Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, <br /> every order made by any officer or authority under <br /> this Act small be final and no Civil Court shall <br /> have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding<br /> in respect of any matter which the State Government <br /> or any officer or authority appointed under this Act <br /> is empowered by or under this Act to determine<br /> and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or <br /> other authority in respect of any action taken or to be<br /> taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under<br /> this Act."<br /> He has also placed on file copy of order passed by Hon'ble D.B. of Punjab & Haryana High Court dated dated 23/3/2009 and order passed by District Consumer Forum was stayed by the order of Hon'ble High Court and in its judgment it was held that District Forum, Jalandhar has wrongly assumed jurisdiction and passed orders under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Rules 1955 and rules framed therein and stayed the order passed by the District Forum, Jalandhar, so this order of Hon'ble High Court clearly shows that District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaints under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act 1954 and under this Act, rules were framed in 1955. <br /> That it is pertinent to mention here that open auction of the plots situated at Bhara Mal Mandir, Sultanpur Lodhi, Kapurthala was conducted under the Rehabilitation Scheme on 31/1/1990 under the displaced persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act 1954 and subsequent rules framed under this Act in which complainant was a successful bidder.<br /> That this complaint deal with immovable property while relief under the Consumer Protection Act can be granted regarding the goods and movable property and the entire payment has been made by the complainant long ago i.e. more than 18 years ago before the enactment of the Consumer Protection Act and in the said Act, limitation to entertain complaints is only two years. The Govt. pleader has drawn our attention to a case decided by Hon'ble National Commission reported as Tamilnadu Housing Board vs. R. Sivasubramaniayan 1988-99 Consumer 3587 (NC) in which it was mentioned that :<br /> "This case is one where the allotment of the plot <br /> has been made for the highest bidder in a public <br /> auction. We do not intend to go into the merits <br /> of the case as we consider that the matter does not <br /> fall within the jurisdiction of Consumer FORA."<br /> That purchase of plot in public auction tantamount to outright sale of immovable property and in open sale, there is no question of any arrangement of hiring of service for consideration between the parties. So dispute in question was not amenable to the jurisdiction of FORAS established under the Consumer Protection Act., so where a person purchases property in open market in public auction, in that case complainant is not consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> So in view of the above discussion , we are of the view that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide and entertain the present complaint , so complaint is dimissed with no order as to cost. However, complainant is at liberty to file complaint/case in a Court having jurisdiction for redressal of his grievances.<br /> Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties without unnecessary delay and file be consigned to record room.<br /> <br /> Announced : Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh