ORDER  (Oral)

The present Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order of the State Commission in Appeal No. 292 of 2020 whereby the appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed. The Petitioner had filed the said appeal challenging the order dated 17.02.2020 of the District Forum on the Complaint No. 193/17 whereby the complaint of the Complainant i.e. Respondent No. 1 had been allowed.  The State Commission, vide impugned order, while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the order of the District Forum.  The District Forum had issued the following directions:-

“In consequence, complaint is hereby allowed and the opponents are jointly and severally directed to ensure allotment of an alternate square shape plot with similar area within a period of one month to the complainant in place of Plot No. L-11 allotted to her in Shri Krishna Van Scheme.  Also Opponents are directed to pay jointly and severally Rs.50000/-. (Fifty Thousand) to the complainant on account of mental pain undergone by her and Rs.10000/- (Ten Thousand) on account of cost of the complaint.  Consequent to default in payment of said amounts within a period of one month, the complainant shall be entitled for receiving an interest amount @ 9 per cent over the said amount from the date of this award till the date of final realization.”  

2.      In the present Revision Petition the only contention raised is that the directions issued cannot be complied with because no alternate plot is available with the Petitioner.  It is also argued that plot, if any, would be available with the Developer. 

3.      The brief fact s of the case are that the Petitioner had invited applications for allotment of the plots reserved for low income group in approved personal khatedari scheme under the Government of Rajasthan Affordable Housing Policy, 2009 and Rajasthan Township Policy, 2010.  The Complainant had applied and he was allotted a plot bearing No. L-11 in Shri Krishna Van Scheme on the basis of draw of lottery. On inspection the Complainant found that the plot was of triangular nature and so the entire area which was promised to him was not available for construction.  He approached the Petitioner and Petitioner had offered to give an alternate plot but a suitable plot was not offered to the Complainant and, therefore, the Complaint was filed.  The Petitioner had given this project for developing to the contractor, Respondent No. 2.  There is concurrent findings of the Foras below whereby the Petitioner as well as the R-2 were found guilty of deficiency of service.   This Commission has a very limited revisional jurisdiction.  It cannot re-appreciate and re-assess the evidences of the Foras below.  It can only determine whether the findings are perverse or there is a jurisdictional error.  If none exists, this Commission cannot intervene.  In “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269” has held as under:

“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”.

 4.     Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:

  “17.  The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity.  In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”   

5.      In T. Ramalingeswara Rao  (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“12.   When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent  findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”

6.         From the findings of the Foras below and the fact which stands proved that the scheme was of the Petitioner and it is he who had invited the applications and did the allotment.  The petitioner cannot, therefore, escape  his liability of allotting suitable plot to the Complainant under the Government policy for providing affordable housing to the low income group people.  By not doing so, the Petitioner is making mockery of the scheme of the Government.  The Petitioner, therefore, cannot escape its liability and the argument that it is the Respondent No. 2 the Developer who is solely liable to allot an alternate plot, is without merit.  Another argument is that no alternate plot is available with them.  This document is also contrary to the stands taken by the Petitioner in their written statement where they had clearly offered an alternate plot but that alternate plot too was not a proper plot.

7.      In view of the above findings no illegality or infirmity and perversity is found in the impugned order.  The impugned order is based on the evidences on record which was re-assessed and re-appreciated by the State Commission while passing the impugned order.  The present Revision Petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.