Complainant/petitioner was allotted plot No.891, Sector-21, Gurgaon for a consideration of Rs.69,190/- on deposit of 15% of the price of the plot on 04.12.1985.  Balance amount was to be paid in installments.  Petitioner deposited the amount due including the penalty amount.  Thereafter, respondent issued enhancement notice of Rs.50,694/- which was also deposited by the petitioner.  It was alleged that possession of the said plot was not given to the

-2-

complainant as the said plot was under litigation.  Thereafter an alternative plot was offered to the petitioner/complainant at a higher rate.  Being aggrieved, petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to allot an alternative plot in the same Sector or in the adjoining Sector, 40, 45, 46 and deliver the possession within one month after receipt of copy of the order.  Respondent was further directed to pay interest @ 18% on the deposited amount from the date of respective dates of deposited amount till realization.

          Respondent being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum except that it had reduced the rate of interest from 18% to 12%.

          It is not disputed before us that in terms of the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner was allotted an alternative plot and was paid interest @ 18% on the deposited amount.  The only contention raised before me is that since the amount had already been paid to the petitioner, the same should not be recovered in view of judgment

-3-

of Supreme Court in “GDA vs. Balbir Singh (2004) 5 SCC 65” in which the Lordship observes that the amount already paid be not recovered from the consumers.  According to the counsel for the petitioner, the effect of the judgment of the State Commission would be that the petitioner has to refund the excess amount received by him which should not be done.  He further contends that since the petitioner was allotted the plot after 18 years, the District Forum had correctly granted interest @ 18% p.a.  I do not find any substance in this submission.  The State Commission has rightly reduced the rate of interest to 12% p.a.  Petitioner has been allotted the plot at old price.  A judicial notice of the fact that the price of the land has increased manifold can be taken.  Petitioner cannot take the double advantage i.e. increase in the price of plot as well as the interest at exorbitant rate.  No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out.  Dismissed.