DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                       C.C NO.46 OF 2015

Present:   Sri Rabindranath Mishra       - President.

                  Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.

                 Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy     - Member.

Sri Tarini Parichha, aged -55 years

S/O: Late Jaganath Paricha At/PO/PS:Raikia Dist ; Kandhamal        ………………………….. Complainant.

                                  Versus .

1.The Sub- Registrar, Baliguda

At/PO/PS: Baliguda Dist: Kandhamal

2.Sri Ananda Kumar Das

S/O: Late Nrendra Das At/PO/PS: Baliguda Dist: Kandhamal

At present staying at/Po: Simanbadi PS: DaringibadiDist : Kandhamal

                                                                                                                       ……………………………..  OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Sri R.K.Pradhan, Advocate Phulbani

For the OPP. Parties: For O.P No.1: GP/AGP, Phulbani

                                       For O.P No.2: Sri Bijay Kumar Mohanty, Advocate,Phulbani

Date of Order: 31-12-2016

                                                                                                O R D E R

                                                The case of the Complainant in brief is that he had purchased a plot bering No. 4420/4832 vide Khata No. 769/696 of Mouza Balliguda consisting an area of H0.011 R for Rs. 33,000/- from the O.P No.2 on 10-12-2003. The sale deed was executed and duly registered by O.P No.1 on the same day in presence of both the parties and their witnesses. The Opp. Party No.2 had received the entire price from him and the possession of land was also delivered by him, but on 01-07-2004 the O.P No.2 executed a deed of cancellation of the above sale deed before O.P No.1 which was also registered without his knowledge. The Complainant came to know this fact on 27-07-2012 and raised objection before both the parties but they remained silent. The Complainant had deposited Rs. 714/- as registration fee before O.P No.1 and also purchased stamp papers worth of Rs. 2640/- to purchase the same land. As the registration of the cancellation deed was illegal  and he was suffering mentally and financially due to negligence of the O.Ps,  they committed deficiency in service on their part for which the complaint is filed by the Complainant against the O.P for rejection of the execution of the cancellation deed dated 01-07-2004. He also claimed Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation fee in alternative. The O.P No.2 be directed to refund Rs. 33,000/- with 18 %

                                                                                                       -2-

interest per annum and the O.P No.1 may be directed to refund the value of registration fees and stamp papers with interest from the date of cancellation .

                                                  The case of O.P No.1 as per his version is that there is no provision in the Registration Act to cancel the registration of registered account .The sale deed bearing No. 246/2003 was executed on 10-12-2013 by O.P No.2 and the document was registered by O.P No.1 after proper enquiry under section 34 of Registration Act read with rule 62. The O.P No.2 presented the cancellation deed with a ground that the Complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs. 22,000/- and the said cancellation document was registered vide No. 260/2004. The O.P No.1 after going through the Registration Act and rules found that there is no provision to cancel the sale deed. As such the objection raised in the cancel deed was automatically deemed to be rejected.

                                                The O.P No.2 was set exparte on 30-07-2016 as he failed to submit his version in spite of repeated dates.

                                                During the course of hearing the Complainant has filed an affidavit in support of his case vide Exit-1. He was examined and cross examined. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the O.Ps. However we have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.P No.1, the affidavit filed by the complainant and his deposition and the documents Exhibit -1 and 2 filed by the Complainant in this case. We have also heard arguments from both sides. It is humbly submitted by the learned G.P appearing for O.P No.1 that there is no provision in the Registration Act and rule to cancel the sale deed as such the objection raised in cancellation deed  by O.P No.2 was automatically deemed to be rejected. It is admitted by both the parties that the cancellation document was registered on 01-07-2004 without the knowledge of the Complainant and also in his absence .As the cancellation document was registered illegally by O.P No.1 beyond the provision of the Registration Act and rules the said document has no legal value. Hence the said document is liable to be rejected in the eye of law.

                                                As per above discussion the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed. The O.P No.1 is directed to reject the cancellation document executed on 01-07-2004 illegally by O.P No.2 giving opportunities to both the Complainant and the O.P No.2 to file their show-cause. As both the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service on their part, they are directed to pay Rs. 5000/- each as compensation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Complainant is at liberty to apply the concerned authority for mutation of the said land on the basis of this order.

                                                The C.C is disposed of accordingly .Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.

                 MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                                        PRESIDENT