Heard. 2. Respondent/Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that Petitioner/Opposite Party not to charge sum of Rs.2,73,820/- on account of alleged enhancement in the land compensation from him. Besides this, other prayers have been made by the complainant. 3. The consumer complaint was contested by the Petitioner/Opposite Party. 4. The District Forum vide order dated 28.04.2005, partly allowed the complaint and passed the following directions:- “The OPs though can validly charge the enhancement amount yet they cannot charge the interest on the amount of enhancement amount prior to 12.7.2004. The complainant has also claimed certain compensation but in view of the findings recorded above, we do not consider it proper to allow any of the same. In the circumstances of the case, we do not even make any order as to costs. The complaint, is thus, disposed off accordingly in the manner and to the extent indicated above.” 5. Both parties were aggrieved by the order of the District Forum. Hence, Respondent/Complainant filed (First Appeal No.1036/2005), whereas Petitioner/Opposite Party filed (First Appeal No. 1320/2005) before the State Commission. 6. The State Commission decided both the appeals, vide order dated 25.10.2010 and it read as under:- “Heard. The short controversy involved in both the above mentioned appeals is whether the Housing Board is entitled to claim enhanced compensation amount from the complainant after the allotment of a house, when there was no enhancement made by the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act? At the outset Mr. M.P. Sahai, Estate Manager appearing on behalf of the Housing Board admitted that there is no enhancement of compensation after the allotment of the house to the complainant and whatever demand was made from the complainant on account of price of the house, was prior to the allotment of the house to the complainant, which included the amount of enhanced compensation. In this view of the matter, we dispose of both the appeals with the observations that in case any enhanced amount was recovered from the complainant after the allotment of Type I house to him, the Housing Board would refund the excess amount to the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of its deposit till realization. A certified copy of this order be placed on the record of First Appeal No. 1320 of 2005.” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 8. One of the grounds taken in the revision petition is that observation made by the State Commission “which included the amount of enhanced compensation” is wrong and incorrect. 9. In view of the above ground taken in this revision petition, we directed Mr. M.P. Sahi, Revenue Officer of Petitioner’s Board, to file an affidavit to this effect. Accordingly, he filed his affidavit wherein, Para No. 3 he has categorically stated that he neither gave any statement nor got recorded any statement before the State Commission Panchkula, which state as under:- “that there is no enhancement of compensation after the allotment of the house to the complainant and whatever demand was made from the complainant on account of price of the house, was prior to the allotment of the house to the complainant, which included the amount of enhanced compensation.” 10. In view of the contradictory stand taken by the above official of the petitioner board, we allow the present revision petition and remand the matter back to the State Commission, to decide the appeal afresh after hearing both the parties. 11. Both parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 29.09.2014. 12. Dasti to both the parties. | 
