BEFORE THE STATE CONSU,I/IER DISPUTE RED COMMIS;SION :

ODISHA , CUTTACK.

'.;

I NO.

FIRST APPEAL OF 2012 (APPEAL UNDER SECTION I5 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, ,l eB6)

FROM THE ORDER OF DtSTFi.tCT FORUM. RAYAGApA l.

Eost coost Roilwoy, represerrted through its Generol lvlonoger, Bhuboneswor, Dist ; Khurdo.

2. Ihe Divisionol Roilwoy mcncger, Eost Coost Roilwoy, Visokhopotnom, Andhro Prcrdesh.

3. Senior Section Engineer, Eost Coost Roilwoy,Royogcrdo.

Appellonts -Vu=rsus-

Sri Gouri Jeno, Son of Lote Goiroj Jeno, Pon Shop, Opp Telephone Exchonge Rood, P.O./Dist ; Royogodo, Stote: Odishrr, Pin - 76500.l.

Respondeni.

la

		ORDER WITH SIGNATURE	note as to action (if any), taken on Order
	13'S,)	Mr B.Moharana, learned Ce memo of appearance on behalf o accepted and kept on record. R call. Since this is a matter of 2Ol the records and disposed of the Heard learned Central Govt. 2. The case of the complainant i has leased out the Western si Rayagada to different person demanded by the Railways was in whose favour the lands were Railway authorities also colle making/using the said land for various types and the -l- When+he-said lease was
	I I I			a! Govt. counsel files the appellants, which is ndent is absent on we have go:. through tter on merit. ounsel. that East Coast Railway of railway lands at for which the rent ly paid by the persons released on lease. The !icence fees for ommercial purpose of od was till 31.3.201J. 10 suddenly,

T',"'

District Forum, ^{RaYagada in CC C} se No. 68 of zott ^with prayer to pay suitable comPen on by way of ^{moneY and} to rehabilitate the ^comPlainant.

3. OPs filed their ^writte version denYing the allegations made ^{in the comPl} int petition stating ^that the OPs have not ^{given any} ailway land on ^{lease or} I to the inant validating ^{uP to} license basis ^comPl

31.3 .201.1,. ^{ComPlainant has no} brought to the notice of tearned forum ^{as to how he go} occupied the ^{RailwaY land} and the comPlainant ^{is onlY T} espasser or ^unauthorized

		note as to action (if any), ORDER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order
		occupant of Railway land. The h receipt enclosed to petition does not establish that e is a bonafide licensee of the Railway land. The local authorities i.e. District administration demolished the ure where there was an encroachment on the State igh Way. lt is the State Govt. and local authorities who ould take steps if any for rehabilitation of the complain nt and not the OPs. The OPs have not violated the profvisions of fundamental rights and also principles of natur[tlustice and hence, are not liable to pay any compensatfon to the complainant. So, there is no any deficiencrT in ice on their part. 4. After hearing the matter,l learned Forum below passed order holding that "ln view of the progro of the Govt. for the Urbon Development, the action of e opp.parties connot be

chollenged before the District rum becouse this is o policy I /\' ir'i of thb'Govt."

sl. ls. of		ORDER WITH SIGilIATURE	Office note as to action (if any), taken on Order
		Further passed following order. t lorge and os such the OPs "However, the victims ore in suitoble ploce without are directed to rehobilitqte th and the loss suffered bY violoting their fundamentol rig priate outhoritY." them may be considered bY the pellants have preferred Challenging the said order, the a this appeal. ppellants. Heard learned counsel, for 5. ellants submits that the Learned counsel for the aP 6. was never given any complainant Gouri Jena, RaYag of railway land at ation permission by RailwaYs for oc that a licencee has bmits Rayahgada (Orissa) He further s person as such ht to any no right to transfer his limited We also found nta ina ble. the complaint Petition is not m counter swearing an that the opP.Parties have fi ion of National HighwaY affidavit stating that for cons

		Office note as to action (if any), ORI]ER WITH SIGNATURE taken on Order
		local administration removed th encroachment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document