PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner/OP against the impugned order dated 7.3.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 973 of 2005 Puneet Gupta Vs. Punjab Urban Planning and Dev. Authority by which, while allowing appeal, order passed by District Forum was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case are that OP/Petitioner invited applications for allotment of plot by way of draw. Complainant/respondent deposited Rs.27,750/- and in a draw, plot No.155 measuring 300 sq. yds. in Urban Estate, Kapurthala was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 18.1.2001. Complainant deposited Rs.1,38,750/- being 25% price of the plot allotted. It was alleged that complainant wrote many letters to the OP for handing over physical possession, but physical possession was not delivered to him. It was further alleged that OP vide letter dated 23.10.2001 asked complainant to meet Shri Harjit Singh, J.E. to take physical possession on 7.11.2001, but as the aforesaid letter was received in the evening of 7.11.2001, the complainant could not meet Harjit Singh that date and afterwards complainant visited site on next three consecutive Wednesdays, but Harjit Singh was not available at site and physical possession of the plot and demarcation could not be given to him. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint with a prayer to amend/revise the allotment letter dated 18.1.2001 and deliver physical possession with complete demarcation, etc. OP contested complaint and submitted that complainant has not made payments as per schedule and complainant did not come for taking possession within stipulated period. It was further pleaded that actual physical possession/demarcation of the plot can be given to the complainant only after submission of building plan for approval and complainant has so far not submitted plans for approval. Therefore, actual demarcation of the plot could not be given to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint to the limited extent and directed complainant to submit building plan within one month and OP was directed to give physical possession and demarcation of plot within one month from receipt of building plan from the complainant. Complainant was further directed to make payments of remaining balance price. Appeal filed by the complainant was allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order by which, while setting aside order of District Forum, petitioner was directed to deliver possession of the plot within one month on payment of balance price of plot without any interest or penalty and further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as special cost, Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and authorised representative of the respondent. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per terms and conditions of allotment letter, symbolic possession was to be delivered only after approval of building plan and learned District Forum rightly directed complainant to submit building plan and directed petitioner to give physical possession along with demarcation within one month, but learned State Commission has committed error in directing petitioner to deliver possession of the plot after receiving balance price without interest or penalty; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, authorised representative of respondent submitted that building plan can be submitted only after getting physical possession and demarcation of the allotted plot and order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, which does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner allotted plot No. 155 measuring 300 sq. yds. to respondent vide allotment letter dated 18.1.2001. Petitioner vide letter dated 23.10.2001 asked respondent to take physical possession of plot from Shri Harjit Singh, J.E. on Wednesday. As per complaint, respondent could not take physical possession of plot from Shri Harjit Singh. As per allegation in the complaint, respondent went to the site on three consecutive Wednesdays, but Harjit Singh, J.E. was not available and it appears that vide possession certificate dated 9.4.2002, possession was given to the respondent by handing over possession certificate. 6. Admittedly, possession certificate reveals number of plot and dimension 36x 75measuring 300 sq. yds. This possession certificate does not contain sketch of allotted plot by which East, West, North, South sites length and width can be ascertained as well number of adjoining plots and location can be ascertained. Without these specifications, building plan cannot be prepared by an architect and in such circumstances, the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner is devoid of force that physical possession was to be delivered only after approval of building plan. 7. It is admitted case of the parties that petitioner has informed respondent vide its letter dated 23.10.2001 to take physical possession of plot meaning thereby physical possession was to be taken only on the site and not in the office of the petitioner. Possession certificate issued by petitioner also contains para second as under: he allotee/representative was requested to take possession on spot on ____but the allottee/representative did not come on that day to take possession. The date of possession may be considered with effect from___ This para has been crossed by petitioner, as respondent did not reach on the site on that day meaning thereby necessary possession was to be given by the petitioner to respondent only on the site after measurements as per clause 2 of allotment letter and not in the office. As per clause 11 of the allotment letter, respondent was required to take possession of plot within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter. It nowhere contains that symbolic possession was to be given in the office. As per clause 12 of the allotment letter, construction was to be completed by respondent within 3 years after getting the plans of the proposed building approved from the Estate Officer. In such circumstances, learned State Commission has not committed any error in directing petitioner to deliver possession of the plot to the respondent. 8. Ld. State Commission further directed that possession is to be given on payment of the balance price of the plot in question without adding any interest or penalty. It is admitted case of the parties that respondent has paid only 25% price of the allotted plot and rest of the payment was to be made by the respondent as per clause 6 or 7 of the allotment letter. As respondent has not made payment, he is bound to make payment as per terms and conditions of allotment letter and Ld. State Commission has committed error in directing petitioner to receive balance price of the plot in question without any interest or penalty. 9. As far extension fee is concerned, extension fees will be payable only if construction is not completed within period of 3 years from the date of receiving actual physical possession. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner against respondent is partly allowed and impugned order dated 7.3.2011 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 973 of 2005 Puneet Gupta Vs. Punjab Urban Planning and Dev. Authority is partly set aside and modified. Petitioner is directed to deliver possession of plot in question to the respondent within one month from the receipt of this order subject to payment of balance price of the plot along with interest and penalty as per terms and conditions of allotment. Rest of the order passed by learned State Commission is upheld.