ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Presiding Member
1. Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum where the complainant had fild a complainant for deficiency in service on the part of the petititoner.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased a residential plot bearing No. 1196-P, Sector 23, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad in March, 1998 for a total consideration of 9,31,000. As per agreement, 40% of the bid amount was paid and the remaining amount was to be paid in 16 half yearly instalments. The grievance of the Complainant was that only paper possession of the plot was offered on 8.6.1998 but there was no development in the area. He had already deposited a total amount of Rs. 8,33,725 but his allotment has been cancelled vide letter dated 28.3.2003 and the amount of Rs. 1,10,155 was sent to the Complainant as a refund. Aggrieved by this action, the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the deposited amount along with interest @ 12% and a compensation of Rs. 25,000 and cost of Rs. 2,000.
3. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal was filed before the State Commission which after hearing the parties modified the relief given by the District Forum to the extent that the amount of compensation was reduced from Rs. 25,000 to 10,000. Not satisfied with this order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition before us.
4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. She has two fold argument to advance. One is that the plot was sold on the basis of ‘As is where is’ basis and the second, that the area was fully developed and she produced some photographs. Fortunately, the District Forum had appointed a Local Commissioner whose report is on record which clearly shows that towards north of the said plot there was a gutter and the road in a dilapidated condition. There was some encroachment near the road, which is on the south side of the plot. Then there are exhaust fans, from the telephone exchange, generators etc.
5. In these circumstances, we are unable to appreciate that the plot could be said to be in a developed area. Housing authority comes within the meaning of the ‘State’ as per the Constitution and it is their primarily duty of the State to satisfy the citizens who are looking for habitation. The citizens are not supposed to go to the site which is surrounded by a gutter, a generator making noise from one side, encroached road on the other side and the main road structure in a dilapidated condition.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner shows some photographs but she was candid enough to admit that these are recent photographs whereas the plot was allotted about 8 years ago. The word As is where is’ does not mean that the Housing Boards are not liable to deveolop the area and leave it in undeveloped condition. The State owes much responsibility to their citizens. We are unable to appreciate the argument advanced by the petitioner that the plot was in a developed site. The plot was not fit for building a house. The petitioner is entitled to refund of the deposited money along with interest as was precisely done by the District Forum and by the State Commission. Even the rate of interest is as per several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court led by the case of Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Balbir Singh, II (2004) CPJ 12 (SC) : Civil Appeal No. 7173 of 2002 decided on 17.3.2004.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy us to call for interference in the order passed by the District Forum/State Commission. This revision petition has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly.