JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. KANCHAN KANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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:-

(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: