Counsel for the petitioner states that he has already deposited 50% of the awarded amount along with accrued interest before the District Forum.

          Office sent registered notice to the respondents on 19.11.2009 which have not been come back ‘Unserved’ or otherwise.  Deemed to have been served.  Respondents are ordered to be proceeded ex-parte.

-2-

          We had issued notice limited to the point as to whether the Housing Board could charge ‘Better Location Charges’.  Counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2599/2009 and other connected matters decided on 16.4.2009 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:

  “The National Commission was of the view that because by sheer chance of luck the draw of plot in the lottery the plot was allotted the principle relating to charging the additional amounts for the best location or corner plot cannot be applicable.   This conclusion is contrary to the advertisement made for registration of the house.  It has been specifically mentioned therein that the registration of the house shall be determined by the lottery and the terms and conditions of registration and allotment specifically provided for additional charges.  That being so, the view taken by the National Commission cannot be sustained and is set aside.  In other words, the order passed by the State Commission is maintained while those of the District Forum and the National Commission get nullified.”

-3-

Respectfully following the judgment of Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, we set aside the order of the State Commission directing refund of sum of Rs.26,517/-, which includes the interest as well, which had been paid by the respondent as ‘Better Location Charges’. 

            Revision petition stands disposed of in above terms.