1. Challenge in this Revision Petition u/s21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘’the Act’’), by the Complainant, is to the order, dated 21.10.2015 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal, Haryana at Panchkula (for short, ‘’the State Commission’’) in First Appeal No. 680 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission affirming the order of dismissal of complaint passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short  ‘’the District Forum’’) on 10.04.2015 in Consumer Complaint No. 211 of 2014, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Complainant.
2. The facts giving rise to the present Revision petition, as culled out from the complaint, are that the Complainant/Petitioner purchased a plot No. 586, Sector 27, Panchkula from Sudhir Verma and Madhuri Verma on 18.03.2014. The said plot was re-allotted to him by the Respondent/ Opposite Party in the Complaint, namely Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short, “the HUDA”). Since, the plot was 5 feet below the road level and the Complainant wanted to start construction on the same, he requested the HUDA to provide filling sand to level the plot.  It was also informed to the HUDA that the estimated expenditure to level the uneven plot upto the road, was approximately ₹2 lakh. As no response was received from HUDA, the Complainant spent a sum of ₹1,90,500 for filling of sand in his plot to make it road level and submitted his claim with the HUDA. The HUDA replied that as per allotment letter, they were responsible for development of roads, water supply, sewer, storm water and street light only and they were not under any obligation to level the uneven plots/sites. Aggrieved by the casual  attitude  of the  HUDA, alleging  deficiency in service on its part, Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to them to refund the cost of filling of plot, i.e.₹1,90,500/-; pay ₹2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment  and to pay ₹2,11,000 towards cost of litigation.
3. Upon notice, Complaint was resisted by the HUDA by filing its written version. Besides, raising the preliminary issues that the Complainant being re-allottee of the plot which was originally allotted to one, Smt. Archana Pasi vide allotment letter No. 996 dated 03.11.2006, was not a “Consumer” as defined in the Act and the Complaint was barred by limitation, it was pleaded on merits that as per condition No. 17 of the said allotment letter, the HUDA was not responsible for leveling of uneven sites; the plot in question was transferred in favour of Sudir Verma and Madhuri Verma vide Re-allotment letter No.5623 dated 02.06.2008 and the Condition 11 of the said re-allotment letter provided that the HUDA would not be liable for leveling uneven sites and even  the possession of the plot was taken by them without any protest or objection; finally, the plot was re-allotted to the Complainant and, therefore, he was bound by the terms and conditions of the Allotment letters, provisions of HUDA Act, rules, regulation, guidelines etc.; HUDA is responsible for development of only roads, water supply, sewer and electricity and not for levelling the uneven sites; the co-allottee, Smt. Bimla Goyal has not joined the complaint as Complainant; the possession of the plot was offered to the Complainant after completion of development work; the plot had been purchased by the Complainant with open eyes from the earlier allottees and as such no cause of action existed in his favour.

4. Having perused the material available on record, evidence adduced by the parties and placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HUDA vs. Raja Ram – 1 (2009) CPJ 56 (SC), the District Forum came to the conclusion that the Complainant being a re-allottee of the plot, could not claim any compensation from the Opposite Party for non-development of plot. Consequently, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Complainant filed appeal before the State Commission which was dismissed by it affirming the finding recorded by the District Forum and relying the Condition 11 of the Allotment Letter. It was observed as under:-

“Clause 11 of the allotment letter mentioned above, makes it clear that the HUDA is not responsible for leveling the uneven plot. Even otherwise, the complainant is the re-allottee of the plot. The possession of the plot was already delivered to the seller (previous owner) of the plot, and, therefore the complainant could have purchased the plot with open eyes. Thus no deficiency in service could be attributed to the HUDA’’.

6. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner/Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission assailing Impugned Order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the State Commission.

7. None was present on behalf of the Petitioner.  We have heard the learned Counsel for the Respondent, perused the Impugned Orders passed by the State Commission and the District Forum, other material available on record.

8. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that Ms. Archana Pasi was allotted the Plot in question by HUDA on 03.11.2006.  The said Plot was transferred in favour of Mr. Sudhir Verma and Mrs. Madhuri Verma vide re-allotment dated 02.06.2008 who took the possession on 22.01.2009 without any protest or objection.  Thereafter, Bimla Goyal and Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, the Petitioner herein, got transferred the Plot in their favour vide re-allotment letter dated 01.04.2014.  The Petitioner/Complainant steps in the shoes of Ms. Archana Pasi, i.e., Original Allottee, when he got transferred the Plot in his name in view of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs. Charanjeet Singh” [2021 SCC OnLine SC 479] and thus, was bound by the terms and conditions of the Allotment/Re-allotment letter.  As per Clause 11 of the Re-allotment letter, the HUDA was not responsible for leveling the uneven Plot.  The Petitioner had purchased the Plot from the Sh. Sudhir Verma and Madhuri Verma with open eyes after spot inspection and at the belated stage could not allege that the plot is uneven.

9. Keeping in view the above facts, we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Impugned Order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

10. The Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]  by observing as under:-

“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 21.10.2015 passed by the State Commission is upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.