1.      The main question which falls for consideration is, whether after the acceptance of alternative plot to his satisfaction, the complainant is still entitled to interest @12% on the deposited amount for the delayed period and compensation amount of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and harassment.

2.      Adumbrated in brief, the facts of this case are these.  The complainant-petitioner, Shri Raj Kumar Gupta was allotted plot bearing No. 1147, Sector 12, Sonepat, Haryna on 6.4.1998 as per the terms and conditions of the allotment letter.  The payment of intalments was made by the complainant from time to time.  The complainant alleges that the respondent-HUDA failed to develop the area despite repeated requests and as such the possession of the said plot was not possible to be offered/delivered by the respondent.  Again, there were no proper road, no paving of the footpath, no plantation of trees, no developed park, no street light, water supply or sewerage system.  Under these circumstances, the complainant prayed that he is entitled for some other plot in Sector 7, Sonepat, Haryana from the respondent alongwith interest and compensation.  The respondent did not accede to the complainant’s request.  Consequently, the complaint before the learned District Forum was filed.  The District Forum vide its order dated 19.9.2005 gave the following directions:-

          “The respondents are directed to allot an alternative plot in lieu of plot bearing no. 1147, Sector 12, Sonepat.  It is also directed to the respondents that at the time of allotting alternative plot the choice of the complainant be also considered.  However, it is made clear that the payment of excess area, if any, will be made by the complainant to the respondents.  The respondents are further directed to pay interest compensation to the complainant at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount already lying deposited with the respondents, and this interest is directed to be paid to the complainant after the expiry of period of three years from the date of allotment i.e. 6.4.2001 till 15.4.2004 the date when the possession of the plot, which has been proved to be 12 feet in depth from the road level, was offered to the complainant.  The respondents are further directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.two thousands only for rendering deficient services for causing mental agony and harassment as well as under the head of litigation expenses.”

3.      Aggrieved by that order, HUDA preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  During the pendency of this case before the State Commission, the counsel for the HUDA made a statement to the effect that the complainant had already received the possession of plot No. 1147, Sector 12, Sonepat, Haryana from the Junior Engineer on 21.4.2005.  Photocopy of possession certificate duly signed by the complainant, Raj Kumar Gupta was also produced before the State Commission.  Under these circumstances, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the finding of the District Forum with respect to the grant of interest @12% p.a. and compensation amount of Rs.2,000/-, was not sustainable.  The State Commission also placed reliance upon the order passed by the National Commission titled as ‘Delhi Development Authority vs. Sanjay Mehta’ reported in 1999 (1) CPC 174 wherein the Delhi Development Authority allotted the plot to the respondent on the original price in the year 1993 instead of 1990 despite the hike in the original price.  The National Commission also observed that the complainant cannot claim dual benefits of interest as well as compensation.  Consequently, the State Commission reversed the order regarding granting of interest and compensation of the District Forum.

4.      We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.  Learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions.  The application moved by the appellant for review of the order was wrongly dismissed by the State Commission.  Our attention was invited towards the fact that the District Forum had rightly imposed interest because possession of the plot was offered on 15.4.2004.  There was delay of 6 years.  He contended that under these circumstances, the appellant is entitled to interest as well as compensation.

5.      We see no merit in these arguments.  It is clear that the appellant got the possession of plot No. 1147, Sector 12, Sonepat according to his choice.  This is the same plot which was originally allotted to him.  The petitioner accepted the same without demur.  He raised no objection while accepting the plot.  This was also not disputed that he had affixed signature on possession certificate of his own accord.  The petitioner wants to have the benefit of both worlds.  He has got the plot according to his choice and he now desires that interest should be granted alongwith compensation which is not permissible in law.  The delay, if any, was caused due to complainant’s own behaviour regarding his flip flopping on the receipt of the possession of the premises in dispute.  It is well known fact of our times that prices of land or plot have increased by leaps and bounds.  There is marked difference of prices prevailing in the years 1998, 2000 and 2005.  The petitioner was not required to pay the prices which were prevalent in the year 2005.  He got the plot on old rates.  The difference between the increase in prices must be much more than the interest and compensation granted by the District Forum.

The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.