1. This appeal is filed by Mr. Deepak Pralhad Ingale, against the order passed by district consumer disputes redressal forum Buldhana in consumer complaint No.168 of 2017, decided on 30/ 05/ 2018. The appellant was aggrieved by this order as the consumer complaint was dismissed which was filed against the officers of Bhumi Abhilekh (Land Records) office Taluka Khamgaon, district Buldhana.
2. Brief facts of this appeal are as follows:

The appellant is the owner of agricultural land bearing field No.185, admeasuring area 1. 10 HR out of 4. 72 HR see you later at Mousza- Rahud, Taluka Khamgaon, district Buldhana by a registered sale deed. The appellant was desirous of measuring his land and hence he a filed proceeding under section 85(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue code before the Tahsildar for measurement of the aforesaid land asREV/43/RHD/3/2016-17.

3. As per the order of Tahsildar Khamgaon directing the officers of Bhumi Abhilekh ( Land Records), specifically respondent No.2 for marking of boundaries and correction of land- order dated 23 23/03/2016, the appellant paid fees for Rs. 4000 /- with the office of respondent. While measuring the said land, respondent No.2 found differences in the area of agricultural land belonging to the appellant, so he prepared a map and this map showed that the property is 1.00 HR out of one.10 HR. Thus the field belonging to the appellant was left to be marked and also the area shown on the map was less by 0.1 R. Aggrieved by this, the appellant- the original complainant filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Buldhana. District consumer forum after going through the documents and hearing arguments of advocate for the complainant and representatives of the opposite parties dismissed the complaint for the reason that the dispute being adjudicated is not a consumer dispute. Thus against the impugned order, the original complainant approached this Commission in appeal.
4. The appellant Mr. Deepak Pralhad Ingale argued his case personally. According to the appellant, the order of Tahsildar of Khamgaon in the proceedings for measurement of the aforesaid land with specific directions to the respondent no.2, for marking of boundaries and correction of land. The map which was created after measurement by the respondents was not accurate and showed less area. Further, the boundaries were not demarcated. The appellant filed a circular issued by the director of Bhumi Abhilekh (Land Records) the State of Maharashtra, Pune, dated 29^th September 2018 with the subject title as “improvement in the working related to the measurement of pot hissa”. This circular has provided guidelines on how the measurement of land should be conducted by the officer of the land record. That despite clear guidelines in the circular, the respondents have not completed their task of measurement of the land and further advised that in case of any dispute the appeal and to approach a competent Civil Court. He further invited our attention to a similar case that was decided by another district consumer Commission in Mumbai, under similar circumstances, the same was decided in favour of the complainant.
5. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order and directing the respondents to complete the task of measurement assigned to them and demarcate the boundaries of the said land.

6. Respondent no. 2 Mr. Vandan Jadhav was present in Person. According to him, measurement of the land is undertaken according to sections 16(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra land revenue code. Following these guidelines, the report was given to the complainant and he was advised to approach Civil Court if necessary. Mr. Jadhav admitted that the report of measurement along with sheets was not filed before the district Commission as well as this Commission. He invited our attention to the judgment and order passed by State Consumer Commission, Mumbai bench, in FA/ 371 of 2008, order dated 16^th January 2009. This commission held that activities of the office of land Records collect fees for measuring land as per rules and Government resolutions cannot be termed as “Service” under Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Mr. Jadhav prayed for the dismissal of this appeal as the dispute is not a consumer dispute and the appellant is not a consumer of the respondents.

7. Both the parties to this appeal have referred to certain judgments and citations to support their views, as follows.

Rulings and citations by Appellant

1.  Taluka Inspector, Land Record, Tasgaon……..V/s……..Shri Sukumar Nabu Chougule, delivered on 16/01/2009 by Hon’ble State Consumer Commission, Mumbai.

8. We have gone through the records before us and gone through the documents that are part of the Maharashtra land revenue code, circulars issued by the director of land records in the State of Maharashtra, and the judgments and rulings placed before us. When the government employee has the responsibility to conduct sovereign functions of the state, he cannot be said to be a service provider. But if he is providing activities that are part of his administrative duties, on payment of fees to the department of the government, such activity comes under administrative functions and also “service” in its true meaning to the common citizens of India. While conducting administrative functions, if any deficiency is observed, the common citizen can approach a consumer court, since the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 is an additional remedy that has a social perspective. Measurement of the land by an inspector from land records is an administrative function and hence this is a service as well. Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has made it clear as per the ruling- citation given below.
9. In Dr. Chandrakant Vitthal Sawant v/s L.R. Pilankar Inspector of Land Records & Another, Revision Petition No. 2273 of 2012,Decided On, 23 July 2013, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has opined that there should be a clear cut distinction between sovereign function and administrative function of the Government employees.While narrating on the point, the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission has observed, “So far as the issue regarding the claim of the respondents discharging sovereign function as government servants is concerned, we do not agree with the view taken by the District Forum while rejecting the complaint. No doubt both the respondents are government servants and were carrying out their functions in their official capacity. However, carrying out of measurement of land for payment of prescribed fees as per the application made by the petitioner before the respondents cannot be regarded as a sovereign function. This is part of their administrative functions which they were required to perform for a prescribed fee. This function, therefore, cannot be called a ‘sovereign function. This view is in line with the judgment of this Commission dated 08.07.2002 in the case of ShriPrabhakar Vyankoba Aadone v. Superintendent Civil Court [R.P. No.2135 of 2000/1986-2004 Consumer 7211 (NS)] on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner.”

As per the above judgment by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, the administrative function of the Government employee for prescribed fees is within the meaning of “service” that comes under the purview of the definition of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act.

10. In view of the above discussion, we accept the contention of the appellant and this makes it clear, that he is a “Consumer”. The impugned order passed by the learned consumer forum is not legal and needs to be set aside in the light of the above citation. Government employees while carrying out an administrative activity should be careful and provide the “service” with utmost care. They are liable for any deficiency in service while acting on behalf of the Government providing administrative support. Hence we think it proper to also hold them accountable and award compensation to the aggrieved citizen for deficient services by them. In view of this discussion, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is partly allowed with a cost quantified to Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the respondents to the appellant within two months from the date of a receipt of copy of this order.
2. The judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum, Buldhana; in consumer complaint No. CC/168/2017   is hereby set aside.
3. It is declared that the respondent no. 1 and 2 have indulged in deficiency in service.
4. The respondents are directed to measure the land that belonged to the appellant again and provide demarcation, as per the guidelines given in the circular of the Land Records department, within three months from the date of receipt of order.
5. Copy of this order is to be given to all the parties free of cost.