COMPLAINT ABOUT FAULTY SERVICE
2. The claimant is aggrieved by alleged illegal possession of the defendant over a strip of the land measuring 45 feet in length and 9 inches in width; that the defendant has refused to accept both the offers either to vacate the possession or to pay the price; that he is also the witness of the agreement executed by the father of the claimant dated 04-07-1997 about land measuring 1K-5M; that three persons named in the complaint and deputed by SHO to ascertain the actual position have told the SHO about the version of the present claimant; that the defendant has not accepted the option about choosing one option given by the SHO; that the defendant is not receiving the notice; that the claimant wants to leave Pakistan urgently; that copy of the agreement is attached; that the court is competent.
3. The defendant has contested the complaint by filing his written statement filed on 06-03-2012 to the effect that the matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of the consumer court because there is no relationship of the consumer and producer between the parties and that the dispute is either triable by the civil court or by the revenue court with the request for dismissal of the complaint with special costs and damages.
4. It is observed that the defendant had absented himself previously also after filing the Wakalatnama dated 17-12-2011 and filed the written statement after repeated notices of pervi issued to him but again disappeared after filing of the written statement through new counsel without any Wakalatnama.
5. Ancillary application of the claimant dated 22-10-2011 filed on 05-112011 is to the effect that the dispute cannot be claimed to be non commercial and that the disputed plot was also mentioned in complaint No.1586/299/11 dated 08 10-2011 and that the same is part of the master plan of city government of Kot Sultan and that the Patwari has not submitted his reply in the said complaint and that NADRA Layyah is also involved in the matter and that the it would be benefited by the removal of the disputed encroachment to get the amount for the master plan and the costs would be borne by the master plan and that the structural design would become easier and that awareness would be made about remaining in territorial limits.
6. I have observed that the version of the defendant incorporated in his written statement about lack of jurisdiction of this court is misconceived because the matter pertains to the non providing of the services of the Revenue Department about the required demarcation of the allegedly encroached land. The defendant is therefore bound to co-operate with the claimant for demarcation of the disputed strip of land so that the claimant may be able to move the machinery of the civil and revenue courts in motion on the basis of the demarcation report. This court is therefore competent to issue direction to the extent of the conducting of the demarcation and the objection against the jurisdiction to the said extent about the issuance of the direction for demarcation is hereby rejected.
7. I have observed that the present matter should have been dealt with the Patwari and Tehsildar instead of SHO being the matter relating to the demarcation and encroachment. It amounts to the deficiency of the services of the Revenue Department (RD) to intervene in the matter by providing the services of demarcation and removal of encroachment in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act and if the disputed strip is within municipal limits and out of the jurisdiction of the RD even then the claimant is entitled to get the demarcation conducted through RD before going to the civil court.
8. It is therefore proper to dispose off the present complaint with the direction that the demarcation must be conducted by the officer of the Revenue Department (RD) not below the rank of Naib Tehsildar and if the encroachment is established then the same would be liable to be removed either under Land Revenue Act (LRA) by RD or under Specific Relief Act (SRA) by civil court.
9. In accordance with above findings, the present complaint is partly accepted to the extent of the issuance of the direction to the Tehsildar for deputing the Naib Tehsildar (NT) to conduct the demarcation at the spot through his staff and to submit the report of demarcation to the Tehsildar for further necessary action in accordance with law.
10. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
11. This order would become final u/s 34 of PCP Act 2005, if the application of appeal is not preferred within period of 30 days under S.33 of PCP Act 2005 & Rule 14/18 of PCP Rules 2009 and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of Honourable High Court.
12. The file of this complaint is directed to be consigned to the record room of this court duly page marked with proper index and after due completion and made available for issuance of attested copies and kept under safe custody till the period fixed for destruction in accordance with the Rules & Orders of Honourable Lahore High Court.