The State Consumer Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering re-conveyance, conflicting with ongoing civil litigation and statutory limitations on review powers.

ORDER :

P.B. Balaji, J.

The petitioner is the purchaser of an apartment, having entered into a construction agreement dated 23.01.2020 and also a registered sale deed in respect of undivided share of land with the developer, the third respondent. Complaining that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the developer/third respondent, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Commission in C.C No. 1 of 2024, seeking the relief of possession and alternatively refund of the amounts advanced by the revision petitioner, together with interest and compensation. The State Consumer Commission disposed of CC No. 1 of 2024 on 20.02.2025, directing refund of Rs.62,30,000/-.

2. Admittedly, Respondents 1 and 2 who are the land owners, have deposited a sum of Rs.62,30,000/-, together with costs of Rs.25,000/- as directed by the State Commission, by way of demand drafts. The petitioner has received the same without prejudice to his rights. The landowners moved Review Application No.6 of 2025 under Section 50 of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019, seeking cancellation/Re-conveyance in their favour. By the impugned proceedings, the State Commission has directed the petitioner to execute a re-conveyance deed. Challenging the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

3. I have heard Mr.M.S.Seshadri, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.Sundar Narayan, learned counsel counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. The developer, the third respondent has not chosen to appear to contest the revision.

4. Mr.M.S.Seshadri, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would first and foremost contend that State Commission did not have the power to order re-conveyance of the immovable property, exercising powers of review. The learned counsel further bring to my notice that there were parallel proceedings between the parties in W.P No. 32741 of 2023 and W.P No. 1464 of 2024, O.S No.1153 of 2024 as well as W.P No.16752 of 2024 and when issues had to be sorted out between the parties only before the competent Courts, a review could not have been entertained by the State Commission, beyond its power and jurisdiction could not have directed re-conveyance deed to be executed by the revision petitioner, in favour of the land owners/respondents 1 and 2.

5. It is the further contention of Mr.Seshadri, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to further moneys from the respondents 1 and 2 and therefore, in this regard an appeal is also pending before the National Commission and in such circumstances, the State Commission clearly fell in error in directing a re-conveyance deed to be executed in favour of the respondents 1 and 2. Further, admittedly possession of the subject apartment is only with the landowners and therefore, there is no impediment or embargo for the respondents 1 and 2 to enjoy the property and the decision regarding execution of a re- conveyance deed has to necessarily await finality of the proceeding before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

6. The learned counsel Mr.M.S.Seshadri has relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions:-

(i) Basheera Khanum Vs. City Municipal Council and Another , reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 1748;

(ii) Poonendra Singh Baghel Vs. Manoj K.Parashar, in MP SCDRC, in Appeal No.258 of 2018;

3.Smt.Sunita Chanda and others Vs. Arindan Mondal and others, in WB SCDRC in FA.A/872/2016;

4. KSL and Industries Vs. Arihant Threads Ltd., and others, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 166.

5. Metrozone Apartment Owners Association, represented by its President Vs. Ozone Projects Private Limite