JUDGMENT - Justice B.S. YADAV, Member :--This is an appeal against the order dated 20-7-1991 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint Case No. 6 of 1991 by which the complaint filed by the present respondent, Arvind Shriniwas Rao Bobde, against the present appellant, Nagpur Improvement Trust (for short the NIT), was allowed. The NIT was ordered to allot four plots to the complainant within two months from the date of the order pursuant to Resolution No. 1/776 dated 30-5-1989. The NIT was also directed to pay to the complainant by way of compensation Rs. 2,00,000/- for the loss of appreciation in price and rent due to inordinate delay in granting the plots. It was further ordered that the amount of compensation be paid to the complainant within a period of two months from the date of order, falling which it will carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till realisation. 2. The facts as appear from the complaint filed by Bobde before the State Commission and other documents contained in the paperbook, Khasra Nos. 1, 2 and 4 of Mouza Hiwari, district Nagpur measuring 25.63 acres were owned by the complainant and his predecessor in title, M.R. Bobde. The NIT framed a scheme called Small Factory Area Scheme. All the above Khasra numbers were put under acquisition. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 21-9-1960. Compensation was paid to the owners on 26-6-1962 and the Land Acquisition Officer took possession of the land under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land vested in the State Government under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act free from all encumbrances and thereafter in the NIT under section 17-A of the said Act in the year, 1962. At the time of receiving compensation the owners did not raise any kind of protest and accepted the amount of compensation. In 1963 ample plots were available with the NIT. It agreed for allotment of 4 plots to the complainant at the normal rate of premium with annual ground rent at 2 per cent of the premium for 30 years standard lease after layout plan was fixed by the Board of the NIT, vide letter dated 1-4-1963 (at page 49 of the paperbook). This letter was written with reference to some letter dated 6-8-1962 written by the complainant. This letter was written with reference to some letter dated 6-8-1962 written by the complainant. In continuation to the above letter the NIT wrote a letter on 13-7-1964 to the complainant informing him that premium for plot Nos. 206 to 208 252 to 258 have been fixed and sanctioned by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division. The complainant was asked that if he was interested in four plots out of the above-mentioned plots he should select them and intimate within 7 days so that those could be reserved for him. It was further mentioned in that letter that if no reply was received within the stipulated period it would be presumed that he, complainant, was not interested in obtaining allotment of any of the above-mentioned plots and the same would be allotted to others. It appears that these plots mentioned in the above letter of the NIT were not acceptable to the complainant and he put some counter proposal which was perhaps not accepted by the NIT. The matter did not proceed further at that time. 3. On 26-9-1968 the Secretary of the NIT issued a letter to the complainant drawing attention to the fact that the latters representative had seen the Trust Engineer in the month of November, 1967, in connection with the allotment of the plots in the Small Factory Area Scheme and had promised to communicate the decision regarding the allotment of plots but no reply was received by that time. The complainant was finally requested to see the Trust Engineer on any working day. No final choice appears to have been given by the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant through his counsel issued a notice on 18-1-1969 to the Chairman of the NIT under section 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 alleging that the acquisition of land and the consequent determination of compensation was void. It was claimed in this notice that the complainant was entitled to claim difference between the value of the land determined under Land Acquisition Act. The amount of difference was fixed by Bobde at Rs. 25,630/-. The NIT was called upon to pay that amount. A further threat was given to the NIT that if the amount was not paid he would file a declaratory suit to the effect that he continued to be owner of the land. The amount of difference was fixed by Bobde at Rs. 25,630/-. The NIT was called upon to pay that amount. A further threat was given to the NIT that if the amount was not paid he would file a declaratory suit to the effect that he continued to be owner of the land. This notice was duly replied by the NIT and allegations were denied. The complainant did not file any suit nor took any step about the allotment of plots. 4. On 4-11-1975 the complainant again addressed a letter to the Chairman of the NIT agreeing to make payment of four plots and expressing willingness to accept undeveloped land. There is nothing on the record to show that the NIT was willing to reopen the matter. On 28-3-1985 Bobde addressed another letter to the Chairman of the NIT and repeated his request for grant of undeveloped land wherever it might be. It further appears that the complainant addressed some letters to the Minister, Urban Development, Maharashtra Government, who in turn wrote a letter to the Chairman of the NIT. It happened in June, 1985. The Minister had written to the Chairman inviting his attention to the representation of complainant. It was further stated in the letter of the Minister that the NIT appears to have agreed to give 4 plots to the complainant but he was not given any plot. The NIT was asked to take appropriate action in the matter. On 22-8-1985 the complainant again got a notice issued through his counsel to the NIT again reiterating that the acquisition of land was bad in the eye of law. Vide letter dated 4-11-1985 Law Officer of the NIT wrote to the counsel for the complainant controverting the allegation about the illegality of acquisition. It was also pointed out that complainant has already been intimated that his demand for 4 plots could not be considered. 5. It seems that the complainant pursued the matter but vide resolution dated 3-4-1989 the Board of the NIT rejected the application of the complainant for allotment of plots. 6. On 20-4-1989, Bobde complainant, again wrote a letter to the NIT for allotment of 4 plots (it may be mentioned here that Bobde is an advocate and for some time was Advocate General to Maharashtra Government. It is not clear in which period he was Advocate General. 6. On 20-4-1989, Bobde complainant, again wrote a letter to the NIT for allotment of 4 plots (it may be mentioned here that Bobde is an advocate and for some time was Advocate General to Maharashtra Government. It is not clear in which period he was Advocate General. It may also be mentioned here that vide notification dated 18-5-1983 in supersession of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1955, Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1983, came into force). The Law Officer of the NIT opined that in 1963 the NIT had assured allotment of plots to the complainant and, therefore, principles of promissory estoppel were violated and, moreover, since the Land Disposal Rules, 1983, did not make any provision of allotment of plots to individuals, the State Government be moved for relaxation of the said rules. This relaxation was necessary because under Rule 23 of the said Rules, the Trust could allot a plot of land not exceeding 500 sq.mt. for residential purpose only to a person who had been affected by land acquisition by the Trust. It was further a condition of such allotment that such a person should not already be in possession of the land within the limits of Nagpur Municipal Corporation or within the area of jurisdiction of the Trust. Under Rule 26 the Government, for reasons recorded in writing, can relax any of the rules in respect of a case which in its opinion is of a special nature. On 30-5-1989 the Board passed a resolution which reads as follows : "The Board vide on page No. 9, Board Resolution No. 14/775 dated 3-4-1989 reconsidered an application of Bobde for allotment of plot as evictee and sanctioned allotment of four industrial plots under relaxation of Rule 26 of Land Disposal Rules, 1983, subject to approval of Government." Accordingly, a letter was written to the Government for relaxation of the rule. The Government made certain queries from the NIT. In the meantime a notice under section 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, was received against the Boards decision dated 30-5-1989. In that notice it was mentioned that the decision of the Board was against public interest and the trustees would be personally made parties in the public interest litigation in the High Court. In the meantime a notice under section 115 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936, was received against the Boards decision dated 30-5-1989. In that notice it was mentioned that the decision of the Board was against public interest and the trustees would be personally made parties in the public interest litigation in the High Court. It was also alleged in that notice that Bobde had influenced the Government Officers for passing the order of allotment. When the Boards resolution dated 30-5-1989 came for confirmation before the Boards meeting on 13-12-1989, the Board confirmed its initial decision taken vide its resolution 3-4-1989 and resolution dated 30-5-1989 was not confirmed. Thus the Board again decided not to allot any plot to the complainant. 7. Thereupon, the complainant filed a complaint under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) before the State Commission. It is a long worded complaint in which whole history of the case has been given and reference was also made to the Nagpur Improvement Trust Land Disposal Rules, 1955 and the subsequent Rules of 1983. As noticed earlier, the State Commission allowed the complaint. The learned State Commission had held that the complainant was consumer as the offer of the allotment of the four plots was made to him as evictee as his land has been acquired. 8. This Commission put to the learned Counsel for the complainant-respondent how an evictee can be said to be a consumer under the Act. He submitted that the acquisition of the land can be considered as a consideration for the services to be rendered by the Board for allotting the plots. We are not prepared to accept this argument. The acquisition was made under the Land Acquisition Act and for that the owners received full consideration. At the time of acquisition no promise was held out to the owners of the land that plots would be allotted to them as evictees. Even if such a promise was held out, in our opinion it was without consideration because the acquisition is nothing but a compulsory sale by the owner to the Government and land after acquisition vested in the Government and subsequently in the NIT. Even if such a promise was held out, in our opinion it was without consideration because the acquisition is nothing but a compulsory sale by the owner to the Government and land after acquisition vested in the Government and subsequently in the NIT. It may be mentioned here that at no point of time, either under the Land Disposal Rules of 1955 or Rules of 1983 the plots were offered to the complainant as an evictee. For the first time he was referred to as evictee in the resolution dated 30-5-1989. Hence, there was no hiring of services of the NIT by the complainant and the complainant is not a consumer entitled to maintain this complaint under the Act. 9. The learned State Commission has also held that the principles of promissory estoppel applied in the case and the NIT could not refuse to grant four plots to the complainant. The whole history of the case has been given in detail above. At one stage the NIT offered to the complainant to choose four plots out of certain plots whose numbers were given in the letter. Instead of giving his consent in terms of the said letter, the complainant put up a counter proposal. He even challenged the acquisition of the land and the compensation awarded for the land. In such circumstances we fail to understand how the principle of promissory estoppel will apply to the present case. The complainant did not change his position to his prejudice in pursuance of the offence of allotment made by the NIT. Of course, it could be argued that complainant did not challenge the acquisition proceedings in a Court of law as the plots had been offered to him but this offer was made long after the acquisition. Prior to the disputed resolution dated 30-5-1989 and also after that date the request of the complainant for allotment of four plots under the scheme had been rejected many times. Thus it cannot be said that the complainant did not challenge acquisition proceeding merely because at some later date an offer was made to him for allotment of plots. 10. The order of the State Commission is otherwise also bad. The NIT could not be ordered to allot four plots to the complainant as resolved by its Board on 30-5-1989. The said resolution was subject to approval of the State Government. 10. The order of the State Commission is otherwise also bad. The NIT could not be ordered to allot four plots to the complainant as resolved by its Board on 30-5-1989. The said resolution was subject to approval of the State Government. Only the State Government could relax the rules under the powers vested in it under Rule 26 of the 1983 Rules. No relaxation has been given by the Government so far. The order about award of compensation by the State Commission is also not justified. First rejection of the complainants request for allotment of four plots took place in 1964. From the date of the said rejection, the complainant was hopelessly barred by time. Fresh cause of action is said to have accrued to the complainant on 13-12-1989 when the Board of the NIT passed the aforementioned resolution by which the resolution dated 30-5-1989 was rescined. Soon thereafter, the complaint was filed attacking the resolution of 13-12-1989. It is not understood how the State Commission assessed the loss of appreciation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 11. For the foregoing reasons we accept the present appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the complaint. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this complaint will not in any way operate to the prejudice of the complainant in the matter of his seeking relief in respect of his grievance from any other forum including the ordinary Civil Court, if so advised. We make no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. *****