JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This revision petition has been filed by Meerut Development Authority which, having lost the case before the District Forum and the State Commission, approached this Commission. In the month of January, 1990, Ashok Kumar Sood, the complainant, deposited Rs.10,000/- for registration for getting HIG flat, upon which the OP/petitioner issued allotment letter 27.09.1999, allotting a Double Bed Room Flat No. 26 of the Group Housing Society. The price of flat was determined at Rs.3,60,000/-. From 05.07.1991 to 28.07.1997, the petitioner paid installments, total being Rs.2,80,000/-. However, there was no development. The complainant made several requests to the petitioner to give the possession of the flat, but it evoked no response. 2. On 16.10.1998, the respondent informed the complainant that the work of flat No. 26 could not be completed and it was converted into Flat No.8. He was offered to have flat No.8 which was fully ready and was of the same category, in the same Scheme, which the complainant could take by paying enhanced payment. The OP made the request to the complainant to deposit the installments of the flat. The price of flat was shown at Rs.5,94,850/-. The complainant was asked to deposit the remaining amount in the sum of Rs.4,84,850/- through Forty-Eight installments. On 11.03.200, the complainant informed the OP that he is unable to pay the enhanced amount. Since the complainant could not pay the said installments, therefore, his allotment was cancelled on 30.03.2005. 3. The complainant filed the complaint against the OP/petitioner. The District Forum allowed the complaint and asked the opposite party to recover the amount of Rs.3,60,000/- without interest or penal interest from the complainant and handover the physical possession of the said flat to the complainant. 4. On appeal, filed by the petitioner, the State Commission dismissed the appeal. 5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he did not get an opportunity of being heard before the State Commission. Our attention was invited towards the fact that the complainant had filed an application for taking of appeal for final hearing on 01.12.2011. The counsel of the petitioner submitted that he did not have the notice of this hearing. 6. This argument lacks conviction. The judgment of the State Commission reads as follows:- e perused the file seriously from which it came out that after uploading of list on Website of Commission and on exhibition of the same on internet, and even after sufficient notice sent through post, nobody is present on behalf of appellant at the time of final hearing, while Shri Suryaprakash Pandey, learned counsel present on behalf of respondent. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it established as appropriate that on perusal of all the documents and evidence available on record and hearing the arguments putforth by learned counsel for respondent Shri Satya Prakash Pandey in detail, this case be disposed of on merits 7. No evidence in rebuttal was adduced before us. It is, therefore, clear that opportunity of being heard was granted to the opposite party/petitioner and, therefore, this argument must be eschewed out of consideration. Coming to the merits, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the complainant failed to pay the installments, therefore, his allotment was cancelled. He contended that the petitioner had the right to enhance the price of the flat. 8. This argument is bereft of merit. The District Forum has placed reliance on an authority of the Honle Supreme Court of India, in case titled HUDA Vs. Vijay Aggarwal, IV (2004) SLT 874. He has also cited this Commission judgment dated 15.05.2007 passed in Revision Petition No. 2815/2005 titled Shanti Devi & Anr. Vs. Kanpur Development Authority and Surila Kundu Vs. HUDA & Anr. dated 27.07.2007 in Original Petition No. 245/1998, wherein it was observed that t is a settled law that the original price will prevail. The petitioner cannot charge the enhanced price either in respect of the original flat or in respect of alternative plot 9. The Honle Apex Court in a recent authority reported in Meerut Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No. 8481/2012, in respect of same Scheme, was pleased to hold as under :- he petitioner, who had induced the respondent to part with his hard-earned money by promising a plot of land which, to the knowledge of the officers of the petitioner, was under litigation, is before this Court, questioning order dated 10.01.2012 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, he National Commission, whereby the appeal preferred against the decision of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sh. Sudhir Kulshreshtha, learned counsel for the petitioner made efforts to convince us that the complaint filed by the respondent in 2009 was hopelessly time barred because the cause of action accrued to the respondent in 1992 and that the Consumer Forums committed serious error by ordaining execution of the sale deed and at the same time relieving the respondent of his obligation to pay interest for delayed payment of the balance price of the plot but we have not at all felt impressed. Rather, we are convinced that the petitioner, who is an instrumentality of the State, has acted in total disregard of the constitutional principles and fairness. The manner in which the petitioner went about advertising the plots and inducing the citizens to part with their money with the hope that they will get plot of land on which they will be able to construct house for themselves and their families is reprehensible and petition like the present one deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to visualize that an instrumentality of the State would make false representation to the public and collect money by promising allotment of plot knowing fully well that the land is under litigation. In our view, the complaint filed by the respondent who had patiently waited for 27 years with the hope that he will get the plot was rightly not dismissed by the District Forum as barred by limitation because he had a recurring cause for filing a complaint in the matter of non-delivery of possession of the plot. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. For filing a frivolous petition like the present one, the petitioner is saddled with costs of Rupees fifty thousand which shall be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two months from today 10. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.