The controversy revolves around the question, whether a person, who has no legal rights, can enforce the authorities to allot her a plot. The facts of this case briefly stated are these. Swaran Singh, father of the complainant applied for a plot pursuant to an advertisement issued by public housing authority in Ludhiana in the year 1981. An earnest money in the sum of Rs.3,000/- was deposited but he was not successful in the draw. The father of the complainant expired in the year 1984. Thereafter, complainant again applied by depositing a further sum of Rs.2,000/- against another advertisement but was again unsuccessful. In the year 1984, the complainant again applied for plot of land but her application was rejected as she had deposited a sum of Rs.1,000/- as earnest money against the stipulated amount of Rs.6,000/-. The complainant claimed credit of the amount of Rs.5,000/- that was already deposited by her and her father along with the earlier applications. The authorities were checking the adjustment of the security deposit. In the meantime, the allotment of the plots was made. This is an admitted fact that the complainant was never allotted the plot by the opposite party. Now she has approached this Commission with the prayer that she should be paid a sum of Rs.1,35,26,306/- as compensation in lieu of non-allotment of plot, Rs.10,00,000/- as damages for harassment, mental agony and injury and Rs.55,000/- as legal expenses and costs, total being Rs.1,45,81,306/- along with further interest @ 9% p.a. payable from the date of filing of this complaint to the date of actual realization. Counsel for the complainant submits that no plot is available that is why they have filed this complaint for compensation simpliciter. Previously, the case was taken to the Honle High Court. The Honle High Court vide its order dated 3rd February, 2010, a single judge of the High Court was pleased to hold, t is now a pleaded on behalf of the State that there is no plot which is available for general category. It is also contended by the petitioner that there is no provision for allotment under general category, if the plots reserved under the special category of army personnel and persons belonged to Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes have not been exhausted. The response to this by the Government is that the petitioner had applied only in the general category and all the allotments of the general category have been made and there are no plots available. This still does not answer the question whether there are any plots available for the reserved categories which could be transferred to the general category. From the time when the offer was made in the year 1981 more than two decades have passed and it shall not be possible to examine the plea of the petitioner now. A mere advertisement for offer of sale itself will not grant any legal right to demand an allotment. The petitioner shall not be entitled to any relief in this writ petition except a direction contained through this order that if there are still any plots available in the lay out, the petitioner case could be considered and an allotment made at the present market rate, after adjusting the amount of Rs.6,000/- that had been paid by the petitioner father and the petitioner herself and crediting her with interest at 9% from the respective dates when the deposits were made. This exercise of a fresh consideration in the event of availability of plots shall be made within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order. If however, no plot is available, the respondents 2 and 3 shall communicate about the lack of availability and refund to the petitioner the amount of Rs.6,000/- with interest of 9% from the respective dates when the amount had been received by the authorities till the date of payment. This exercise shall be undertaken and the money paid within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Thereafter, the complainant approached the Division Bench, which by its order dated 5th February, 2011 was pleased to hold, he learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that the facts of the case would justify a direction to the respondents that if plots are still available with the respondents, the case of the petitioner could be considered and an allotment made at the present market rate. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. On consideration of the facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In fact we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was generous to issue the directions which are substantially in favour of the appellant. The order of the learned Single judge will, therefore, not call for any interference. Appeal is dismissed. No costs. The counsel for the complainant has invited our attention towards information received from the RTI and an application for review petition was filed before the Division Bench of the Honle High Court, but that review petition was also dismissed. The complainant has no legal rights, which can be enforced against the opposite party. The plot was never allotted in her favor. Our sympathy may be with her but some harsh realities cannot be glossed over. Her story does not just stack up. Again this complaint is barred by the principles of resjudication. This is final adjudication by the Honle High Court. It will not be proper for us to hear and re-adjudicate the matter. The facts and circumstances reveal that the complainant has no crow to pick with the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint is dismissed in limine.