REKHA GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 01.06.2017 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 1210 of 2015. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the petitioner/ complainant himself was the fourth buyer of this house through an agreement of sale executed by Kamla Devi who had purchased this house from Vijay Kumar Singhal who in turn purchased this house from Jai Kumar Lodha, who had purchased the house from Mr Hanuman Singh, respondent no. 2. The petitioner after the purchase of the said flat/ house applied to the respondent no. 1 – Rajasthan Housing Board (in short ‘the Board’) for regularisation of allotment in his name. The Board invited objections from the respondent no. 2 who was the original allottee. Mr Hanuman Singh denied having sold the flat/ house to Jai Kumar Lodha and submitted that all these agreements were false. The Board refused to regularise the flat/ house in the name of the petitioner. 3. A consumer complaint was filed on 10.12.2006 before the District Forum no. 2, who allowed the complaint on 20.10.2008. In appeal, this Commission on 03.07.2009 set aside the order of the District Forum no. 2 and ordered that Hanuman Singh be made a party in the original complaint and the complaint be decided afresh. After that the District Forum no. 3 after hearing the submissions of the petitioner and the Board and respondent no. 2 concluded that dispute is of a civil nature and dismissed the complaint. 4. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum III, Jaipur City, Jaipur (“the District Forum’) vide its order dated 14.09.2015 observed as under: “We have heard the arguments of the parties and have perused the record. According to the above issues it is clear that there is a grave dispute exist between the complainant Harish Kumar and the original allottee Hanuman Singh with respect to the ownership and possession. Where the complainant claims to purchase the said house through agreement from Smt Kamla Devi on the other hand defendant no.2 Hanuman Singh submits tall the documents executed with respect to the alleged house to be false and fabricated. Likewise the manner in which the complainant describes himself to be the owner of the alleged house and in established possession on the other hand Hanuman Singh claims to be the owner and in possession of the alleged house and submits the documents executed in favour of the complainant to be false and fabricated. In this regard the submissions of Rajasthan Housing Board is liable to be accepted that due to the objections filed by the original allottee of the house Shri Hanuman Singh the regularisation of the said house in favour of the complainant is not possible because the no objection letter and the agreement letter of the original allottee of the house has not been produced before the defendant no. 2. By keeping all the facts and circumstances in the matter to be sighted, the defendant no. 2 by not regularising the house in favour of the complainant has not committed any failure in his services. On the basis of the above perusal of the fact it is clearly proved that there is a grave dispute between the complainant and the original allottee of the house with respect to its ownership and possession. The defendant no. 2 has submitted the documents that have been executed in favour of the complainant to be false and fabricated. Therefore, the disposal of the said matter cannot be done by this forum in a brief perusal. A detailed production of evidence requires to be submitted on behalf of both the parties with respect to the ownership and possession of the alleged house. Then only the said dispute can be finally disposed off serving the ends of justice.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their dated 01.06.2017 while dismissing the appeal observed as under: “8. We have perused the judgment of the District Forum. It has arrived at a correct conclusion that it is a civil dispute. We are of the view that complainant must have to prove that he was a bonafide purchaser of the house and Kamla Devi and all the earlier owners who had executed the agreement of sale were bonafide and possessed a clear title. The facts of this case are very complicated and contradictory. How can the complainant deposit the amount with Housing Board when the house had been sold to four earlier owners. The dispute involves detailed evidence. This question cannot be decided by the consumer foras. The consumer foras cannot declare the complainant a valid buyer of this house. Only civil court can declare whether the complainant is the true owner or purchaser of the house. So long as the fact of sale by the opposite party no. 2 is denied, the complainant cannot ask the Housing Board to transfer the allotment in his name and till then he cannot be considered a consumer. No connection of consumer and service provider has been established between the complainant and opposite party no. 1. 9. We are convinced that this dispute requires detailed evidence on the questions of facts. The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. 10. The appeal is without merit and the same is dismissed.” 6. Hence, the present revision petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that the lower fora had erred in deciding that such matters cannot be decided by the Consumer Fora and relegating the matter to civil court. I have gone through the record. It is an admitted fact that the complainant was the 5th Buyer of the plot/ house no. 4/ 374, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur in LIG Scheme. He made an application to the Rajasthan Housing Board for regularisation of the plot/ house in his name vide undated letter. He had not attached the NOC from the original allottee/ owner of the plot/ house - Hanuman Singh. He has also alleged the he had deposited the money for regularisation with the Rajasthan Housing Board and thereafter they took out a final notice which reads as under: “Samachar Jagat 08.07.2006 Rajasthan Housing Board Final Notice – The following persons were allotted the house under the rent procedure scheme of the Housing Board in the Malviya Nagar, Jawahat Nagar, Mahari Ka Naka, Van Vihar, Ghat Ki purna, Jaipur, Sawat Madhopur and Tond Road Housing Schemes by the Housing Board. The following allottees have transferred/ sold their residential house in favour of other persons. The person so purchasing have applied for the regularisation of the houses in their favour and the procedure for the regularisation by the board is under process and if any one so wishes to produce his objection with relation to the said regularisation then he can do so within a period of 15 days from the publishing of this notice with the office of the accounts officer (recovery) Division III Jawahar Nagar JLN Marg, otherwise assuming that the allottees have nothing to say or have no objection to the said the allotment will be cancelled from the name of the original allottee and the procedure for the regularisation of the house in favour of the purchaser will be initiated.” 8. The name of the original allottee of the House no. 4/374 is at S no. 92, i.e., Hanuman Singh and the name of the purchaser was shown as Harish Kumar. Number of letters was also addressed by Shri Hanuman Singh stating that he had not deposited all the instalments of the house in spite of having taken possession in 1987 and that he had transferred the said house with the prior permission of the Board. He was asked to give his objections, if any, within 15 days. Thereafter, as per the record a letter was addressed by the Office of the Deputy Housing Commissioner, Division III, Rajasthan Housing Board, Near Jawahar Circule, JLN Marg, Jaipur dated 30.10.2006 which reads as under: Shri Harish Kumar 4/374, Malviya Nagar Jaipur Subject : In reference to the regularisation of the house no. 4/ 374 Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. Sir, Your application letter for the regularisation of your house was received on 29.06.2006. According to the prescribed procedure for regularisation, a notice no. 1159 dated 11.07.2006 was sent to the original allottee. Demand was sent to the original allottee to deposit the balance amount due against the said house of the allottee as he had submitted fake agreement and WILL in relation to the said house which was declared null and void due to objection being raised. By providing rebate according to the said rules the balance amount in relation to the house has been informed and the regularisation procedure has been extended. The regularisation of the house is not possible in favour of the original allottee or any of his assignees until the disposal of the objections. Therefore, either you produce the no objection certificate of the original allottee or you file some proceedings before the competent court of law against the original allottee”. Sincerely Clerk (Recovery) Division III Jaipur” 9. The respondent no. 2 Mr Hanuman Singh in his written statement before the District Forum has denied to have sold the house to Mr Jai Kumar Lodha and as per him Shri Lodha was appointed merely as a power of attorney and he misused the same. He has never the sold or transferred the plot/ house through agreements. He alleged that all the documents have been created and fabricated by Jai Kumar Lodha also known by the names of Surjeet Singh, Shankar Lal, Lal Chand. On coming to know about his misdeeds Shri Hanuman Singh had cancelled the power of attorney on 14.08.1987. 10. As per the complaint, Smt Reena Singhal wife of Vijay Kumar Singhal one of the previous owners who had got registered FIR under section 420, 448 and 380 IPC against Harish Kumar and Shankar @ Lalchand with regard to fraudulently grabbing the house. It is seen from the order of the Criminal Court that they dismissed the matter stating that it appears to be civil dispute regarding ownership of the said plot/ house. 11. The petitioner has also not placed on file any sale agreement in his favour by which the house was sold by him and bought by him from Smt Kamla Devi. He has only filed various agreement unsigned/ undated which are not registered. He has not adduced any evidence of any sale of property by Shri Hanuman Singh the original allottee and regularisation or transfer of the said property in the name of the subsequent buyers. As correctly observed by the lower for a, that this is a plain and simple civil dispute regarding the ownership of the property of 4/374 in the LIG Scheme. Rajasthan Housing Board were only following the laid-down procedure in verifying the claim of the petitioner and cannot be said to be deficient in service in not transferring to the name of Shri Hanuman Singh once the original allottee has objected and correctly stated that he never sold the said property. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed: “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.” 13. In view of the discussion above, I find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. 14. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner/ complainant to file complaint on the same cause action before the appropriate forum. | 
