Cuttack Development Authority, the petitioner herein was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Complainant/respondent applied for a ‘D’ category plot in Sector-9 and deposited a sum of Rs.6,100/- on 31.1.1989.  He was allotted Plot No.1322 measuring 1500 sq.ft.  On verification, it was found that the actual measurement of the said plot was 1320 sq.ft.  Respondent requested the petitioner to allot another plot of 1500 sq.ft. or to ascertain the cost of the allotted plot taking into consideration the actual area of the plot but no action was taken on the request and the opposite parties insisted for payment of Rs.1,92,338/- towards the cost of the plot failing which the allotment was to be cancelled.  The plot was allotted to the respondent on initial deposit of Rs.6,100/- and the remaining amount was to be paid in 16 quarterly instalments of Rs.1,912/- starting from 30.6.1989 to 31.3.1993.  Respondent, being aggrieved, filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the petitioner to allot a plot of ‘D’ category measuring 1500 sq.ft. in Sector 9 under the relevant scheme and, in case, ‘D’ category plot of the required area is not available, then to finalize the cost of the plot No.1322 in Sector 9 of Bidanasi after deducting cost of 180 sq.ft.  Compensation of Rs.2 lakh for harassment, mental tension, etc. was also claimed.

          District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 26.7.2004 and directed the petitioner to either allot a ‘D’ category plot of 1500 sq.ft. to the respondent or in the alternative to advise the cost of the ‘D’ category plot No.1322 taking into consideration loss of land of 180 sq.ft. and to pay compensation of Rs.500/- with costs of Rs.200/-.

          Petitioner did not challenge the order passed by the District Forum.  As a consequence, the order of the District Forum attained finality.

          As the order of the District Forum was not complied with, the respondent filed the Execution Application.  The Execution Application was allowed by the District Forum and the petitioner was directed to handover Plot No.1322 in Sector 9 to the complainant on receipt of Rs.25,334/- within two months.  Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.

          Counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance to the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner had addressed a letter to the respondent dated 4.11.2004 requiring the respondent to pay the sum of Rs.2,45,036/- towards the cost of the plot measuring 1320 sq.ft. including interest after adjustment of Rs.6,000/- towards initial deposit.  That the Forum had erred in directing the petitioner to handover the possession of the plot on receipt of Rs.25,334/- only.  That the respondent had defaulted in not paying the instalments on the due date and, therefore, was liable to pay interest on the amounts due. 

          We do not find any substance in these submissions.  The fault, if any, lay with the petitioner as it had failed to handover the possession of a plot measuring 1500 sq.ft. as per the letter of allotment.  On the requests made by the respondent to either allot a plot measuring 1500 sq.ft. or in the alternative to charge the cost of the plot taking into consideration the actual area of the plot, the petitioner did not take any action.  The District Forum, vide its order dated 26.7.2004, directed the petitioner to either allot a plot measuring 1500 sq.ft. or to advise the respondent to pay for the actual cost of the plot taking into consideration the actual area of the plot.  Petitioner, instead of redetermining the price of the plot, created a demand of Rs.2,45,036/- towards the price of the plot measuring 1320 sq.ft.  It was incumbent on the petitioner to redetermine the price of the plot taking into cosideration the actual area given to the respondent and creating a demand requiring the respondent to pay the said amount either in lump sum or in 16 quarterly instalments, which the petitioner did not do.  Petitioner has not redetermined the price of the plot taking into consideration the actual area of the plot allotted to the respondent.  Petitioner was not justified in creating demand for the interest on an amount which was never determined by the petitioner.  Petitioner was to charge interest only after redetermining the cost of the plot and communication of the same to the respondent.  Only in default of payment, respondent could be asked to pay the interest.  Petitioner did not revise the price of the plot and, therefore, the respondent was not in a position to pay the cost of the plot.  Demand of interest was totally unjustified.  Executing Court is absolutely right in saying that the petitioner did not redetermine the price, which has now been done by the Executing Court.  Dismissed.