Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

- 11 -

death and other documents page 1 to 22. 14(3) The said documents are marked in this case as Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.10(f) is Form 21 notice (Rule 65) dated 30.8.2009 issued by the village accountant regarding change of khata from the name of Ramakrishna to the extent of 4- 28 to the name of Maheshwari, to the extent of 2.14 and Nataraju to the extemt pf 2/14 jointly with R.Mahesh.(complainant) and in it, 5 villagers names are mentioned. Further, Ex.P.10(E) is the check list sent to computer section and nobody has signed it, but it referred to the application dated 29.8.2009. as that of Ex.P.10(F), except missing the names of villagers. Ex.P.10(D) is the endorsement of the Taluk Office in RRT No. 529/08-09 regarding the applicants' application producing the 11E sketch and they were sent to the concerned Tahsildar, for further action, on 29.8.2009. Ex.P10(A) is the application ;of Maheshwari for change of khata dated 19.9.2008. Ex.P.10(B) dated 21.11.2008, issued to Maheshwari in RRT NO. 529/08-09 on the application filed by her for change of khata, calling upon her to produce 2 documents i.e., Partition deed and Survey sketch and report, for taking further steps on her application. Further, in the said documents, it is noticed that there is genealogy xerox copy at page No. 143 and xerox copy of the partition deed at page 145 to 152. 14(4) In this regard, P.W,1, in chief, has stated that:

(d) Thereafter, the survey was obtained and by putting the check list given it was sent to computer section.

(e) Thereafter, the said application had gone to the office of RI.. Thereafter, the village accountant -accused Prabhakar, sent information.

In cross, he has stated that :

(a) He admits that after receiving (application) registered as RRT No. 529/2008-2009 on 4.10.2008.

(b) He admits that he has given his complaint about one year thereafter.

(c) He admits that on 3.2.2009, he wrote the family tree in front of the accused.

(d) To the suggestion that at the time of giving the complaint, the accused had left no work undone, he says that except change of khata, there was no other work.

(e) He states that he ascertained from computer section as to where his application had gone. Earlier it was in the RRT section and RRT section had numbered it and sent to RI.

- 13 -

(f) He admits that RRT have to issue notice calling for any objections. They have to wait for one month, if any body files objections.

(n) He says that on 30.8.2009, the documents were with the accused and they were not given to their hands. 14(5) If the above complaint is considered with oral and documentary evidence in this regard, it goes to show that, (i) Application for change of khata was given in the month of September 2008, but kept quiet without pursuing the same and enquiring. But, as per the complaint itself, after a lapse of more than seven months, he approached the concerned. Further, in this regard, admittedly, the said application was given RRT number and called some documents and the same being complied. . But, there is no any compliance of furnishing the genealogy and partition deed, but they are in the records at Ex.P.10, as detailed above. In this regard, the delay for change of khata occurred on account of the applicant not pursuing the same and not complying all the requirements in this regard. (ii) In complaint, there is no any mention as to the procedure required to be followed by the Taluk office after receiving the Khata change application. Likewise, not mentioned the details as to the movement of the said application from concerned section to section in the Taluk Office and the officials concerned in this regard in each section at that time. Further, there is no any specific mention as to what was the details of the work to be done by each of such officials and more particularly, the village accountant accused relating to the said khata change application and actually when the accused received the said file and what required steps he had taken and still what was required to be done by him yet. So, in the absence of such particulars and details, merely because the application was filed and the same was not done, it cannot be said and held or inferred that the accused is responsible or liable for the same. (iii) In