The complainant's lack of entitlement as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and the dismissal of the complaint on the basis of laches due to filing beyond the period of limitation prescribed by law.

Mr. Justice H.S. Brar, President—Brief facts stated by the complainant in his complaint are that land measuring 453 sq. yds. comprised in Khasra No. 301, Khata No. 136/191 and Jamabandi 1964-65, situated in Model Town, Part II, Ext. Village Jawaddi, Tehsil Ludhiana belonging to him was acquired by the opposite party in the land acquisition proceedings. The complainant had claimed a plot measuring atleast 453 sq. yards in lieu of the acquisition of his land. According to the complainant, it was one of the condition that the complainant would be allotted a plot when his land was acquired. Since the plot was not allotted to the complainant he filed an application before the District Forum for allotment of the plot and award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. The opposite parties admitted that the land in question was acquired but it was stated that the complainant was not recorded as owner of the said Khasra Number. It was denied that the complainant was entitled to allotment of plot in lieu of acquisition. In the affidavit filed by Sh. L.D. Gupta on behalf of the opposite parties, it was stated that the complainant had failed to apply for the allotment of the plot within stipulated period and had also not complied with the other conditions for the allotment of plot. It was also stated in the reply that the complainant was not the consumer. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter called the District Forum) dismissed the complaint by holding that complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint was also dismissed by the District Forum on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the law.

2. Hence, this appeal.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and going through the record with their help, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the District Forum which according to us has been rightly decided.

3. It has been decided in D.D.A. v. Manohar Lal, I (1997) CPJ 43 (NC), that an individual whose land is acquired, does not have any absolute right to the allotment of alternative plot of land for residential purposes, and that such person is only eligible to be considered for allotment of plot subject to certain conditions.

4. It has been further held in Manohar Lal’s case (supra), as under :

“Apart from it, the recommendations of an alternative plot by the Delhi Administration to the Development Authority created no legal right and did not establish any relationship between the complainant and the Delhi Development Authority of a consumer hiring the services for consideration under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The view taken by this Commission in Ram Mehar & Anr. v. Vice-Chairman, DDA & Ors., III (1992) CPJ 59 (NC), is that since the scheme does not operate to create any relationship in the nature of hiring of service for consideration as between the complainants and the DDA, the complainants cannot be said to be consumers within the ambit and scope of the Act.”

5. It has rightly held by the District Forum that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and was thus not entitled to approach the District Fora under the Consumer Protection Act.

6. We also find that the District Fora was right in dismissing the complaint on the basis of latches.

7. Section 24-A mandates that the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the case in hand, the land was acquired vide Gazette Notification No. 2578-3CI-74/17842 dated 26.7.1974 and the possession was taken over by the Ludhiana Improvement Trust as far back as 19.8.1975. The complaint was filed in the year 1993. The cause of action to the complainant, if any, accrued to the petitioner about more than 2 decades before he filed the complaint.

8. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which