Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition.

          In brief the facts are that the complainant, being the allottee of a plot by the respondent housing authority, deposited the required instalments with the respondent.  According to the terms and conditions, the possession of the plot was to be delivered within 90 days from payment of 25% of the amount but the respondent failed to deliver the possession of the plot.  Complainant paid Rs.31,300/- as extension fee under protest to the respondent.  According to the petitioner, the respondent was not entitled to the same because the respondent did not give the permission to put up the building despite the fact that the complainant had asked for permission to do so.  Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum. 

          District Forum, vide its order dated 18.11.1999, allowed the complaint.  Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was disposed of on 26.6.2003 with the following observations :

“We have heard the counsel for the appellants and also have perused the impugned order.  From the file it is seen that the plot to the complainant was re-allotted on 8.2.1993 and the HUDA ought to have delivered the possession of the plot after two years of the allotment.  In view of the matter the complainant is entitled to interest after two years from the date of re-allotment till the possession is delivered.  The interest awarded to the complainant is on higher side and the same is reduced from 15% to 10%.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall not be entitled to any pecuniary benefit prior to re-allotment of the plot.  The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of accordingly.”

          Respondent had not appeared before the State Commission despite service. 

          State Commission passed the impugned order on 26.6.2003 and the present Revision Petition was filed on 6.10.2005 after a delay of 715 days.  Petitioner did not file any application for condonation of delay.  Delay is inordinate and the reasons for the delay have not been explained.  Petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay alone. 

          We have considered the case on merits as well.  In our view, the order passed by the State Commission in directing the payment of interest after two years from the date of allotment is just and proper and the same does not call for any interference.

          Dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.