R PURUSHOTAMAN Vs. SETTLEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainants appeal.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: The complainants are the joint owners of about 30 kuzhies of land comprised of in R.S. 243B in T.R. Pattinam village. R.S. 243B is the second part of R.S. No. 140/243. The property comprised of in R.S. No. 140/243B is wrongly shown in Settlement Registers as Government Purampokku. On 5.4.1993 the complainants applied to the Tahsildar, Settlement, Karaikal for rectification of the mistake. The same was forwarded by the Tahsildar to the Settlement Officer. But the opposite party namely the Settlement Officer has remained inactive viz. not passed any order. Aggrieved by the lethargic attitude of the Settlement Officer the complainants have come before the District Forum seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for the loss caused by the deficiency in service.

(3.) The opposite party contended that the District Forum has no jurisdiction, because the complainants were not consumer. He more specifically advanced the following arguments. Any proceeding before the Director or the Settlement Officer shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding under Section 4 of the Pondicherry Settlement Act, 1970. There is a provision for appeal against the order of the Settlement Officer in the Act itself under Section 21(1) of the Act. There is a bar for Civil Court proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act.