PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Complainant against the impugned order dated 16.1.2008 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 920 of 2007 Narender Kumar Vs. Chief Officer of Jaipur Municipal Corporation & Ors. by which, while dismissing appeal, order passed by District Forum dismissing Execution Application was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner/Complainant filed Complaint No.336/2004 before District Forum and learned District Forum vide order dated 21.2.2005 allowed complaint and directed OP/respondent to deliver possession of Plot No. 145 measuring 160 sq. mt. to complainant and further awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with cost of Rs.1,000/-. Appeal filed by the OP/respondent was dismissed by learned State Commission vide order dated 18.1.2007 and directed respondent to give alternate plot of area exceeding 160 sq. mt. in the scheme after receiving balance payment and if no other alternative plot is available, respondent shall refund whole amount deposited by the complainant along with 12% p.a. interest. 3. In pursuance to State Commission order dated 18.1.2007, respondent deposited Rs.2,65,378/- by cheque dated 17.4.2007 with the District Forum along with affidavit that no other alternate plot is available for allotment. Complainant-Petitioner filed Execution Application before the Learned District Forum and requested that two plots No. 40 and 50 measuring 90 sq. mt. each may be allotted to him. Learned District Forum vide order dated 9.5.2007 dismissed Execution Application on the ground that respondent has already deposited cheque with District Forum and petitioner is free to get the cheque from District Forum. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order on the ground that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to review its earlier order dated 18.1.2007. 4. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is encroachment over 60 sq. mt. area of the original allotted plot No.145 and remaining 100 sq. mt. may be allotted to the petitioner and revision petition may be disposed of accordingly. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law and further submitted that, as order of learned State Commission has already been complied with, there remains nothing to be satisfied; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 6. Perusal of record reveals that learned State Commission vide its earlier order dated 18.1.2007 directed respondent either to allot alternate plot of area exceeding 160 sq. mt. after obtaining balance amount or if no such plot is available, refund deposited amount with interest. It further transpires that respondent filed affidavit before District Forum that no other plot exceeding 160 sq. mt. is available for allotment and deposited cheque of Rs.2,65,378/- dated 17.4.2007 with District Forum. District Forum has not committed any error in dismissing Execution Application, as order passed by learned State Commission had been complied by respondent and learned District Forum had no authority to modify order of State Commission and pass order for allotment of two different plots each measuring 90 sq. mt. Learned State Commission has also not committed error in dismissing appeal, as order passed by learned District Forum was in accordance with law. At the same time, learned State Commission had no authority to review its earlier order dated 18.1.2007. In such circumstances, revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. During course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is ready to take possession of remaining 100 sq mt of originally allotted plot No. 145, which is not in the possession of trespasser, but still in the possession of respondent. We may suggest the respondent to consider this request and make every endeavour to handover possession of remaining 100 sq. ft. of the plot No. 145 originally allotted, as Registry of that plot also stands in the name of petitioner. If possession is given to the petitioner, Respondent will be entitled to receive back Rs.2,65,378/- from petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent did not deposit amount in cash or through bank draft, but only deposited cheque with the District forum and still amount is lying with the respondent. If the amount has been deposited by bank draft, petitioner can get bank draft from District forum, which will got revalidated by the respondent within 10 days and if respondent has deposited amount only by cheque, the petitioner is entitled to get aforesaid amount along with 12% p.a. interest from the date of deposit till realization, as ordered by learned State Commission vide its earlier order dated 18.1.2007. 9. With these observations, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed with no order as to costs.