PER MR. JUSTICE V.R. KINGAONKAR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.   

2.      The revision petition arises out of the concurrent findings of the fora below though the State Commission has partly modified the final order which is passed in favour of the respondent (complainant).  There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was allotted a plot admeasuring 162.00 sq.mts bearing Plot No. 149.  There was another plot of 105.85 sq.mts. adjoining to the said plot which was not allotted to anyone by the petitioners because that was of odd shape and size.  The original allotment was made in 1993.  The adjoining plot was lateron sought by the respondent in or about 2001. The respondent was served a demand letter, dated 04.11.2003 calling upon him to pay an amount of Rs. 1,42,108.90ps for the allotment of that adjoining plot of 105.85 sq.mts.  The petitioner lateron enhanced the demanded amount.  The respondent was unwilling to pay the enhanced amount and, therefore, filed a complaint. 

3.      The State Commission held that the respondent was under obligation to pay enhanced price of the additional land of 25% as per the old rate and the petitioner shall make the demand as per the rate prevailing on 04.11.2003, in respect of the price over and above 25%.  The State Commission also held that the petitioner will not be entitled to claim any interest.  The learned counsel submits that the demand could not be restricted to the juxta position of 04.11.2003 and more over, the petitioner could not be deprived of the claim of interest. 

4.      We are unable to persuade ourselves with the above argument.  One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the adjoining plot of odd  shape was being allotted and that it was not sold for about 10 years nor  was utilized by anyone including the respondent.  So, putting an additional financial burden on the respondent was not justified.  He had not used that plot of 105.85 sq.mts and could not have been made liable to pay the interest amount without any fault on his part.  We are of the opinion that the impugned directions of the State Commission are, therefore, justified and proper.  No substantial legal error is pointed out nor there  is perversity in the findings recorded by the State Commission.  Consequently, the petition is dismissed.  No costs.