JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER Shri Devendra Kumar Goel has filed this consumer complaint on 26th August, 2013 with the following prayers: 1. Order restoration of Plot No. 15/34 in Vasundhra Yojna, Ghaziabad by withdrawing the order of cancellation. 2. Order grant of bank interest on money deposited so as to adjust against the cost of the plot. 3. Since the plot allotted to me is two side open corner plot on the main road of Vasundhara Yojana which is worth Rs.2.5 crores as per present market value. Therefore, the plot of similar size and location be allotted to me on the strength of merit of my case. 2. Briefly stated allegations in the complaint are that Late Shri Daya Prakash Goel, father of the petitioner registered with the OP for allotment of plot in Vasundhra Yojna on 14.02.1985 by depositing registration fee of Rs.5000/-. After his death, the registration was transferred in the name of the complainant on 17.09.1991 and he was allotted plot no. 15/34 measuring 175.35 sq. mtr in the aforesaid scheme on 07.12.1991 at the cost of Rs.2,31,462/-. In view of the heavy consideration amount, the complainant vide letter dated 16.03.1992 requested the OP to relax the payment condition by allowing the complainant to pay the consideration amount in easy instalments spread over the years. The Commissioner, UP Housing and Development Board vide order dated 12.02.1993 cancelled the allotment of the plot and forfeited Rs.40,951/- from the amount already paid. Thereafter, the complainant approached various officers of the Housing Development Board but no suitable reply was given except that his allotment was cancelled and deposited money was forfeited because of default. It is alleged that petitioner made representations to various authorities but in vain. Claiming this to be deficiency in service, the complainant has filed this complaint alleging that the complainant has come to know that vide order dated 27.07.1989 in the matter of U.P.Avas Vikas Parishad Vs. Garima Shukla & Ors. and order dated 30.01.1996 in the matter of Lucknow Vikas Pradhikaran Vs. Devender Kumar, the National Commission has granted relief to the complainants in similar matters. 3. On bare perusal of the complaint, it is evident that the allotment of the petitioner was cancelled way back in February 1993 and the complaint has been filed after a period of more than 20 years. 4. Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, deals with the limitation for filing the complaints and it reads thus: 4A Limitation period. - (l) The District Forum, the State Commis-sion or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1) if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period; Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reasons for condoning such delay 5. Reading of the above would show that period of limitation for filing of original complaint before the National Commission, State Commission or the District Forum is two years and no complaint beyond the said period of limitation can be entertained unless the National Commission, State Commission or the District Forum records its reason for condoning the delay in filing of the complaint. In the instant case, admittedly the complaint has been filed after inordinate delay of more than 20 years from the date on which cause of action accrued i.e. the date of cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the deposit. The complainant has neither filed the application for condonation of delay nor he has given any explanation for the delay in the body of the complaint nor he has been able to orally explain the reason for delay in filing of complaint. Therefore, in our view, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.