MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 21.06.2007 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in Appeals No. 2213 & 3146/2002 by which order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the District Forum in favour of the petitioner was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted plot No. 635-P in Sector 14, Part II, Urban Estate (UE), Karnal for a sale consideration of Rs.44,878.80 by the respondent vide allotment letter dated 11.9.1985. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.28,278/- till 7.1.1991 but the respondent failed to develop the area in spite of letters written by the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation on 25.9.1991 and requested allotment of an alternative site in Sector 7, Karnal. The respondent, instead of allotting a plot in Sector 7, allotted plot no. 972-P in Sector 9, UE, Karnal vide allotment letter dated 9.4.1992 at the same price but this plot was located in a very inferior and undeveloped sector. The respondent also sent notice for payment of additional price of the plot amounting to Rs.40,819/-. In response to the notice, the petitioner requested to restore the allotment of original plot or pay difference in the market price of the plots. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 14.7.1994 demanded Rs.32,510/- as amount of balance instalments along with interest for delayed payment, besides amount of Rs.40,819/- towards enhancement of land price. So, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. 3. The respondent submitted written statement and alleged that the Scheme of Sector 14, Part II was abandoned by the Government of Haryana due to the pendency of litigation with original land-owners. So, the petitioner was allotted an alternative plot no. 972-P which was accepted by her without any objection and further alleged that the alternative plot was in better site than the earlier allotted plot. It was further submitted that the enhanced price was demanded from the petitioner as per HUDA policy. Interest @ 15% p.a. had already been given to the petitioner for delayed payment on the deposited amount. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed. 4. The District Forum, after hearing both the parties, directed the respondent to pay to the petitioner-complainant interest compensation @ 18% p.a. on the amount deposited w.e.f. the date of deposit till 2.1.1996 and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs of proceedings. 5. The State Commission accepted the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that the petitioner had adopted the route of filing representation/appeal before the Chief Administrator, HUDA to seek redressal of her grievance by filing appeal on 6.10.1995 and also got a decision on her appeal from the Administrator, HUDA. Hence, the complaint was not maintainable before the District Forum. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 7. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no appeal was filed by the petitioner under the HUDA Act but only a letter was submitted and the learned State Commission had committed error in accepting the appeal and dismissing the complaint on this ground. Hence, the revision petition may be accepted and the matter may be remanded back to the State Commission. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the order passed by the State Commission was in accordance with law. Hence, petition may be dismissed. 8. Learned State Commission mentioned in its order that the petitioner filed appeal on 6.10.1995 and also got a decision on this appeal from the Administrator, HUDA to which reference was made by the petitioner in the letters dated 1.3.1996 and 17.5.1996. Perusal of so-called appeal/ representation dated 6.10.1995 reveals that this was neither a representation nor appeal against any order but a simple request of the petitioner that either she may be allotted plot in Sector 7 or Sector 8 in lieu of Plot No. 632-P, Sector 14-II or she may be compensated on the lines of her letter dated 19.9.1994. She further requested that she may be given an opportunity of personal hearing. 9. Section 20 (1) of the HUDA, Act, 2008 provides for appeal as under: ny person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under section 18 or section 19 may, within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of notice under section 18 or 19, as the case may be, prefer an appeal to the Director, or such other authority, as the State Government may appoint in this behalf. Provided that the appellate authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time This provision clearly states that an appeal can be filed against an order passed by the Collector under section 18 or section 19 of the Act. The Collector has the power to evict persons from the premises/land of the Authority or building constructed thereon under section 18 and the power to recover damages as arrears of land revenue under section 19 of the HUDA Act. Admittedly, no order was passed by the Collector against the petitioner in respect of eviction or recovery of damages. Hence, there was no question of filing appeal by the petitioner under the HUDA Act. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent could not draw our attention to any order under which the petitioner had availed of any other alternative remedy. No order of the Administrator, HUDA on so-called representation dated 6.10.1995 was placed on record by the respondent. In these circumstances, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner had filed any appeal under the HUDA Act which had been decided by the Administrator and, therefore, the petitioner was estopped from filing a complaint before the District Forum as an alternative remedy. 11. In the light of the above discussion, the order of the learned State Commission is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded back for deciding the appeal afresh on merits. 12. The petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent is allowed and the order dated 21.6.2007 of the State Commission is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for fresh decision on merits, after giving opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 13. Both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 07.09.2012. The State Commission is directed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months after first appearance of both the parties.