JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Shri Bharat Bhusan Bansal, the complainant in this case, applied on 31.03.1989, i.e. 24 yearsearlier, for allotment of a house in the HIG-B Category of the Board in residential Scheme in Kalptaru, Niti Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. He deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant was registered on 20.09.1993. On 10.01.2000, the petitioner/Opposite party intimated the respondent/complainant that the land was not available in Niti Nagar area. The petitioner/OP sought his consent and option for allotment of another house in Mansarovar/ Sanganer and the complainant gave his option, vide his letter dated 16.02.2000. After the lapse of 7 years the complainant was informed that the land was not available in Mansarovar/Sanganer, vide letter dated 27.08.2007, and sought the complainant consent for option in Pratap Nagar Scheme for allotment of another 3rd house. The complainant gave his consent vide letter dated 10.09.2007 for allotment of house in Pratap Nagar Scheme. However, the Board, without informing the complainant, cancelled his registration, vide letter dated 23.03.2010. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, which was allowed. The District Forum, vide order dated 11.12.2012, ordered :- herefore, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite party is directed that the opposite party should, within one month from the date of the order, restore the original 1989 registration of the complainant and within 6 months, house should be allotted to him at the rate at which houses have been allotted to people just after him. Also an amount of Rs.11,000/- should be paid for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- as costs 2. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner/OP filed appeal before the State Commission. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the relief granted to the complainant is not in consonance with the prayer made by him. The prayer made in the complaint by the complainant, runs as follows:- herefore, it is most respectfully prayed that the following reliefs may be granted to the complainant : a) The letter dated 23.03.2010 of the respondent whereby the registration of the complainant was cancelled, be set aside. b) The respondent should allot HIG Category B flat to the complainant in Pratap Nagar, Sanganer Scheme. c) The respondent should pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental, physical and financial injury. d) The respondent should pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. e) Pass any other order in favour of the complainant which this learned Tribunal may deem fit 4. It is difficult to fathom as to what extra relief had been granted by the State Commission. The reliefs granted by the fora below are within the purview of these prayers. Consequently, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, must be left out of consideration. 5. The next submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was that the house was properly/rightly cancelled by the petitioner/OP. It is explained that vide letter dated 05.11.1993, the complainant was asked to deposit seed-money of first installment in respect of Kalptaru, Niti Bagh Scheme, 1989. 6. I see no merit in this argument. It is clear that the complainant had opted for another house vide his letter dated 16.02.2000 and had opted for 3rd house vide his letter dated 10.09.2007. The letter dated 05.11.1993 was sent for the first house in Kalptaru, Niti Bagh Scheme. The letter dated 31.03.1989 from where three installments had been demanded for Kalptaru , Niti Bagh house Scheme had become redundant. No other notice was sent to the complainant for depositing the said money with the Board. Neither copy of Dispatch Register not acknowledgment receipt for notice dated 05.11.1993 was produced before the learned District Forum. 7. No evidence was led before the District Forum that notice dated 05.11.1993 was sent to the complainant. This is a mere allegation which is not supported by any evidence. It absence dampens the ardour of this case. No reminder was ever issued. It is also surprising to note that it took 17 years in cancelling the allotment of the complainant. It was cancelled on 23.03.2010. No notice or reminder was ever sent. As a matter of fact, fresh demand notice to deposit the said money should have been given after 16.02.2000 and 10.09.2007, respectively. Under these circumstances, the orders passed by the fora below cannot be faulted. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly pleaded that he does not want to pick a conflict with the judgments of the fora below. He has pointed out that the complainant will get property worth Rs.94,000/- for a mere sum of Rs.10,000/-. He has cited an authority reported in Ghaziabad Development Authority Vs. Balbir Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 65. It must be borne in mind that each authority is not to be made applicable to the facts of each case. The facts of this case are different. I find that the above said authority extends no help to the petitioner. It is difficult to understand, why did the OP adopt a Fabian policy?. The Rajasthan Housing Board should sensitise its officers to serve the public, rather than justifying their dictatorial acts. They should avoid such an unnecessary litigation. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.