Consumer Case No.: 32 / 2007.
Date of filing : 11.05.2007.
Date of final order : 07.04.2009.

PRESENT

A) Sri Saurish Chakraborty President.

B) Smt.Swapna Kar Member.

C) Sri Swaraj Kumar Biswas Member.

Aisuddin,
Son of Majlish Miya
of villege Raghabpur,
P.O. – Altapur, P.S. – Karandighi,
District – Uttar Dinajpur. Complainant.

Vs

1. District Magistrate,
Uttar Dinajpur,
P. O. – Karnajora, P. S. – Raiganj,
District – Uttar Dinajpur.

2. District Land and Land Reforms Officer,
Uttar Dinajpur,
P. O. – Karnajora, P. S. – Raiganj,
District – Uttar Dinajpur.

3. Block Land and Land Reforms Officer,
Karandighi,
P. O. and P. S. – Karandighi,
District – Uttar Dinajpur. Opposite Parties.

Judgment

Date: 07.04.2009.

This case arises out of a petition of complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner Aisuddin on 11.05.2007 against the opposite parties District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur and two others for an order against opposite party number 2, D. L. & L. R. O., Uttar Dinajpur to supply “the certified copy of the Mutation and compensation of rupees 5,000.00 only for causing suffering and mental pain due to deficiency in service of the opposite party number 2, D. L. & L. R. O., Uttar Dinajpur and litigation cost of rupees 2,000.00 and any other relief or relieves as the Forum deems fit and proper.

The complaint story in brief is that the illiterate complainant purchased a piece of land vide a Registered deed number 2056, dated 16.03.2001. This land measuring 0.6 Decimal, Mouja – Bhikanpur, J. L. number 208, R. S. Khatian number 195, L. R. Khitian number 616, C/S Plot number 292 and R/S Plot number 140, L.R. Plot number 142 and this land is under his possession.

For the purpose of mutation proceeding he has needed the certified copy of the Khatian the land and applied the same before Block Land and Land Reforms Officer, Karandighi on 17.01.2007 as per requisite along with proper court fees. But laps of a long time his prayer was of no avail. He has not got any information why his prayer is not acted by the concern department. Due to that reason (and for deficiency in service held by the opposite parties) he is suffering mental pain. As such he came before this Forum for getting appropriate relief or relieves.

Opposite party number 1, 2 and 3 have contested this case by filing a Written Version, denying inter alia, all the material allegations against them; contending therein that the case is not maintainable in its present form and law and also on the ground for jurisdiction of this Forum.

Their specific case is that “After finding the original Khatian of the said schedule of land it was come to the notice that the Khatian is not in the name of Aisuddin”. It was recorded in another name”. Not only that there was not mention of proper postal address in the said application and as such their office unable to give information about cancellation of such prayer. Said application was defective and for this aspect it was duly cancelled.
And for that reason opposite parties pray before this Forum, the instant petition be dismissed with cost.

To prove the complaint case of the complainant filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and documents and opposite parties have also filed examination-in-chief and some documents along with the book of Bengal Records Mannual – 1943.

Decisions with reasons:

We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint, W.V. other documents, examination-in-chief filed by the parties, the cross examinations of both the P.W.1 together with the book referred by the opposite parties’ Lawyer. And argument advanced by the Ld. Lawyers for both sides we have come to the following findings.

Here for the solving question is that if the petitioner is the original owner of the piece of schedule land as described in the petition then why he did not get the required certified copy of the Khatian as applied for from the office of the opposite parties?

Answer of the above question may be gradually clear from the study of W.V. and evidence given by the both parties. Documents as one application for Khatian of the petitioner filed as a document by the opposite parties shows that application was cancelled due to defective in nature which mentioned with red-ink pen by the official authority of the opposite parties Application was defective as because the applicant was not properly fulfill the same. He wrote his name only in his application Form and in another column name along with the name of the village only; where it was necessary to fulfill the name of the applicant and his perfect postal address. It also clear from the cross examination of the P.W.1 i.e. petitioner by the opposite parties; “In my application to the B.L. & L.R.O., Karandighi, dated 24.01.2007 my name as Asuddin has been written. My father’s name and address not written”

According to the opposite parties on another ground this application was cancelled; Even though the application Form was incomplete and disputed yet the official proceeding was started by the employee of the opposite parties on the basis of the Khatian number, which was mentioned in the application by the applicant and after searching, it found that in original Khatian of the said schedule of Land is recorded in the name of One ‘Raimuddin’ not in the name of the petitioner ‘Aisuddin’. All this matter clearly stated by opposite parties in their W.V. and also in the examination-in-chief of the O.P.W.1.
On perusal of the certified true copy of L R Khatian filed by the opposite parties we get that name of the raiyat Plot Nos. are different. The claim of the petitioner that he holds Land appertaining to Plot No. 142 (LR) in Khatian No. 616 within Mouza Bhikhanpur gets no support from the LR Khatian itself. More so, area of Land shown in the relevant Khatian differs to that of the claim mentioned in the complaint. Above all, it is recorded in the name of one Raimuddin, son of Entaj but the complainant’s father’s name as mentioned in the cause title of the complaint is a different person

So, the name of the original Khatian holder as described in the schedule of the Land did not tally as per petitioner’s application. As such the office of the opposite parties was compelled to reject the application as per Bengal Record manuals Rule 1943. And due to improper address as mentioned in the application by the applicant was impossible for the opposite parties to contract with such Aisuddin to make know everything about the result of official proceeding through letter or through any correspondence in relevant time. So, there is no deficiency in service in part of the opposite parties is proved.

Therefore, considering the facts circumstances, evidence, book and documents on record we hold that above case is liable to be dismissed.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is ordered

that the case is dismissed on contest. No order is passed as to cost.