verification.
Issue No.1 : It is admitted fact that the complainant has paid Rs.20/- in the demarcation case No.56/2014 and filed the xerox copy of the receipt at 30.4.2014. Since its deposit till filing of the written version the OP did not care to demarcate the land of th complainant but in other hand stated unacceptable grounds not demarcating the land . The complainant is an woman who ran to the OP for many times for demarcation of her land but was harassed mentally and financially . The xerox copy of order dated 14-7-2014 filed by the OP does not show the Sl. No. of the order and that order has not been acknowledged by the complainant. The said order does not reveal the R.I submitted any written report before the OP. This case was posted on 10-10-2914 for filing evidence on affidavit of OP but took time. He again took time on 17.10.2014 for filing the evidence and filed the same on 24.10.2014. In the xerox copy of order dated 14.7.2014 has been complied on 16-10-2014 sending the copy to the R.I and the complainant. The complainant not received the copy of this order. There is no word that the R.I submitted the written report and the OP perused the same. Therefore it clearly reveals the order dated 14-7-2014 of the OP has been prepared to evade the responsibility from this case.
From the aforesaid observation we find the OP has intentionally avoided to demarcate the recorded land of the complainant on false plea. It shows he has not rendered his service for which the complainant has paid the demarcation fees and has deficiency in service on his part.
Issue No.3 : The complainant has to run o the OP for five months to get her land demarcated and has suffered physically and mental harassment. In spite of demarcating the land the OP has taken false plea not demarcating her land. So for the deficiency of service of the OP the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed in her compliant.
Hence we allow the complaint with the following order.
ORDER
The OP is directed to demarcate the case land appertaining to plot No.1250/3676 Khata No.216/393 of village Kantilo of the complainant within 15 days and to pay the compensation of Rs.6,000/- (Six thousand) only with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) only to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the above award shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till its realisation.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 14th November, 2014.
