PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings and orders dated 31.10.2005 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur and the order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short the ‘State Commission’) , the Kerala State Housing Board-opposite party in the complaint has approached this Commission through this petition purportedly under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The fora below have quashed the additional demand of Rs. 1,00,355/- made by the petitioner-Housing Board as additional price and enhanced cost towards plot which was allotted to the complainant in the year 2001 for a consideration of Rs. 35,128/- and directed the petitioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant in respect of the plot in question and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as the cost of the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned orders primarily on the ground that the demand of Rs. 1,00,355/- made in the year 2001 is justified because the reference for enhancement of the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act was pending in the Court and the Housing Board had no option except to demand additional amount as per the enhanced price. He submits that the fora below have therefore erred in holding that the demand was unjustified. He submits that as per the original agreement of allotment,
there was a stipulation that the price charged from the complainant was tentative and it was liable to be enhanced in case of any change in the circumstances or enhancement of the compensation payable to the original land owners from whom the land was acquired. Even if it was so, we are of the opinion that the demand made by the petitioner in the year 2001, which was about three times of the original cost of the plot, cannot be justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. We do not wish to hold that in no case a Housing Board is entitled to charge additional amount of cost incurred by them on account of enhancement of the compensation by the Court. 3. Having considered the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the fora below and therefore we dismiss the revision petition with the observations that the order made by the State Commission in this case will not constitute a precedent. 4. On request of the counsel for the petitioner, we however, grant four weeks’ time to the petitioner to comply the directions given in the orders of the fora below. | 
