PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the petitioners present. Arguments heard. Respondent was proceeded against ex-parte on 07.08.2013. 2. This is a case of oustee. In Ram Mehar & Anr. Vs. Vice Chairman, D.D.A. & Ors., III (1992) CPJ 59 (NC), this Commission was pleased to hold:- “The case of the Complainants is that under a Scheme for providing alternate sites to persons from whom lands were acquired, they are entitled to get alternate sites. Even if that be so we fail to see how the Complainants can be said to be consumers, since the scheme does not operate to create any relationship in the nature of hiring of service for consideration as between the Complainants and the D.D.A.” 3. Similar view was taken in Delhi Development Authority v. Manohar Lal Batra & Anr., I(1997) CPJ 43 (NC). 4. Reference may also be made to civil writ petition No. 6554 of 1997 decided on 5.5.1998 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Smt. Raj Dhulhari reported in 1998 (2) P.L.R. 756, wherein the Division Bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Aggarwal took the same view. 5. In Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1979 P.L.R. 413, wherein a Full Bench decision held that by filing of an application in accordance with law, the applicant only gets a right of consideration of his application but he does not get a vested right for allotment of plot. 6. Similar view was taken in Prem Kanta and Others Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkular & Anr. III (2008) CPJ 146 (SC), in revision petition No. 3326 of 2003 wherein it was held that the petitioners are not the consumers. 7. In a judgment of this Bench, titled HUDA Vs. Uday Singh, (RP No.3456 of 2009), it was held : “Learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on a decision of this Commission in the matter of Premkanta & Ors., Vs. HUDA & Anr., for unsuiting respondents, they being not consumers, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Act. We can take notice of the fact that since owners of land had received compensation for land acquired by HUDA, allotment of residential plot under the Scheme was only a gesture of goodwill and there being no element of ‘hiring’ service for consideration of petitioner authority from respondents. The ratio of decision of the case in Premkanta (Supra) applies with all force with the case under consideration before us with identical factual backgrounds”. 8. A Special Leave Petition (Civil Appeal No. 10379/2010, titled Udai Singh Vs. HUDA & Anr.) was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the above said order and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex court, vide order dated 16.04.2010. 9. Similar view has been taken in Prem Singh Vs. Chief Administrator, HUDA, III (2012) CPJ 320 (NC) and also followed the judgment of Premkanta & Ors., Vs. HUDA, III (2008) CPJ 146 (NC). 10. In view of above, the Revision Petitions is accepted. The orders passed by the Fora below are set aside and the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. However, the complainant is given the liberty to seek adjudication of his grievances before the appropriate forum/Civil Court or High Court. The time spend before the Fora below shall be adjusted as per Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583. 11. Copy of this order be sent to the parties. | 
