West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/136/2016

Md Mobin, S/O Lt Murad Ali - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Block Land & Land Reforms Office - Opp.Party(s)

Asif Iqbal

30 Nov 2017

ORDER

Dr. Soumen Sikder, Member

One Md. Mobin of Harishpur, Birbhum has filed a complaint/petition stating that he has landed property under P.S. Murarai, Birbhum. He applied for supply of certified copy of order in Case No. 609/07, H/S in due process before the Office of the Ld. B.L & L.R.O, Murarai-II at Paikar on 15.09.2016. The said application was accepted by the office of the O.P Vide petition No. 1511. But the O.P deliberately withheld and disobeyed the said application with some motive and intention. The O.P failed to supply the desired copy of order in case No. 609/07, H/S. Being aggrieved the complainant has filed the case in the Consumer Forum for relief as prayed for.

The O.P Block Land and Land Reforms Office, Paikar Birbhum appeared and filed certain documents along with a written statement. Later he did not contest the case. The case has been heard in absence of the O.P.

The complainant has filed certain documents.

Upon pleading of the parties following points are taken for discussion.

Points

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
2. Whether the O.P has deficiency in service or not?
3. Is complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

All the points being interlinked each other are taken together for discussion.

Md. Mobin the owner of landed property applied for supply of certified copy of order in case No. 609/07, H/S, before the office of the B.L.&L.R.O, Murarai-II at Paikar on 15.09.2016. At the time of filing application he followed the process for obtaining required certified copy of order. He paid the requisite fees in terms of stamp paper (court fee). This is the consideration for getting service from B.L.&L.R Office. After getting consideration the O.P accepted the petition and issued the receipt being reference No. 1511 dated 15.09.2016. So, the complainant is a consumer under the O.P as per definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The complainant applied for certified copy of the order of case No. 609/07, H/S on 15.09.2016. The said application was accepted by the O.P vide petition No. 1511 dated 15.09.2016. The O.P did not supply the same. The complainant repeatedly went to the O.P and lastly sent an Advocate’s letter to the O.P but the O.P did not take any step. Being aggrieved the complainant has come to the Forum. The O.P after receiving notice appeared and filed a written statement with certain certified copies of Parcha of Mouza Harishpur, J.L. No. 60, Khatian No. 1330.

The O.P stated in his written statement that “it is also evident from Khatian No. 1330 under Mouza Harishpur, pertaining to PS. Murarai that the name of Saijul Sk. S/o Samser Sk. was recorded in Khatian No. 1330 after deducting the same from the Khatian of Kajera Bewa i.e. from the Khatian No. 1209, noted above, vide Mis. Case No. 609/07”.

The complainant in his petition to O.P claimed the certified copy of order of case No. 609/07, not the statement of record and certified copy of Parcha. The O.P did not mention a single word about certified copy of order of case No. 609/07 in his statement. This is the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

Deficiency has been proved. The complainant is entitled to get certified copy of order of the case No. 609/07.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

                                                that C.F case No. 136/2016 be and the same is allowed in ex parte against the O.P with a cost of Rs. 1000/-.

The O.P is directed to supply certified copy of order of the case No. 609/07 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.