Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
Build India and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Shobha Shrivastava and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition Nos.2092 of 2013
and 2093 of 2013
Decided on 19.5.2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)] – Revision – Services – Real Estate – Allotment of Flat/Plot – Delayed Possession – Receipt of entire Sale Consideration – Execution of Sale Deed cannot be avoided – Whether the Power of Attorney executed by the original landowners in favour of Opponent No.1 giving land for development and construction and accordingly the building is already constructed, is excluded from rescinding of contract or not – On facts, When, undisputedly, the Opponent No.1 received the entire amount of consideration of the flats from the complainants, they cannot avoid to execute the sale deeds in favour of the complainants though the agreement between the landowners and the opponents is rescinded – Thus, as per the judgement of civil court, since the land pertaining to the building in which the complainants are having flats is excluded in, there is no impediment for the Opponents in executing the sale deeds of the flats in favour of the complainants – Therefore, the appellants/complainants succeed and all the four appeals deserve to be partly allowed directing the Opponents/Respondents to execute the Registered Sale-deeds of the flats in favour of the complainants – Petition/Appeals allowed. [Paras 10 to 13].
Result: Petition/Appeals Allowed.
ORDER
This revision petition under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Nagpur (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. A/02/768 dated 19.12.2012 arising out of order dated 22.03.2002 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Complaint No. 360 of 1995.
2. This order will also dispose of revision petitions 2093, 2094 and 2095 of 2013 which arise from the same order of the State Commission. For the sake of convenience, the facts are taken from RP No. 2092 of 2013.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that one Wasudeo Harode and 6 others, are owners of plot nos. 16 to 38 at Kh. No 34/2 P.h. No. 11, Mouza Mankapur, Tahsil & District Nagpur. By way of an agreement dated 29.07.1989 they had agreed to hand over the land to petitioner no. 1 (Build India) to develop and construct an apartment scheme. Petitioner no. 2 was given a Power of Attorney on 25.07.1989 by all the land owners. The agreement authorized Petitioner no. 1 to execute agreements to sell flats and shops from the said apartment scheme. Petitioner no. 1 had agreed to sell a flat to the predecessor in interest of the respondents on 14.08.1991 as per which respondents were put in possession in 1994. A consumer complaint (No. 360 of 1995) was filed by the predecessor of the respondents on 07.08.1995 seeking removal of defects and deficiencies in service and to execute and register a sale deed in their favour. Land owners also filed a Special Civil Suit No 801/1993 before the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur (in short, ‘Civil Court’) praying for a decree of declaration that the Agreement dated 28.07.1989 and the Power of Attorney dated 25.07.1989 stood rescinded and the present petitioners had no right or authority under these agreements. The present petitioners also filed a suit RCS No. 1397/ 1993 which was registered as Special Civil Suit No. 848/1999 seeking a declaration that the acts of purported cancellation of the Agreement and Power of Attorney were illegal. These suits were decided by a common judgment dated 27.03.2000 and the suit by the landowners came to be partly decreed while that of the petitioners was dismissed on 27.03.2000. Accordingly the Power of Attorney stood revoked and the petitioners were restrained in perpetuity from transferring, alienating, creating any charge or interest of any third person or carrying out any construction on the suit property except building No. 1. The petitioners thereafter preferred First Appeal no.167 of 2000 before the High Court of Bombay which stayed the order of the Civil Court on 26.07.2000. This matter is reported to be still pending. According to the petitioners, the District Forum dismissed the complaint filed before it in view of this position of law. It is stated that during the pendency of Appeal No. 768 of 2002 before the State Commission, some respondents/ interveners filed Civil Appeal No. 6856/2008 before the High Court which was dismissed on 28.07.2009 on the ground that the suit for specific performance by the petitioners had already been dismissed. It is contended by the petitioners that the State Commission has misconstrued the order dated 27.03.2000 of the Civil Court and the High Court dated 24.07.2009 to conclude that “it cannot be
accepted that the Power of Attorney is
invalidated” and to partly allowthe appeal.
The revision petition has prayed that the impugned order of the State Commission in FA No. A/02/768 dated 19.12.2012 and the order of the District Forum in CC 360 of 2000 be ‘stayed’.
4. The District Forum’s order, after
notice to both parties and opportunity to lead evidence and argue their case, had allowed the complaint filed by the respondents and held that:—
16. The land dispute being pending before the High Court, the Forum feels that any ord
SupremeToday
Civil Court – As per the judgement of civil court, since the land pertaining to the building in which the complainants are having flats is excluded in, there is no impediment for the Opponents in exe....
Limited Jurisdiction – Commission’s revisional Jurisdiction is limited. Since there were concurrent findings of fact regarding the deficiency of service by both lower courts, and no jurisdictional er....
The court established the principle that an executable order can be enforced by the decree holder, and a judgment debtor can seek enforcement of the decree by way of execution.
Revisional jurisdiction - Where two interpretations of evidence are possible, concurrent findings based on evidence have to be accepted and such findings cannot be substituted in revisional jurisdict....
(1) Statutory Authority – State Government / or KMDA which is a statutory authority of the State Government, cannot through a subsequent policy alter the conditions of original allotment on the basic....
“Change in layout plan of a housing scheme without intimation to allottees amounts to deficiency in service.”
No revision petition against the order passed in appeal filed under section 27-A of Act is maintainable before national commission.
The court ruled that execution proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act must follow statutory appeal routes, and revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is not applicable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
