Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), who was the opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (‘District Forum’ for short), has filed this revision petition to challenge the order dated 11th April, 2005 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (‘State Commission’ for short), vide which the State Commission in cross-appeals, filed both by the complainant and the petitioner/opposite party, modified the order of the District Forum only to the extent that there was no justification for an award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation since interest @ 12% per annum had been ordered to be paid on the deposits. In essence thereof, the appeal of petitioner/authority for setting aside the order of the District Forum was dismissed. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent/complainant was allotted a plot in Sector-2, Faridabad at the price of Rs.3,19,619/-. The entire price of the plot had been paid and a letter offering possession of the plot had been issued by the petitioner/authority on the 16th of May, 2003. However, while it was the case of the respondent/complainant before the fora below that it was incumbent upon the petitioner/authority to have offered possession only after completing the development works, the offer of possession on paper was meaningless. Since despite full payment and repeated approach the petitioner/authority did not complete the development works, she was forced to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum. The petitioner/authority resisted the complaint and in written submissions stated that possession had been offered to the complainant on the 16th of May, 2003 but did not emphatically assert that all the development/infrastructural facilities had been provided. Their contention that development work takes sufficient time and the facilities were provided to the allottees in Sector-2 was treated as admission of lack of development by both the fora below and for this deficiency in service, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner/authority to make necessary development around the plot in question and deliver the physical possession of the plot on completion of the development work. It further ordered the petitioner/authority not to charge any interest, extension fee, penalty of any type from the complainant until delivery of physical possession of the plot after development and also pay interest @ 12% per annum on the deposits made by her. Additionally, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/- was awarded. Aggrieved upon the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner/authority filed an appeal before the State Commission. The complainant too was not happy with the relief granted to her by the District Forum and filed an appeal before the State Commission for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission vide the impugned order disposed of the appeals holding that the stand of the petitioner/authority amounted to evasive denial which was nothing but an admission and while upholding the finding of the District Forum that development had not taken place around the plot in question, maintained its direction to hand over the physical possession of the plot and also pay 12% interest on the deposits but deleted the component of Rs.10,000/- as compensation as the interest awarded was adequate. It was in this background that the petitioner/authority feeling aggrieved has filed this revision petition. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner/authority submits that the offer of possession of the plot had been made on the 16th of May, 2003 but the allottee/complainant did not come-forward to take possession thereof. According to him, the basic infrastructural developments, such as roads, water supply, sewerage and drainage systems etc. had already been laid in the sector and there were no complaints from any other allottees of the area. Referring to the complaint, he submits that even the respondent/complainant has not referred to lack of any basic infracture except mentioning that there is no market and school, which cannot be termed as pre-requisite for taking delivery of possession, he contends. Further, since the respondent/complainant has taken the physical possession of the plot, now she cannot turn around and seek compensation on the allegation of delay in delivery of plot. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant on the other hand has contended that since the full price of the plot had been paid, it was expected of the petitioner/authority to have delivered the physical possession of the plot after the development of the area within a reasonable period. However, while the allotment was made during the year 1998, the possession though on paper was offered first during May, 2003 and the physical possession was given on 11th of July, 2008. During all these years, the complainant has been deprived of enjoyment of her plot for which the petitioner/authority alone is to be blamed and she deserves to be suitably compensated. The District Forum had very rightly allowed 12 % interest on her deposits and in addition it had awarded a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. He submits that the order passed by the State Commission being just and fair needs no interference. We find from the records that even though the petitioner/authority had offered possession of the plot to the respondent/complainant on 16th of May, 2003, the same was only on paper but in reality the physical possession was handed over only on 11th of July, 2008, as is clear from the possession certificate (page 40 of Vol.-I). Thus, the delay with regard to handing over possession is amply clear. However, we also find that the petitioner/authority had undertaken not to charge any interest on the amount of installments till the offer of physical possession of the plot. Besides the plea that development of an area takes quite some time cannot be glossed over. It has been held even at the level of the Hon’ble Apex Court that “It is common experience that for full development of an area it takes years. It is not possible in every case that the whole area is developed first and allotment is served on a platter.” (Municipal Corporation Chandigarh & Ors. Etc. Vs. M/s. Shantikunj Investment Pvt. Ltd. Etc., 2006 AIR 1270). In fact development of an area includes laying of roads, drainage, sewerage, water supply, street lighting and so on. Even though the petitioner/authority has not stated in specific terms as to which of the facilities were available prior to the offer of possession, from the bare reading of the complaint of the respondent/complainant it appears that he was more concerned about the provision of market and school. This cannot, therefore, be taken as a case of gross deficiency. However, the fact remains that after the offer of possession on 16th of May, 2003 the actual physical possession was handed over to the respondent/complainant on 11th of July, 2008 i.e. after a period of five years, which is not reasonable. A period of two to three years for development has been accepted in principle by various judgments, including at the level of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The petitioner/ authority, therefore, has been deficient to the extent that there has been a delay of about 3 years in handing over physical possession of the plot and for this lapse, while setting aside the order of the State Commission, we award a lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/-, which, in our view, will be just, fair and adequate, which the petitioner/authority is directed to pay within a period of two months, failing which it will attract interest @ 9% per annum till payment. The revision petition is, accordingly, disposed of in above terms, with no order as to cost.