C K MOHANASUNDARAM Vs. K U GOPALAKRISHNANAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated 29 -03 -2010 of CDRF, Malappuram in CC No. 62/2009 that the present appeal is filed by the opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.

(2.) THE case of the complainant bereft of unnecessary details is that he has applied for possession certificates for 48 cents and 58 cents which were owned by him as per partition deed No. 2875/1974 of Sub Registrar Office, Tirurangadi and that though he had applied for the certificates on 13 -03 -2008, he was issued the possession certificate of 58 cents only and the other possession certificate relating to 48 cents of land was denied by the opposite party under one reason or other as the complainant refused to pay Rs. 200/ - demanded by the opposite party as illegal gratification for the issuance of the certificates. Alleging deficiency in service in nonissuing the possession certificate for the 48 cents the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to issue the certificate and also to pay compensation and costs.

(3.) THE opposite party filed version stating that he is a government servant working as Village Officer in the Revenue Department and that the application dated 13 -03 -2008 was received from the complainant requiring two possession certificates in respect of 48 cents of land in Resurvey No. 127 and 58 cents lying in Resurvey No. 140/2. It was submitted by him that certificate relating to 58 cents was issued to the complainant and the certificate relating to 48 cents of land could not be issued as there was a difference in the Resurvey number and that on verification it was found that Resurvey 127 had been subdivided into 127/1 and 127/2 in 1981. It was also submitted that the complainant's property was lying in Resurvey 127/2 and the fact was informed to the complainant. It was further submitted that there was no deficiency in service on his part and the demand for Rs. 200/ - was denied by the opposite party. Contending that there was no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party, he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.