JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2.  The factual background is that the Complainant was allotted Plot No. P-21, Scheme No. 1, Kakadev, Kanpur over 45 years ago by the erstwhile Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika. After fulfilling all formalities, including making the final deposit of Rs. 980/- on 24.01.1967, receipt no. 1413 dated 24.01.1967 was issued to the Complainant. Possession of the plot was handed over, and the Complainant constructed a boundary wall and gate. However, during the riots of October/November 1984, the Complainant's business premises in Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur were heavily affected, resulting in the destruction of all records. An FIR No. 266/1984 was lodged regarding the incident. Despite numerous letters sent to the Kanpur Development Authority thereafter, registration of the plot in the Complainant's name was not completed. An enquiry by the Authority confirmed the Complainant's possession and allotment of the plot, as corroborated by neighbours’ statements and signatures obtained during the investigation. However, the plot's registration remained pending. On 19.11.2007, officials from the Authority informed the Complainant that his boundary wall encroached 6 inches onto the roadside and needed demolition. Fearing illegal dispossession due to the absence of plot registration, the Complainant filed his complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Kanpur.

3. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 02.02.2011 allowed the Complaint and directed the Petitioner to complete Registration of the disputed Plot No. P-21, Yojana No. 1, Kakadev Kanpur Nagar in favour of the Complainant as per rules within 60 days from the Order. The Petitioner filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dated 23.02.2018 was dismissed. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below – 

“…The Respondent has adduced some documentary evidence before this Commission and it appears from the documents that the Civil Suit No. 2048/2008 titled as Indresh Bajpeyi Vs. Ram Sharan has been dismissed for non-prosecution on the part of plaintiff. Photocopy of the order has been filed.

The present appeal has been preferred beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the appellant has moved an application for Condonation of delay in filing the appeal duly supported by affidavit. Since the delay is genuine for sufficient reasons, therefore, the delay is here by condoned. 

Since the civil suit regarding title of the land has been dismissed by the Civil Court, therefore, there is no legal impediment in holding further hearing in the present case in hand. We have gone through the impugned judgment and all documents available on record. At any stage, the appellant has not stated that the disputed land is not in possession of the Respondent/Complainant. The Respondent/Complainant cannot be deprived of his rights. The disputed land was allotted to him in the year 1967. The Kanpur Development Authority was constituted in the year 1973 and subsequently all document/record pertaining to the land in question were transferred to K.D.A. from Mahapalika. The issue of limitation in filing the complaint case filed by Complainant has already been discussed and examined by the learned Forum in detail and this Bench fully agrees with the same.

Since the Respondent/ Complainant has deposited 1/4th amount of the land cost and the appellant has failed to produce any evidence of cancellation of the allotment. Cancellation of allocation of the plot is based only on conjectures and surmises. The aforesaid plot is in continuous possession of the Respondent/Complainant. Therefore, it is justified to get the registry of the plot in question executed in favour of the Respondent/Complainant after collecting the balance 3/4 amount from him. The appeal preferred by the appellant lacks merit and accordingly it is liable to be dismissed...”

4. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has argued that the allotment of the disputed Plot was revoked by the Kanpur Development Authority due to the Complainant's failure to pay the balance amount after depositing 1/4th of the plot cost, as evidenced by the receipt dated 24.01.1967. According to the Petitioner's office records, the plot is recorded in the name of the Friends Cooperative Society. The absence of any Allotment Letter or original payment receipt from the Respondent raises doubts; That the Respondent's filing of a Complaint after 41 years of depositing the money is highly time-barred. Another individual, Indresh Bajpai, has filed a separate civil suit for ownership of the plot, naming the Respondent as a party; That the State Commission failed to recognize the lack of records in the Respondent's name and the potential fraud involved; That the Complainant's claim of document destruction during the Sikh Riots in 1984 lacks evidence, as no letters to the Authority have been provided; That the payment report from the KDA indicates that only one payment of Rs. 2,940/- was made by the Respondent, post the State Commission's judgment.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent has argued that the present petition is time-barred, lacking plausible reasons for the delay and thus should be dismissed with costs; That the Petitioner is accused of perjury and suppression for failing to present all relevant evidence before the lower Fora; That despite acknowledging receipt of 1/4th payment, the Petitioner accuses the Respondent of fraud regarding the plot, yet has not taken any Legal action for his dispossession, indicating the Respondent's rightful possession; That the State Commission's direction to execute the registry upon payment of the remaining amount is justified; That the Respondent's documents were destroyed in the 1984 riots, and efforts to register the property since 1992 have been unsuccessful; Ld. Counsel for Respondent has cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269" and in view of it the Commission is urged not to invoke revisional powers in the absence of a prima facie jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order.

6. This Commission has heard the Ld. Counsel for both sides, and perused the material available on record.

7. It is well settled that in its revisional jurisdiction, this Commission should not interfere where there are concurrent findings on questions of fact in view of “Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 2588 of 2011, decided on 18.3.2011, in which the Apex Court had set aside the decision of this Commission by virtue of which the concurrent decisions of the Ld. District Forum and the State Commission, which had gone in favour of the Complainant, were set aside with the following observations –

 

 

“23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

 

8. Nevertheless on 1.9.2023 considering that the Petitioner happens to be a Public Authority, this Commission permitted it even at this late stage to produce the official record in its custody showing the status of the disputed Plot from the year 1966 onwards. But the Petitioner could not produce the same, thereafter even though the matter listed for hearing on four subsequent dates i.e. 25.10.2023, 16.11.2023, 30.11.2023 and 2.2.2024 on which date, hearing of arguments was concluded.

9. On the other hand, it transpires that Civil Suit No.2048 of 2008 filed by one Indresh Bajpai, the pendency of which was relied upon by the Respondent/Opposite Party to raise doubt about the Petitioner’s legitimate claim to the disputed land was ultimately dismissed for non-prosecution, of which fact the Ld. State Commission had duly taken notice in its impugned Order. In the circumstances, this Commission finds no grounds whatsoever to interfere in the well-reasoned concurrent finding of both the Ld. Fora below.

10. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed.

11. Parties to bear their own costs

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.