Counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint filed by the respondent was time barred.  This point was not argued before the State Commission.  In the Grounds of Revision, the petitioner has not stated that the petitioner had argued this point but the State Commission has failed to take note of it.  In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner did not argue the point regarding limitation before the State Commission.  It would be

deemed to have been given up. 

Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the respondent was supposed to pay the amount in the year 1995 but he delayed in taking possession till the year 2002, and, therefore, is not entitled to get interest on the deposited amount.  We do agree with this submission.  The petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.6,21,462/- in the year 1995.  Respondent contested the same and ultimately, it was decided by the Collector that the respondent is liable to pay the price as existed in the year 1995.  On the payment of that price, the possession was given.  The delay, if any, in taking the possession was because of excessive demand made by the petitioner.  Different sets of amount were deposited by the respondent from 1981 onwards, the respondent was entitled to get interest on the deposited amount till the date of allotment.  We agree with the view taken by the State Commission and find no merit in the revision petition.  Dismissed.  No costs.