Hon’ble Mr. Kamal De, Presiding Member

Order No. : 05

Date : 11.11.2020

Parties are present through their respective Ld. Lawyers.

IA/33/2020 is taken up for hearing.

Heard Ld. Lawyers on both sides. Considered.

In filing the instant IA, complainant has alleged t hat he has paid an amount of Rs. 1113500/- to the OP. But he has not been given any possession letter which is essential for registration and ownership mutation of the said flat. He has also alleged that he has been handed over the schedule flat in question with super built up area of 1078 sq. ft. but without any authentication document to that extent and when the complainant surveyed the scheduled flat with a registered surveyor it is found that that flat is having 694 sq. ft. super built up area. Complainant has also alleged in his petition of complaint that the OP has claimed 73 sq. ft. more. It is stated that this Commission has appointed a Civil Engineer Expert for taking measurement of the scheduled flat for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute in between the parties. It is stated that the OPs are solely liable and responsible to pay put at the charges and expenses which are to be incurred for holding survey work by the appointed Civil Engineer Expert. Moreover, the petition for Civil Engineer Expert has been appointed n the prayer of the OP and accordingly the complainant may be exonerated for paying the proportionate fee of Civil Engineer Expert as directed by this Commission.

It appears that the dispute involved in this instant case is with regard to the concerned area of the schedule flat which cannot be decided without an expert engineer Commissioner. For appointment of an Expert Engineer Commissioner this commission has directed to foot both the parties of foot the bill of Expert Engineer Commissioner proportionately.

We find that the complainant has alleged in the petition of complaint that he has been given less area and he has received the scheduled flat with less area as per the agreement. OP has denied the same in this written objection and has stated that the actual super built up given was 1078 sq. ft. which was found after completion of the project.

We find that the crux of controversy in between the parties is with regard to the area of the scheduled flat and accordingly Expert Engineer Commissioner is also appointed by this Commission. So, we think that that the interests of both the parties are involved and both parties dispute the area of the scheduled flat and accordingly both parties are liable to foot the bill of Expert Engineer Commissioner in the ratio of 50:50. Moreover, this Commission passed the order No. 3 dated 27.02.2020 in old Act, District Fora or State Commission have not been given power to set aside ex-parte orders and power of review and the power which have not been expressly given by the statue cannot be exercised. (Rajeev Hitendra Pathak and others VS Achyut Kashinath Karekar 2011 (9) SCALE 287 (2011) 9 SCC 54 relied upon).

We are afraid, we cannot entertain the review petition as such for the reasons as discussed in forgoing paragraphs.

Hence,

                                                ORDERED

That the instant IA being No. IA/33/2020 is dismissed on contest.

The instant IA case is thus disposed of accordingly.