Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the appellants and is directed against the judgment and order dated November 27, 2012 passed by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S.C. Case No.FA/386/2011 thereby allowing the appeal in part and affirming the rest portion of the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 parganas in C.C. Case No.341 of 2008 thereby granting the reliefs sought for by the complainants directing upon the opposite parties to execute and register the deed of conveyance in respect of the subject flat within 30 days from the date and other consequential reliefs.

The complainants/opposite parties herein instituted the aforesaid complaint against the appellants/petitioners herein and another Khagendranath Das, since deceased, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas (henceforth shall be described as District Forum) contending, inter alia, that pursuant to an agreement of development of land between the owner of the land and the developer, the developer constructed a multi-storied building and as per agreement between the complainant and the developer, who had the Power of Attorney from the land owner to sell the developer’s allocation to the intending purchaser, the complainant paid the entire consideration money to the developer for purchase of the flat in question. The complainants got the possession of the flat in question. They had no knowledge of subsequent revocation of the Power of Attorney and as such the complainants were not bound by the deed of revocation and so, the opposite parties were bound to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants. Since the execution of a deed of sale and registration thereof had not been done, the District Forum granted the reliefs as prayed for in the petition of complaint. Being aggrieved, the owners/appellants preferred the aforesaid appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (henceforth shall be described as State Commission in short) and while disposing of the appeal, the Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal on contests in part but set aside the payment of penalty at the rate of Rs.100 per day. The other directions i.e. execution and registration of the deed of conveyance in favour of the complainants etc., were maintained. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

Now, the question is whether the impugned orders should be sustained.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the complainants/opposite parties herein instituted the aforesaid compliant before the District Forum for execution and registration of the flat in question pursuant to the agreement between the complainants and the developer of the land. There is no dispute that the developer had constructed flats on the basis of a Power of Attorney executed by the landowners. It is not also in dispute that the complainants had paid the entire consideration money in respect of the flat in question to the developer. Now, the execution of a sale deed and registration of the same are to be completed as per agreement but not yet done. Under such circumstances the complainants had to file the said petition of complaint before the District Forum.

The judgment and order of the learned District Forum has been affirmed by the Hon’ble State Commission save and except, the penalty measures as described above.

Mr. Samiran Giri, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants/petitioners herein has contended that the said petition of complaint before the District Forum and in consequence, the appeal before the State Commission from the District Forum are not maintainable in view of the provisions of the West Bengal Building (Regulation of Promotion of Construction and Transferred by Promoters) Act, 1993. He has contended that Section 12A bars t