DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).

Dated the 5^th day of December 2022.

C. C. No. 110 of 2020.

Present 1. ShriShiba Prasad Mohanty, President,

             2.  Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.

Dasharathi Dash, S/o:- Late Gayadhar Dash,

Vill:-Samaraipur, Po:- Prachinagar, P.S:- Bhadrak (R),

Dist- Bhadrak, Odisha, Mob. No. 8328995695.

                                                                    ……………………. Complainant.

                            (Versus)

 The Collector & District Magistrate,

 Bhadrak.

     2) The Tahasildar, Bhadrak,

     3)  TheRevenue Inspector, Bhadrak Circle,

          Bhadrak.

                                                                      …………Opposite parties.

Counsel For Complainant                 :  In person.

Counsel For the OPs No.1, 2 & 3     : Sri N.P Dash (A.G.P)

Date of hearing                                 :   15.11.2022.

Date of order                                     :   05.12.2022.

SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.

          In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Brief facts of the case is that :-  The complainant has constructed a building on Khata No. 821/223, Plot No.959/2821 in the village Samaraipur under Gelpur Panchayat, P.S. Bhadrak (R) after getting prior permission from the Special Panning Authority, Badrak by depositing requisite fee vide MR No.-1157/ Dt.25.09.1989 before the enactment of O.L.R. Act.  After enactment of OLR Act, petitioner applied to Tahasildar, Bhadrak for conversion of his above mentioned land amounting to Ac. 0:04 dec. under Mouza Samaraipur & Gelpur G.P. which is clearly a Rural Agricultural Land.  After completion of all the official formalities like site visit by the Revenue Authorities, complainant was asked to deposit requisite Govt. fees.  Complainant was given a Case No. enrolled as OLR-434/2002-03.  Complainant instantly deposited the requisite Govt. fees amounting to Rs. 708/- (Rupees seven hundred eight) only towards premium of 600 + Rs. 108 as ground rent vide MR No. 071502, Dt.07.08.2002.  At that time complainant was told that his problem is over.  The rest work is to be completed at the office.But after a long period it has not been completed.Complainant is a central govt. employee whose service has been transferred out side Bhadrak district and even Odisha in different times.  For that complainant has not kept regular contact with the Tahasil Office, Bhadrak for completion of his work.  Besides that complainant has been deposited the requisite govt. fees.  In the meantime complainant did not receive any letter or communication from Tahasil Office, Bhadrak either for cancellations his application or completion of his work.  During the period of 18 years whenever he get the chance contact Tahasil Office, Bhadrak (OLR Case Section).  Complainant was assured each time by the concerned staff with an assurance that don’t bother it is the duty of Tahasil Office to finalize the case.  In the month of July 2020 complainant’s residential certificate was needed for his son’s business purpose.  As per his company ROR of the land is to be homestreet to prove the address of the applicant.  As such complainant asked Tahasildar, Bhadrak to give revise ROR by showing them complainant’s money receipt which was given by them in 2002 for the Govt. dues.  Due to non-revision of ROR complainant’s son’s business was not allotted by the Company which is a great financial loss to the family of complainant.Then O.P. advised complainant to collect the ROR from Internet and accordingly complainant downloaded from the Internet which was not converted to home stead.  Tahasildar advised complainant to meet concerned OLR Section where dealing assistant advised complainant for a fresh application with requisite fees so that it will be settled immediately as the matter is of 18 years old and the record may not be available.  In the meantime, Tahasil office has been shifted & computerization has been done for all the land records of the Tahasil.  Again complainant met the Tahasildar who advised him in the same manner.  Complainant enquired what about the fees deposited with him in the year 2002.  Tahasildar advised complainant to forget the money which he has deposited requisite fees and said to apply a fresh and get his work done.  Not agreeing with O.P. complainant applied on the RTI getting his RTI application the PIO of the Tahasil Office gave a letter to the complainant to allow 15 days more to search the file/application. Complainant also agreed with them.  On 09.09.2020 they advised complainant to deposit the requisite Xerox fees of the document.  Finally they handed over the xerox copy of the file on 16.09.2020 vide letter No. 2940.  Complainant met the Tahasildar same day who told the complainant let me see the file in detail and told to come after one week.  After one week complainant contacted with Tahasildar whose replies was fantastic. “In this period of CORONA staffs are not coming, there is more work load.  I have not seen your file.  You give me your contact no. I shall call you.”  Tahasildar never contacted the complainant though he gave his mobile number & e-mail ID.  After one week complainant met the Tahasildar again who called for the file & advised complainant for his previous version & the Tahasildar said to apply a fresh which will be easier.  Complainant put a petition before the Tahasildar, Bhadrak with requisites fees, then headvised to wait for completion of   side visit.  For that complainant waited two days which he never kept nor sent anybody for site visit.

          Being frustrated, complainant appeal to the PMO, New Delhi on 10.10.2020 & 12.10.2020 with copy to D.M. & Collector, Bhadrak.  There was no response from any side.  Then complainant appeal again to the ‘Mo-Sarkara’, Govt. of Odisha portal for redressal of grievance.  Again complainant appeal to D.M. & Collector, Bhadrak on 1310.2020, 15.10.2020 & 21.10.2020 all were through Whatsapp message.  All of sudden Tahasildar, Bhadrak called complainant and gave him a letter bearing No. OLR/3399/21.10.2020 through which was directed to deposit Rs.1308 + Rs.120 for his conversion work to be finished.  The amount which was explained like this:-

1. Rs. 600/- towards premium
2. Rs. 12/- towards Internet on it
3. Rs. 127/- ground rent
4. Rs. 221/- Internet on ground rent
5. Rs. 162/- cess
6. Rs. 166/- Internet on cess
7. Rs. 20/- Amin-charge and
8. Rs. 120/- Users fees.

This also objected by the complainant since the premium and ground rent complainant has paid in 2002.  Besides that complainant has paid normal agricultural rent on the same land upto 2017-2018 vide MR No. 7088174, dt.26.03.2018.  On the same land now complainant has to paid cess, ground rent, & agricultural rent with interest upto more than hundred percent on cess and ground rent.  Again on 22.10.2020 complainant met Tahasildar who said to pay the fees as mention in the letter.The Tahasildar said complainant that, since his conversion has not been completed in the year 2002 he is to pay all these fees.  Complainant showed him the Govt. of Odisha Gazette which shows his case premium will be 50% which complainant has deposited in the year 2002.  However Tahasildar was convinced & deducted the premium and its interest but told him to deposit the rest amount of Rs. 696/- + Rs. 120/- as users fee. Due to no fault of complainant he shall has to pay the amount on the same plot & for the same period of 18 years (2002-2020) agricultural rent, cess & its interest, and ground rent & its interest.  Besides the interest charge is more than 100%.  Then complainant asked for interest which was deposited with O.P. for the last 18 years.  Tahasildar replied there is no such provision of the Govt. of Odisha to pay interest on his deposit.  After that the Tahasildar replied to deposit the fees &get his work done quickly.  Finally with great grief complainant deposited the fees of Rs. 696/- vide MR No. 0234000 & users fee vide MR No.2304916 & 2303779 dt. 22.10.2020& compelled to file his case with a prayer to this commission to direct the O.Ps for-

1. Correction for ROR may be allowed and delivered.
2. Deficiency in service a sum of Rs.50,000/- may be directed to the O.Ps to pay the complainant.
3. The O.Ps may be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental & physical harassment to the complainant as he is a senior citizen.
4. Legal charges may be directed to pay by the O.Ps amounting to Rs. 5,000/- as they have forced complainant to move the Hon’ble Commission for redressal of his grievances.
5. Refund of the exorbitant interest charged on the cess and the agricultural rent paid by the complainant for the same land and for same period of time of 18 years.

O.Ps objected the claim of the complainant & filed their written version with a plea that the case is not maintainable.  No cause of action arose for this case against the present O.Ps.  The averments made in the petition are false & frivolous and basing on it the petitioner will not get any relief as prayed for.  The case is lead for misc. joinder parties i.e. Collector, Bhadrak.  The real facts of this case run as follows.

 The present petitioner has filed the O.L.R. Case No. 434/2002-03 U/s 8 (A) for conversion of land from agriculture to homestead land.  Accordingly the case was allowed, but due to misplacement of case record the R.O.R. has not been corrected.  After tress out of the missing case record the R.O.R. has been corrected taking the area G.R. from the year 2003-2004 to 2019-2020 amounting to Rs.696/-.  As such the O.P. No.2 has not committed any act which amounts to deficiency of service likewise other O.Ps have also not committed any act which amounts deficiency of service.  So also the O.Ps are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant.  inview of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this case be dismissed.

After hearing heard parties to this case and perusal of material evidence on the record, we are of the view that such a case would not be maintainable before Consumer Commission.  As the functions of Land Record Offices are statutory ones, a consumer complaint is not maintainable.

Primary question that was required to be considered by this District Commission is as to whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning the COPRA, 2019.  These O.Ps might have not discharged their responsibilities as per the provisions of OLR Act or Rules & Regulations made thereunder but Consumer Commission cannot entertain such a dispute in as much as the complainant is not a consumer nor the dispute comes within the purview of Consumer Protection Act.

                                      O R D E R.

In the result complaint be and same is dismissed on contest against O.Ps without cost and compensation on any parties.

This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 5^th day of December 2022 under my hand and seal of the Commission.