Anupam Dasgupta This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.06.2010 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, he State Commission. By this order, the State Commission has held that the relationship between the complainants (appellants before us) and the respondent (Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation - GHMC) was not that of a onsumerand erviceprovider nor did the dispute fall within the ambit of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, he Act and directed that the complaint be returned to the complainants for presentation before a proper court. 2. We have heard Mr. N.A. Jeddy on behalf of the appellants/complainants. 3. The complaint pertains to the GHMC allegedly forcing the appellants to surrender 161 square yards of land (which they claimed to own) to the GHMC while the GHMC granted building permission for construction of a semi-residential (ground plus two storeys) building. The complainants/appellants also claimed that they paid Rs.57,402/- towards the construction fee and that the value of the land in question was Rs.1.61 crore in the open market. In support of their contention, the complainants also cited the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 relating to acquisition of land, payment of compensation therefor, etc. 4. As rightly observed by the State Commission, the mere description of the nature of the dispute between the appellants/complainants and the respondent GHMC is enough to show that there is no relationship of the appellants being onsumersavailing of any erviceof the respondents, far less of deficiency in service being rendered by the respondents. In our view too, the complaint does not disclose any relationship of a onsumerand provider of ervicebetween the appellants and the respondents as the dispute is entirely in relation to alleged acquisition of the appellantsland and non-payment of compensation therefor. We are also not persuaded by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Kishore Lal v State Employees Corporation makes it possible for a Consumer Forum to also act in a case like this. 5. As a result, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.