ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. In this revision by the opposite party-Authority, challenge is to the order dated 6.4.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Panchkula dismissing appeal against the order dated 17.12.2004 of a District Forum whereby the Authority was directed not to charge any interest penalty till the offer of possession of plot No. 1517-AP in Sector 11-12, Part-II. H.U.D.A., Panipat to the respondent and in case any interest penalty had been realised then to adjust it in his account.
2. It is not in dispute that respondent complainant was allotted residential plot No. 1473-Pon 16.12.1985 by the petitioner-Authority on a tentative price of Rs. 35,840. Because of litigation, the possession of this plot could not be given by the petitioner-Authority to the respondent.
In a draw of lots dated 7.7.2005 the respondent was allotted alternate plot No. 1517-A.P. Petitioner-Authority issued notices for payment of additional price towards enhanced land compensation as also interest penalty on unpaid instalments. Challenging that demand, the respondent filed complaint which on contest was allowed by the District Forum in the manner noticed above and District Forum’s order was upheld in appeal filed by the petitioner-Authority.
3. Relying on Clause No. 9 of the allotment letter (copy at pages 28-30), short submission advanced by Mr. Jain for the Authority is that payment of the amount of enhanced land compensation has no nexus with the handing over possession of allotted plot and the Fora below had, thus, acted erroneously in passing direction to the Authority not to charge interest at least on the amount of enhanced land compensation. Clause No. 9 which is material, reads thus:
The above price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the Competent Authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately, as determined by the Authority. The additional price determined shall be paid within 30 days of the demand.
4. It is not in dispute that the complaint was filed on 17.12.2004. On inquiry, Mr. Jain stated that demand towards enhanced land compensation was raised before the filing of complaint. Alternate plot No. 1517-AP was allotted to the respondent on 1.8.2005 during the pendency of complaint. Obviously, on the date, the demand for enhanced land compensation was made the allotment of plot No. 1473-P was under cloud. Position became clear only on allotment of said plot No. 1517-AP on 1.8.2005. In these facts, relying on said Clause No. 9, the petitioner-Authority could not have claimed interest on the amount of enhanced land compensation till offer of possession of plot No. 1517-AP. We, thus, do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore dismissed.