ORDER (Per: C.C. Pant, Member): This is an appeal filed by complainant Sh. Pat Ram Singh Rana against the order dated 19.09.2006 passed by District Forum, Dehradun in Execution Petition No. 11 / 2004, whereby the District Forum had directed Haridwar Development Authority to pay a compensation of Rs. 86,000/- to the complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent objected that an appeal against the order passed in Execution Petition, can not lie in view of the provisions of Section 27-A of the Act. However, we do not agree with the plea taken by the learned counsel because an order passed in an Execution Petition, is not an independent and separate order, but it is always in consonance with the order passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint. In other words, such an order should always be read with the order passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant briefed us that the appellant had applied for plot under a scheme launched by the respondent. The appellant was allotted a plot No. M-55, measuring 120 sq. mts. (15 m X 8 m) and a registered sale deed was executed on 22.02.1998. However, it is alleged that physical possession of the pot was not given to the appellant in spite of repeated requests and various visits to the office of the respondent. Ultimately, the appellant received a letter No. 3006/Sampati/Shivlok-3/M-55/99 dated 12.01.2000 of the respondent intimating him to take the possession of the plot on 30.01.2000, but none of the officials of the respondent turned up on the said date. On this date, for the first time, the appellant found that the plot No. M-55 was much less in area and different in shape from the one mentioned in the sale deed. He also found that the owners of the adjacent plot Nos. M-54 and M-56 had started construction work in some part of his plot. He requested the respondent to interfere into the matter and to get the construction work on plot Nos. M-54 and M-56 stopped. It is alleged that the respondent neither got the illegal construction stopped, nor gave the physical possession of the plot No. M-55 to the appellant as per the measurements mentioned in the sale deed. He requested the respondent to interfere into the matter and to get the construction work on plot Nos. M-54 and M-56 stopped. It is alleged that the respondent neither got the illegal construction stopped, nor gave the physical possession of the plot No. M-55 to the appellant as per the measurements mentioned in the sale deed. This attitude of the respondent led the appellant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar, which was registered as Consumer Complaint No. 29/2001. While disposing of the consumer complaint per order dated 20.10.2003, the District Forum directed the respondent that the appellant be allotted a plot of equal size and shape at some other location. It was also observed that if that was not possible, then the respondent should compensate the loss suffered by the appellant, which was estimated by the District Forum at Rs. 75,000/- along with Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation of Rs. 1,000/-. When this order was not complied with by the respondent, an Execution Petition was filed by the appellant, which was disposed of by the District Forum per order dated 19.09.2006, as stated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the order passed by the District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent had to allot an alternative plot of equal size and shape to the appellant, which is still available for allotment. In this regard, the appellant had sought information from the respondent under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant was informed that an amount of Rs. 17,000/- was deposited for plot No. 74 vide receipt No. 203/14 dated 01.11.1997, but no allotment letter was available in the file. The learned counsel, thus, argued that a plot No. 74 was available for allotment, but instead the respondent had taken the stand that no alternative plot was available for allotment and the District Forum, relying on the version of the respondent, disposed of the Execution Petition. Learned counsel argued that the order passed by the District Forum is contrary to the facts of the case. Moreover, on 19.09.2006, when the order was passed, it is alleged that the Members of the Bar Association were on strike and order was passed on the back of the appellant. Learned counsel argued that the order passed by the District Forum is contrary to the facts of the case. Moreover, on 19.09.2006, when the order was passed, it is alleged that the Members of the Bar Association were on strike and order was passed on the back of the appellant. Learned counsel prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the respondent be directed to allot plot No. 74, which is available for allotment, to the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent countering to the contentions raised by the appellant’s counsel, argued that the appellant was informed through various letters dated 16.06.1998, 24.08.1998, 19.09.1998, 28.11.1998, 10.06.1999, 05.08.1999 and 12.01.2000 to take the physical possession of the allotted plot, but the appellant did not show any interest in taking the possession of the pot. There are no alternative plots available for allotment. The plot No. 74 mentioned above, has also been allotted to some other allottee and a sum of Rs. 17,000/- has been deposited by the said allottee. If this plot is allotted to the appellant, the original allottee may take a legal recourse, which will create unnecessary litigation between the said allottee and the respondent. For these reasons, the District Forum had given the finding that an alternative plot was not available and, therefore, the appellant be paid the amount of compensation, as directed per its order dated 20.10.2003. The order has been complied with by the respondent and, therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In its order dated 19.09.2006, the District Forum has given the finding that no other plot of the same size and shape is available and, therefore, an amount of Rs. 86,000/- be paid to the complainant. We fail to understand as to how the District Forum has arrived to this conclusion. In the Execution Petition dated 13.01.2004 (Paper Nos. 32 to 33), the complainant has made the only prayer to allot him either plot No. M-74 or plot No. M-75, which, as per information collected by him, had not been allotted to anyone till the date of filing of the Execution Petition. The District Forum has failed to give a clear finding with regards to these plots. 32 to 33), the complainant has made the only prayer to allot him either plot No. M-74 or plot No. M-75, which, as per information collected by him, had not been allotted to anyone till the date of filing of the Execution Petition. The District Forum has failed to give a clear finding with regards to these plots. If these plots were not vacant, then the opposite party must tell the Court as and when the sale deed in respect of these plots was executed and who are the owners of these plots. The claim made by the opposite party is contrary to the ‘rule against perpetuity’ because by mere registration by deposit of Rs. 17,000/- in the year 1997, the plot No. M-74 could not be kept vacant and not available for allotment till date in favour of anyone or the appellant by way of substitute to plot No. M-55. 7. The appellant has sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and he has been informed that the allotment letter in respect of the plot No. M-74 is not available in the relevant file (Paper Nos. 47 to 48). This shows that plot No. M-74 is still available for allotment, but the District Forum, without considering this material fact, has ordered that a sum of Rs. 86,000/- be paid in lieu of the plot of the size mentioned in the sale deed. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum in Execution Petition is contrary to facts and is liable to be set aside. The complainant is entitled to get plot No. M-74. The expenses in respect of registration and other legal formalities will be borne by the respondent. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. Order stated 19.09.2006 passed by the District Forum is set aside and it is ordered that the respondent – Haridwar Development Authority, in compliance of the District Forum’s order dated 20.10.2003, shall allot plot No. M-74 to the appellant. All the legal expenses in regard to the registration of the sale deed and other legal formalities, shall be borne by the respondent. No order as to cost.