Challenge in this revision petition is to the order dated 25.08.09 passed by the UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ‘the State Commission)’ in appeal no. 1714/07. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner, Meerut Development Authority and has upheld the order dated 03.07.07 passed by the District Forum, Meerut by which the said Forum has allowed the complaint of the .,.2.. complainant/respondent and has held that the complainant having made payment pursuant to the One Time Settlement scheme floated by the petitioner authority and even the sale deed having been registered in her favour, no further amount was payable by her towards the cost of the said plot. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have considered their respective submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioner authority submits that the Fora below have not considered the entire facts and pleas of the petitioner authority. According to him, much before the execution of the sale deed in question and after making payment pursuant to the One Time Settlement Scheme, the complainant vide communication dated 7.09.06 had undertaken to pay certain amount towards lease, water and development charges which have not been paid by her. Similarly, at the time of execution of the registered sale deed in her favour on 11.01.10, the complainant had given an undertaking to pay any further amount towards the additional cost of land which the petitioner authority was obliged to pay in view of the enhancement of the compensation for the land acquired by it. These pleas were in fact not raised before the Fora below and, ..3.. therefore, there was no question of the same having been considered by the Fora below. Accordingly, we dismiss the revision petition with the observation that the authority would be within its right to raise any further demand pursuant to the said letter dated 7.09.06 and the undertaking given by the complainant, if so advised.