ORDER : Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Commission') in Revision Petition No. 2662/2006 dated 23.01.2012 by way of which the petition filed by the appellant stood dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- and further the appellant has been directed to deposit the said cost by way of a cross cheque in the name of "Consumer Legal Aid Account" and further it has been directed to list the matter for compliance. 3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent was allotted a MIG flat on the second floor bearing no. 4/174, Jawaharnagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan by issue of an allotment letter dated 21.3.1985. Along with the said flat, a garage on the ground floor was also allotted. The respondent illegally took possession of the public land adjacent to the garage admeasuring 178.71 sq.m. and submitted an application dated 9.4.2001 that the said adjoining land measuring 178.71 sq.m. be allotted to him by the appellant-Housing Board. The respondent was asked by the appellant Board as to whether he was willing or agreeable to take the land in question at the prevailing market rate. In response, the respondent wrote a letter dated 28.4.2001 asking the Board as what was the market rate. In response, he was informed by the Board by letter dated 12.2.2002 that market rate would be Rs. 4,550/- per sq. m. and asked for his further consent. 4. As some dispute arose, the Board took a decision to consider the application under Rule 23 of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1974') which provides that small strips of land which are not fit to be disposed of as plots shall be sold to owners of the adjoining plots at the market value to be calculated keeping in view the prevailing price of land and such strip of land shall be disposed of on an outright sale if the adjoining property is free-hold, and leased out if the adjoining property owner has only lease-hold rights. Alternatively, there may be auction of the said strip of land but further shall be limited to only those whose plots or buildings are adjoining the strip of land. 5. Alternatively, there may be auction of the said strip of land but further shall be limited to only those whose plots or buildings are adjoining the strip of land. 5. Before the matter could be placed before the Land Allotment Committee of the Board, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on 10.9.2004. The Board contested the matter. The District Consumer Forum vide order dated 9.3.2005 directed the appellant Board to issue an allotment letter within a period of three months from the date of the said order of payment of amount, calculated at Rs. 4,550/- per sq.m. increased by 25%. The Board preferred the appeal before the Rajasthan State Commission, Consumer Disputes, Jaipur and the Commission vide order dated 16.6.2006 dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the revision which has also been dismissed by the Commission. 6. Hence, this appeal. 7. The fora below have taken a view that the respondent had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,93,415/- which represented the market rate and increase of 25% over the rate for residential allotment as on 3.9.2004. 8. The question for consideration does arise as to whether the forum had any jurisdiction over the matter when the application of the respondent was pending consideration under the statutory rules 1974. Admittedly, the matter had not been adjudicated upon finally by the statutory authorities. It was a pre-mature application entertained by the Consumer Forum. We, further doubt as to whether the respondent, who had the audacity to encroach upon the public land could claim himself to be a consumer in such a fact situation. The Commission had issued direction to the appellant-Board to issue the allotment letter now. Shri Shail Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has fairly conceded that the respondent is in actual physical possession of the land. However, he could not explain as how the respondent could encroach upon the public land as admittedly, the land has not yet been allotted to him. Merely because the respondent has deposited money with the Board, it would not affect the merit of the case as no estoppel lies against the law/statute. The respondent, who could be sent to jail for encroaching from the public land has been rewarded by the Fora without any justification. 9. Merely because the respondent has deposited money with the Board, it would not affect the merit of the case as no estoppel lies against the law/statute. The respondent, who could be sent to jail for encroaching from the public land has been rewarded by the Fora without any justification. 9. In view of above, the orders passed by the Consumer For a are liable to be set aside. As a consequence, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by the Consumer Fora are set aside. The appellant-Board is entitled to recover the mesne profit for illegal possession of the land in dispute from the respondent and a competent authority of the Board may determine the question of mesne profit and deduct from the amount deposited by the respondent as he claims that he has deposited a sum of Rs. 2,93,415/- and the balance amount may be returned to the respondent without any interest whatsoever. The respondent, if so advised, may approach the Board afresh and in case such an application is filed, the appellant-Board is directed to proceed with the allotment of the land in dispute giving strict adherence to the provisions of Rules 1974. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. 10. The respondent, if so advised, may approach the Board afresh and let the Board proceed with the allotment in accordance with the Rules. Appeal disposed of.