Sri Bijay Kumar Mohapatra, filed a consumer case on 30 May 2016 against The Tahasildar, in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/126 and the judgment uploaded on 27 Dec 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA
. C.C. Case No.. 126/ 2015.
P R E S E N T .
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B, President.
Smt. Ch. Nirmala Kumari Raju, LLB, Member
Bijaya Kumar Mohapatra,Employment Exchange,Gunupur,Gunupur-765022.Dist. Rayagada, Odisha. …….Complainant
Vrs.
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: In Person
For the O.P No.1. : Sri Jadumani Biswal & K.A.Ramachandran and Associate Advocate, Rayagada..
For the O.p No.2: None
JUDGMENT
The facts of the complaint in brief is that the complainant has purchased a piece of land Ac.0.14 cents from vendor Sri Nisakar Barik of Bharalo,Dist.Cuttack on dt.24.06.1989 with permission M.C No.70/89 dt.31.05.1989 from Previous Tahasildar, Tirtol and applied for mutation vide Case No.1032/14 dt.s17.7.14 before the Tahasildar, Kujunga and finally received Mutation Patta on dt.21.2.15 and on scrutinize the Patta it is a matter of regret that instead of Ac.0.14 cents out of Ac.0.42 cents Tahasildar Kujanga has issued Ac.2 and 62 cents in his favour. Hence prayed to issue order to issue individual Patta in his favour and pay the expenses amount faRs.2000/- . Hence, this case.
Being noticed by this forum the opposite party No.1 appeared through his advocate and files written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The O.p No.2 did not appear and as such he was set exparte. It is submitted by the O.p 1 that the complaint is not coming within the meaning of C.P.Act,1986 U/s 2(1) (d) and also this complaint is hit U/s 11(2) of C.P.Act,1986 as the O.p is not coming within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum at Rayagada nor cause of action in any form arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as such this Forum lacks jurisdiction and the proceeding is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
We perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and heard both the parties. On perusal of the petition, it reveals that the complaint petition does not come within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) and also this forum no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the complaint hit U/s 11(2) of the C.P.Act. Hence, the complaint petition is dismissed having no merit. ORDER
The complaint petition does not come within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d) and also this forum no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the complaint hit U/s 11(2) of the C.P.Act. Hence, the complaint petition is dismissed having no merit.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 3rd day of December,2015 under the seal and signature of this forum.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties free of charge.
Member President
Documents relied upon:
By the complainant:
By the Opp.Party:
President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.