KARAMJIT SINGH GILL Vs. RANJIT KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant/petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum against (i) Ranjit Kanwar, District Revenue Officer-cum-District Grievances Redressal Officer, Moga ; (ii) Ramji Dass, Reader to Deputy Commissioner and District Revenue Officer-cum-District Grievances Redressal Officer, Moga and (iii) Incharge, Copying Agency, Deputy Commissioner s Office, Moga.

(2.) Facts stated in the complaint are that partition proceedings of land in Village Lande-Ke titled as Gurpreet Singh & Ors. v. Karamjit Singh, were pending before Respondent No. 2 as District Revenue Officer. He decided the case on 18.1.1999. Petitioner applied for certified copy of the order with Respondent No. 3 on 12.2.1999 after affixing necessary Court fee stamps. The same was supplied to the petitioner on 11.5.1999. That the copy of the order was supplied to the petitioner on repeated representations to the Deputy Commissioner, Moga and Divisional Officer, Ferozepur whereas the certified copies of the order were supplied to his opponents Balpreet Singh and Bahadur Singh on 26.2.1999. It was alleged that the petitioner could not file the appeal against the impugned order within 30 days. However, when the appeal was filed before the Collector (Additional Deputy Commissioner, Moga), he stayed the operation of the impugned order on 2.8.1999. It was further alleged that during the intervening period, taking benefit of the impugned order dated 18.1.1999, which had been passed by Respondent No. 2, his opponents Balpreet Singh and others got the revenue entries changed and looted the crop of the petitioner by harvesting the same. According to the petitioner, he was put to a loss of Rs. 1,16,000. An FIR was lodged to that effect. Petitioner filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service and claiming Rs. 50,000 by way of compensation for mental tension and harassment.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the complaint. In the written statement it was stated that they were Government servants and discharged their duties diligently. It was denied that they had delayed the supply of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 18.1.1999 to the petitioner in any way, much less willfully or intentionally. It was further pleaded that the supply of certified copy is the job of the copying agency and they were not concerned with it in any way.