National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Deputy Secretary, Kolkata ... vs Dr. Swami Anand Giri & Anr. on 9 July, 2024
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 994 OF 2022 (Against the Order dated 18/07/2022 in Appeal No. 7/2022 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. DEPUTY SECRETARY, KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ESTATE (M & M ) UNIT, K.M.D.A, & ANR. ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DR. SWAMI ANAND GIRI & ANR. 2. BARRACKPORE (LIG/MIG) COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCITY PROJECT PHASE -2, KMDA BARRAKPORE KOLKATA-700121 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. SANJOY KUMAR GHOSH AND MS. RUPALI
S GHOSH, ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. PRASANTA BANERJEE, ADVOCATE FOR R-1
MR. SUBHASISH BHOWMICH, MS. MANISHA
PANDEY, MR. RAHUL KUSHWAHA, ADVOCATES
FOR R-2
Dated : 09 July 2024 ORDER
1. The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 58 1 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act against the order dated 18.07.2022 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission'), in First Appeal (FA) No.07 of 2022 in which order dated 08.11.2021 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 395 of 2017 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 18.07.2022 of the State Commission.
2. While the Revision Petitioners (hereinafter also referred to as OPs) were Appellants before the State Commission and OP No. 1 and 3 before the District Forum, the Respondent No.1 herein ( hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was also the Respondent no.1 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. Further, Respondent No.2 herein ( Proforma Respondent as per memo of parties) i.e. The Secretary Barrackpore LIG / MIG Cooperative Housing Society was Respondent no.2 before the State Commission and OP No.2 before the District Forum.
3. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 23.08.2022. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 04.01.2024 ( Petitioner ), 12.01.2023 and additional written arguments / synopsis on 27.03.2024 ( Respondent No.1) and 22.04.2024 ( respondent No.2). Written objection has also been filed by respondent no.1 praying for dismissal of revision petition. Rejoinder on behalf of Petitioners has also been filed.
4. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Forum and other case records are that OP No.1 published a brochure in the name and style of Barrackpore Housing Project, Phase II. Complainant applied one application to OP No.1 by way of depositing the application fee. It is the case of the complainant Dr. Swami Anand that as per the earlier advertisement, opposite party no.1 held draw of lottery on 21.09.2006 and provisionally allotted one apartment no.1/9, Apartment Type, MIG Building No./1, Ground Floor and to that effect, OP No.1 duly communicated the same to complainant vide memo dated 01.11.2006. As per the terms of brochure, complainant deposited Rs.1,36,000/- on 21.11.2006 as first instalment and deposited the last instalment on 17.04.2007 and as such paid the entire consideration money for the flat in question.
5. The complainant further averred that subject to other conditions prescribed in the brochure, the apartment shall be transferred by KMDA ( Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority) to the allottees by way of outright sale after payment of the final amount of the price in full and on execution and / or registration of the deed of transfer in the form prescribed by KMDA. The stamp duty, registration fees and all other expenses related to the execution and / or registration of the deed shall be payable by the allottees. If the allottee does not get the deed executed and registration within the appointed date, the allotment may be cancelled at the discretion of KMDA and payments made by the allottees will be refunded without interest and after deduction of 20% as service charges.
6. It is further the case of the complainant that on 15.01.2008, OP No.1 issued the possession advice of apartment at Barrackpore Housing and he took the possession of the said flat in question on 18.02.2008 and to that effect a possession certificate was issued by KMDA and he has been residing in the flat since the date of getting possession. On 05.11.2007, the Administrative Officer, Estate Manager of KMDA, MM Unit issued invitation letter in the name of the complainant and informed about formation of Cooperative Housing Society and also issued a letter of minutes of meeting of the allottees of Barrackpore Housing. In compliance of the same, all the allottees formed a Cooperative Housing Society among themselves which was registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Society and the said Cooperative Society issued a share certificate accordingly. On 10.11.2016, OP No.1 issued one letter in the name of OP No.2 ( Secretary, Barrckpore Cooperative Housing Society), by which it was asked to OP No.2 to inform all the allottees of Barrackpore Housing Society, Phase II since the notification of order dated 26.12.2012 of Land Policy Branch, Land and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of West Bengal and lease deed will be executed immediately in favour of all the allottees of said Barrackpore Cooperative Society Limited.
7. It is further the case of the complainant that she regularly paid the maintenance charges and she eagerly waited for a group registration as a registered member of Barrackpore Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, Phase II as promised by OP No.2 to be their members on several occasions. The complainant requested the OP No.1 and OP No.2 to execute the deed of conveyance in her favour and she was ready to bear all the costs in this regard but the OP(s) did not take any initiative to comply with the terms and conditions of the brochure which caused mental pain and agony and also caused financial losses to her. Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed CC before the District Forum and District Forum vide order dated 08.11.2021 allowed the Complainant of the Complainant and directed as under :
"That the case be and same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.2000/- and exparte against OP No.1 and 3 without cost.
The Complainant will get the decree against the OP No.2 on contest and exparte against OP No.1 and 3.
The OP Members are jointly and severally directed to register the deed of conveyance in respect of flat in question in favour of the complainant and to hand over the registered deed of sale to the complainant on receipt of the registration fees from the complainant as per terms and conditions of the brochure published by OP No.1 within 4 days from the date of this order.
The OP members are also jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental agony, pain and unnecessary harassment, in default the OP Members are jointly or severally liable to pay interest at the rate of 5% of the entire amount for the period from the date of order till realization."
8. Being aggrieved, the OP No.1 and 3 ( both ex parte before the District Forum ) preferred FA before the State Commission and State Commission vide order dated 18.07.2022 dismissed the appeal of OP No.1 and 3. Hence, the Petitioners ( OP No.1 and 3 ) are before this Commission now in the present RP.
9. Petitioners have challenged the said Order dated 18.07.2022 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
The Fora below failed to consider that as per Land Policy of Lands and Land Reform Department, Govt. of West Bengal, vide no.6686-LP/1A-18/2012 dated 26.12.2012, the right of KMDA to transfer the flat to the allottees of the Barrackpore ( LIG / MIG ) Cooperative Society ( Phase II) by way of Deed of Sale had ceased / barred and Petitioner - KMDA has only the right to transfer leasehold rights to the allottees in respect of their respective flats by way of execution of a lease deed and Petitioner being instrumentality of the State Government cannot violate the order of the Govt. Of West Bengal.
The Fora Below failed to appreciate that Complainant alongwith her other documents herself filed the notification dated 10.11.2016 duly issued by Joint Secretary, PPP Cell, KMDA and by said notification it has been informed that as per decision taken by the competent authority in KMDA, only lease right can be transferred in favour of all the allottees of Barrackpore Housing Society, Phase II and all the pending cases in Phase - I category in view of the order of Govt. dated 26.12.2012. Therefore, lease deed only can be executed in favour of all the allottees and the said fact was duly communicated alongwith copy of said notice to the Secretary, Barrackpore ( LIG / MIG) Cooperative Society Ltd.
The Fora below did not consider the fact that complainant in her complaint admitted the fact that petitioner intimated about the notification and asked to execute a deed of lease in favour of allotees.
There is a prohibition on execution of outright sale in respect of any land and which ordered that transfer of property can only be done by execution of sale deed for a period of 99 years and hence the State Commission committed jurisdictional error by upholding the order of the District Forum which directed the Petitioners to register the sale deed in favour of complainant.
An adverse order passed against the Govt. of West Bengal in their absence is perverse and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Fora below failed to appreciate that in year 2006 when the housing scheme was advertised and floated by the petitioners, it was permissible to execute the sale deed in favour of the allottees and therefore in the brochure of the said housing scheme, the petitioners stated that they will execute a sale deed in favour of allottees for the units under the housing scheme, however, in view of the subsequent order of the Govt. of West Bengal, the execution of sale deed was prohibited.
The Fora below did not consider the fact that Proforma Respondent No.2, the registered society of the members of the allottees, also admitted in their written version stating that Petitioner initmated about the said notification and asked them for arrangement for execution of deed of lease in favour of allottees in respect of their respective flats.
10. Heard counsels of both sides. Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.
10.1 Learned counsel for the Petitioners apart from repeating the points which have been stated in para 9, argued that Government of West Bengal, Urban Development and Municipal Affairs Department vide notification dated 17.01.2023 introduced a scheme being West Bengal Land Conversion ( Leasehold Land to Freehold) Scheme 2022. Learned counsel further argued that in a recent order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05.04.2023 passed in MA No. 312 of 2023 in SLP ( Crl.) No. 7949 of 2021 Malay Kumar Mandal Vs. Sanghamitra Mandal and Anr., the issue with regard to non fulfilling of the request of execution of conveyance deed was raised for the said project and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the order in the said MA.
10.2 Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 / complainant argued that offer to execute the lease deed cannot be accepted when the flat was allotted as outright sale basis. Further, the notification dated 26.12.2012 cannot be used by the Petitioners to deprive the complainant when the flat was allotted to the complainant in the year 2006 with the condition in the brochure that flat will be transferred as outright sale basis and deed of conveyance will be executed in favour of complainant. Learned counsel relied on the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta passed in WP No. 21905 ( W) of 2017, wherein High Court observed that offer to execute lease deed cannot be accepted when the flat was allotted as outright sale basis.
10.3. In the additional brief of written arguments filed on 27.03.2024, learned counsel for the complainant argued that at the time of allotment of the said flat the KMDA allotted the said flat as outright sale basis and received and entire consideration and on compliance of all necessary formalities, possession was handed over to the allottee with the assurance that deed of conveyance would be executed within short period. The KMDA Authority since 2018 did not execute the deed of conveyance till 2016 and when they brought the notice in knowledge which was allegedly issued in the year 2012 by the Govt. of West Bengal, the KMDA did not explain as to what steps they have taken since 2008 when the possession was handed over to the allottees. It is further argued that order of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, which was mentioned in the judgment of State Commission, reflects that such plea taken by KMDA Authority cannot be accepted as KMDA allotted the said flat to the allottee on the basis of outright sale basis and that cannot be changed by subsequent notification. Further, the said order has not been challenged by KMDA Authority and as such the said order stands. Further, Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in FMA No. 299 of 2019 expressed that subsequent notification by Government cannot be accepted by depriving the right of allottee when allotment was made to sale the flat as outright sale basis. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
10.4 Learned counsel for respondent no.2 argued that brochure of KMDA interalia provided that after completion of all the requisite formalities, the flat owners will be given ownership right over his or her alleged apartment alongwith proportionate share of land on which the particular building / block will be constructed. The brochure further provided that the apartments shall be transferred by the KMDA to the allottees byway of outright sale and after payment of full consideration, there would be registration of deed by KMDA. It is further argued that respondent no.2 sent several letters to KMDA for registration of flats and handed the scheduled property to the registered cooperative society. The respondent no.2 approached KMDA by way of different letters for registration of flats but in vain. A representation was made by respondent no.2 on behalf of all the applicants being the allottees thereby requesting the Secretary KMDA for taking steps in the matter of prepration of sale deed and registration of same in favour of the allottees who have been possessing the flat / unit in the said project and possession letter has been duly issued in their favour upon receiving the entire consideration money.
10.5. Learned counsel further argued that in the midst of June 12, 2015, the respondent no.2 including the complainant came to learn that KMDA had prepared the proposed draft of sale deeds of the said project and the same had been placed for verification and for filling up the schedule with Executive Engineer, RE Division-I RE Section KMDA situated at Barrackpore project location. The said fact would be evident from the letter dated 17.10.2011, 17.09.2012 and 12.06.2015. As such, it is clear that KMDA authority has failed to finalize the draft deed of sale till now. Further, by communication dated 10.11.2016 it was informed by the Joint Secretary KMDA that only lease right can be given to allottees in accordance with land policy bearing the notification of order dated 26.12.2012. Such communication was followed by a subsequent communication dated 22.11.2016 forwarding a draft lease deed based on annual rent which is contrary to the representation of the authorities while making allotment of the apartment. Further, the entire process of allotment being done on the basis of the representation and belief of selling that the apartment has been sought to be altered by forwarding the draft sale deed under the communication dated 22.11.2016 is an action arbitrary and malafide on the part of KMDA and an accrued right of getting the sale deed registered in respect of flat cannot be withdrawn by way of administrative communication after having accepted entire consideration money. By letter dated 22.11.2016, the draft lease deed was handed over by the Petitioner to the allottees first time ever since allotment of flat in the year 2008, which is self contrary to the representation of outright sale of apartment. All the contractual agreements, final and full consideration of payments and final allotment cum possession advice executed between the petitioners and the allottees including the complainant before the said L& R policy. Therefore, the flat in question does not fall under the purview of said policy. Each of the applicants including the complainant are allottees in pursuance of concluded contracts entered into by and between the parties for purchase of sale of flat at Barrackpore Housing Project, Phase II and according each of the applicants are consumers. Fjurther, the allotment of the flats were done by the Petitioners till the year 2016 to 2017 which were around 230 flats out of 288 flats. Rest remained vacant or unsold. The policy in question came into existence w.e.f. 26.12.2012. The KMDA communicated such policy on 16.11.2016. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 relied on the case of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Usha Biswas and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. ( WP No. 21905 ( W) of 2017) . Further, the State did not challenge the aforesaid final judgment and order before the Higher Forum, hence the aforesaid judgment and order got finality and same is binding on them. Reliance is also placed in the case of Rupa and Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. ( FMA 299/2029) of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta dealing with the same land policy against the Authority, whereby High Court uphold the rights of the allottees. Further, the Petitioner had taken different stands in different legal proceedings in respect of registration of said flats in question. Further, Petitioner in their rejoinder produced a West Bengal Land Conversion Scheme being ( Leasehold Land to Freehold) Scheme 2022 dated 17.01.2023, which has no connection with the present case. It is further argued that in connection with identical issue, SLP being SLP ( C) No. 10473 of 2020 filed by West Bengal Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Counsel further argued that Petitioner has never fulfilled their commitment they offered in 2006. The order dated 05.04.2023 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in MA No. 312 of 2003 in SLP ( Crl.) No. 7949 of 2021 has no bearing in the present case and is completely different as petitioner in the said case voluntarily gave consent for lease transfer in a matrimonial dispute. Moreover, the Petitioner in the said case was given written consent for lease hold right which is contrary to the present case.
11. We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. The basic dispute in the present case is with respect to the non registration of the Sale Deed / Conveyance Deed by the Petitioner herein in favour of respondent no.1 herein on free hold basis. The Petitioner states that no doubt as per the original brochure, under which allotment was made, it was on out right basis but subsequently Govt. of West Bengal changed the policy vide order dated 26.02.2012 which was notified by the Petitioner herein on 10.11.2016. The Petitioner contends that they being the instrumentality of the State Government cannot go against the order of the State Government, which envisages only a 99 years lease deed in favour of respondent no.1 herein and not a free hold conveyance deed. The Petitioner further contends that subsequently vide notification dated 17.01.2023, State Government have issued a policy under which, after getting the said unit under 99 years lease the respondent no.1 can get it converted on free hold basis in accordance with provisions of this notification. Respondent no.2, which is a Society of the allottees, supported the case of respondent no.1 during the hearing stating that this issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata which is recorded in the order of the State Commission also wherein KMDA ( petitioner herein) was directed to execute the necessary deed of transfer. Respondent no.2 further submitted that said order was not challenged and has attained finality. Extract of relevant paras of the State Commission are reproduced below :
"18. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the materials on record it appears to us that respondent No. 1 / complainant submitted one application to the appellant No. 1 by way of depositing the application fee of Rs.20,000/- and one apartment being No.1/9, apartment type MIG, building No. 9/1, Ground floor was provisionally allotted to the complainant. It also appears to us that as per the terms of the brochure, the complainant deposited Rs.1,36,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty six thousand) only. It also appears to us that on 01/02/2007 complainant deposited Rs.3,12,000/- (Rupees three lakh and twelve thousand) only including 2% service charges amounting to Rs.1,62,240/- (Rupees one lakh sixty two thousand two hundred and forty) only on 17/04/2022. In this way respondent No. 1 / complainant paid the entire consideration money for the flat in question. It also appears that appellant No. 1 issued possession advice on 15/01/2008 and the respondent No. 1 / complainant had taken possession of the said flat in question on 18/02/2008. To that effect a possession certificate was issued. Since the date of possession the respondent No. 1/ complainant residing in the said flat.
19. It is further the case of the complainant / respondent No. 1 that the respondent No. 1 / complainant is regularly paying maintenance charges. She requested the opposite party No. 1, 2 & 3 to execute the deed of conveyance in her favour and she was ready to bear all charges in that effect. But the opposite party members did not take any initiative to comply with the terms and conditions of the brochure. Both the appellants (Opposite Party No. 1 and 3) did not enter appearance before the Learned District Commission to submit the written version. Hon'ble National Commission reported in 2017 (4) CPR page 590(NC) has observed that intention of non filing of written version amounts to admission of allegation levelled in complaint. So, in view of the Hon'ble National Commission judgment, we find that the allegation made in the petition of complaint by the complainant will be treated as admission of the appellants in respect of the allegation made in that petition of complaint.
20. xxxxx
21. xxxx
22. Under this facts and circumstances, we may conclude that the appellant No. 1 did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant which is proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the appellants to complainant. Being one of the allottees of the flat in question, the complainant has the right to get the deed of sale of registration in respect of her flat in question. But the appellants deliberately denied the same and deprived the complainant to get ownership flat on registration of the deed of conveyance even after full payment of the consideration amount. As per the conditions of the brochure published by the appellant No. 1 which amounts to gross negligence in service on the part of the appellants to the complainant.
The Hon'ble High Court has observed in a case reported in 2019(2) Cal.H.C.N. 72 (Usha Biswas and another Vs. The State of West Bengal and others that :-
" 47. In view of the discussions made hereinabove it is held that the writ petition is not hit by the principles of res judicata. The order of the Land and Land Reforms Department dated 26th December, 2012 and the subject notification dated 10th November, 2016 are not applicable to the petitioners. KMDA is directed to execute the necessary deed of transfer of the subject apartment in favour of the petitioners within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for compensation and damages against the respondents if so advised. "
12. Counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the judgment dated 05.04.2023 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another related case ( Miscellaneous Application No. 312 of 2023 in SLP (Crl) No. 7949 of 2021 Malay Kumar Mandal Vs. Sangamitra Mandal and Anr). Extract of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order is reproduced below :
"1 In pursuance of the previous order dated 13 March 2023, Mr Vivek Gurnani, counsel, appears on behalf of Mr Zoheb Hossain, AOR, for the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA).
2 The submission which has been urged on behalf of KMDA is that on 24 November 2022, it had communicated to the petitioner (Malay Kumar Mandal) Reason: that in view of a notification dated 26 December 2012 of the Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal, KMDA can only execute a lease deed on the basis of the present Land Allotment Policy. Moreover, it has been stated that the petitioner had, by his communication dated 27 December 2022, also conveyed his consent for executing a lease deed of the flat. Mr Gurnani states that thereafter if a conversion to freehold is desired, this can be sought in terms of the West Bengal Land Conversion (Leasehold land to Freehold) Scheme 2022 which was notified on 17 January 2023.
We proceed to pass the following order:
Ms Anusuya S Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent (Sanghamitra Mandal), states that the respondent has duly withdrawn the proceedings which were instituted against the petitioner in terms of the matrimonial settlement;
Mr Abhijit Basu, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner (Malay Kumar Mandal), states that in view of the withdrawal of the proceedings, the petitioner undertakes to pay the remaining amount of Rs 67,30,000 to the respondent by a demand draft on or before 11 April 2023;
Mr Abhijit Basu states that the petitioner shall forthwith withdraw the contested Matrimonial Suit No 36 of 2013 so as to facilitate a decree for divorce by mutual consent being passed between the parties, as agreed;
The petitioner agrees and undertakes before the Court that he shall immediately take steps in terms of the letter dated 24 November 2022 issued by KMDA for obtaining a lease deed in respect of the premises. The respondent shall, within a period of one week, communicate to the petitioner as to whether she would be content with obtaining a transfer of the leasehold right in her favour since the lease would be of 99 years renewable thereafter for a similar term as stated on behalf of KMDA by its counsel. Alternatively, if the respondent insists on the transfer of the freehold title of the premises to her, the petitioner agrees and undertakes that, upon the execution of the lease deed, he shall make all necessary applications under the Scheme of 17 January 2023 for conversion to freehold. All the costs, charges and expenses in connection with the lease deed and, if so required, the conversion to freehold, shall be borne by the petitioner;
The petitioner shall pay the outstanding dues, if any, on account of the maintenance of the flat until the date on which the transfer of leasehold or, as the case may be, title is completed in favour of the respondent; and
(vi) The petitioner shall carry out all his obligations in terms of the matrimonial settlement and the present order within a period of one month from the date of this order, except where an earlier date of compliance is set out above.
3 The Miscellaneous Application is disposed of."
13. A perusal of above order clearly shows that there was no adjudication by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case with respect to issue of allotment on lease hold basis vs free hold basis. In this case, Petitioner Malay Kumar Mandal has conveyed his consent for executing lease deed of the flat. Although the full facts of the above case are not before us, a perusal of the judgment shows that possibly in the above case, the basic issue involved some matrimonial dispute between the Petitioner ( Malay Kumar Mandal ) and respondent no.1 ( Sanghamitra Mandal). Hence, the above said decision will not be of much help to the case of the Petitioner herein.
14. In the present case, it is not in dispute that original application was on free hold basis and it is only subsequently that based on fresh policy of the State Government, the Petitioner Development Authority ( KMDA) has decided to do lease hold basis only. Although, a subsequent policy do envisage a situation of converting the lease hold basis into free hold basis subject to further payments and compliance of other conditions of the policy relating to conversion of lease hold basis to free hold basis, we are of the considered view that State Government / or KMDA which is a statutory authority of the State Government, cannot through a subsequent policy alter the conditions of original allotment on the basic right of the allottee to have a flat on free hold basis as against lease hold basis. The State Commission has duly and appropriately considered the contentions of the parties in this regard. It has given a well reasoned order and we do not find any reason to interfere with its findings. In this case there are concurrent findings of both the fora below. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments[1] that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when 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 so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate (revisional) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record. There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence same is upheld. 15. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta has also directed KMDA on these lines. No doubt, KMDA is a statutory authority under the administrative control of the State Government, in view of the orders of this Commission read with order of the State Commission, they can take appropriate orders of the State Government to implement the order with respect to the registering the sale deed on free hold basis.
15. Accordingly, RP is dismissed. Petitioners herein are directed to implement the order of the State Commission within 45 days from today after obtaining requisite approvals from the State Government, as required.
16. The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.
[1] Ruby (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269, Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India and Ors. (2022) SCC OnLine SC 77, Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Another Vs. H & R Johnson (India ) Limited and Ors, (2016) 8 SCC 286, T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Anr. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 608, Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Limited and Anr. (2022) 9 SCC 31 ................................................ DR. INDER JIT SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER