This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Haryana dated 18.12.2015 in first appeal No.725/2015 whereby the State Commission confirmed the order of the concerned District Forum. 2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that land belonging to the father of the respondent/complainant was acquired by the petitioner/opposite party vide award dated 17.6.1992. Under the prevailing policy of HUDA father of the complainant was entitled to allotment of plot being an oustee. Pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications from the oustees, complainant being legal heir of his father sent application dated 12.1.2010 for allotment of plot alongwith bank draft of Rs.1,82,000/-. It is the case of the respondent/complainant that the petitioner/respondent despite of receipt of application has neither refunded the amount nor a plot has been allotted to him. 3. The opposite party did not file any response to the complaint. District Forum allowed the complaint ex-parte and directed the opposite party as under:- “OP shall return the demand draft No.982939 dated 8.1.2010 amounting to Rs.1,82,000/- to the complainant, alongwith whatever charges re payable by the latter for the delay in the encashment thereof. If the issuing bank denies encashment, for one reason or the other, it shall be incumbent upon the OP to pay that amount in cash to the complainant. OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% on the above amount w.e.f. the date of receipt thereof in its office and till either the draft of receipt thereof in its office and till the draft is encashed or the amount is payable by the OP to the complainant in cash. OP shall be liable to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency in service as also for the mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant. OP shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as the cost of litigation.” 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party preferred an appeal. The State Commission, Haryana on re-appreciation of evidence did not find merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed. This has led to filing of the revision petition. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The State Commission in para-5 of the impugned order has observed that the only argument raised by the learned counsel for the HUDA is that since the application submitted by the respondent/complainant was beyond the date fixed for submitting the application, the application was not considered for allotment and the accompanying bank draft was not encashed. Despite of noting this fact the State Commission has failed to appreciate that if the application for allotment sent by the complainant was not considered, no relationship of the consumer and service provider came into being as such the Consumer Fora had no jurisdiction to intervene in the matter. Therefore, under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the impugned orders of the Fora below are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents/complainants has contended that the petitioner has already complied with the impugned order, therefore, the revision petition has become infructuous. We do not find merit the contention. Even if the petitioner has complied with the order in order to avoid consequences of non-compliance, this has nothing to do with the revision petition. It is suffice to say that on succeeding in the revision petition, the petitioner can always apply for restitution of excess payment. 7. In view of the discussion above, we allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint. 8. Respondent/complainant is directed to refund the amount of compensation and interest both pursuant to execution within 30 days failing which the petitioner/opposite party shall be at liberty to apply for restitution. | 
