Smt Sarita Tripathy (Member) - This is a complaint under section 12 of C.P Act 1986, praying compensation of Rs 90,000/- against Op for causing deficiency in service for not demarcating the land of complainant despite payment of Rs 20/- in demarcation of Case No. 27/2014.
The complaint is short is that the land plot No.99/2014 Area Ac0.01 Gharabari under Khata No.28/2015 and plot No.99 area Ac0.02 decs under Khata No.25 of Mouza- Gandasahi PS/Tahasil Khandapara, District Nayagarh is recorded in the name of complainant. To demarcate his land the complainant applied before the OP affixing court fees of worth Rs.4.00 and produced ROR, rent receipts etc. Thereby the OP initiating demarcation case No.27 of 2014 received required fees Rs.20.00 on dated 25.02.2014 . In the meantime seven months passed away but his land is not demarcated by the OP.
The OP Tahasildar Khandapara filed written version refusing the allegation of deficiency in service stating that the demarcation case was already dropped on 24/05/2014 and under intimation to the complainant.
Both parties have filed copy of documents and the written arguments as well as evidence on affidavit.
Fact remains admitted that the complaint was filed on 24/09/2014 alleging non disposal of demarkation case no 27/2014 filed on 25/02/2014 and OP Tahasildar has filed authenticated copy of order sheet dt 24/05/2014 which indicated that, it was dropped. And the Act of dropping has been intimated to complainant vide memo No. 1140 dt 27/05/2014.
In the written argument the complainant has alleged creation of false documents after issuance of notice from this Forum to defeat the object of consumer liability.
A demarcation case for measurement of the land is a proceeding before the Revenue officer of the Tahasil and when such proceeding is allowed to reach its finality prior to filling of this complaint, the complainant can not be said to have no knowledge about such fact. The reason is the complaint could have adduced any evidence to show that the demarcation proceeding was pending on the date of filling this complaint on 26/09/2014. It may be stated here the complainant has not adduced any evidence that he had solicited information legally about the position of his demarcation case as per case record and he was denied to have such information by the OP.
In absence of such evidence we are unable to accept the contention of the complainant that demarcation case was kept pending in order to harass him. Such being the position in conformity with the reason of ordinary man we feel it proper not to accept the allegation of deficiency of service against Op. Resultantly the complaint stands dismissed on contest without any cost. Hence we order
ORDER
The complaint stands dismissed on contest without cost.
The final order is prepared by us, corrected,
signed, sealed and pronounced in the open
Forum on this 24th December , 2014.
