In the year 1981 appellant floated a scheme known as Rohini Residential Scheme for allotment of different sizes of plots by draw of lots. Respondent/complainant applied for MIG corner plot of 90 sq. mt. In the aforementioned scheme and paid requisite earnest money of Rs.5,000/- on 25-03-1981. The appellant issued a letter of allotment allotting a corner plot of 60 sq. m. bearing no. 074 in pocket no. 05, Sector 3 in Rohini Extension on the basis of draw held on 05-10-1989. The letter also contained a demand of Rs.22,733.35/- after deducting the earnest money of Rs.5,000/- and interest thereon total amounting to Rs.7,971.64/- from the total price of the plot which was fixed at Rs.30,660/- + Rs.45/- as cost of preparation of the Lease Deed. 2. According to the respondent, the option for acceptance of 60 sq. mt. plot was not obtained and the respondent had no choice but to accept the aforesaid plot and therefore paid Rs.23,200/- against the balance demand of Rs.22,733.36 paisa towards part payment in three instalments of Rs.14,000/-, Rs.8,700/- and Rs.500/- on 05-04-1990, 11-08-1990 and 20-08-1990 respectively. Draft of the amount of Rs.500/- was sent on 20-08-1990 along with other requisite documents. The possession was taken by the respondent. Respondent filed the complaint with the grievance that he was entitled to get a plot of 90 sq. mt. in the Rohini Residential Scheme and the appellant had illegally allotted him a 60 sq. mt. plot in the Rohini extension which falls in Phase-III at a farther site to the site in Rohini Residential Scheme, Phase- I floated in the year 1981. 3. The State Commission disposed of the appeal in the following manner:-- he very fact that the complainant accepted the plot and took possession of 60 sq. mt. In May, 1994 shows that his grievance with regard to non-allotment of plot of 90 sq. mt. is not justified. Even otherwise in terms of brochure under which he applied for it was not incumbent upon OPPOSITE PARTY/DDA to allow plot of 90 sq. mt. However, in view of the locational disadvantage and allotment of 60 sq. mt. Plot in the far flung area from the area of original scheme he applied for we deem that a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- which shall include the cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the appeal challenging directions given by the State Commission to pay Rs.50,000/- for the ocational disadvantage 5. We agree with the view taken by the State Commission that the respondent having accepted the allotment and taking possession of the plot measuring 60 sq. mt. could not turn around and claim a plot measuring 90 sq. mt. We have seen the original application filed by the respondent. In the application the respondent had asked for a plot measuring either 90 sq. mt. or 60 sq. mt. Since the respondent was successful in the draw of lots of 60 sq. mt., he could be allotted a plot measuring 60 sq. mt. only. However, we cannot sustain the directions given to the appellant by the State Commission to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation to the respondent. Since the respondent was successful in the draw of lots for the plot in Rohini Extension which he accepted, he could not be given any compensation for the so called ocational disadvantage It is not a case in which the allotment made earlier was changed causing ocational disadvantageto the respondent later on. Respondent had applied for allotment of the plot in Rohini Residential Scheme, Phase I. No allotment had been made. He was successful for allotment of the plot in Rohini Extension. On being offered, respondent accepted the allotment and took possession of the plot. Question of ocational disadvantage under the circumstance, did not arise. The direction given by the State Commission to pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondent for the ocational disadvantagecannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The appeal is accepted and the direction given by the State Commission to pay Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation in the so called ocational disadvantageis set aside.