1. The long and short of the above detailed revision petition is this. Shyam Sunder, respondent/complainant was allotted plot No. 732, Sector 46, Faridabad. Since that plot was under litigation, the same could not be delivered to the complainant. Consequently, the petitioner was allotted alternative plot bearing No. 850, Sector 45, Faridabad. Thereafter, the petitioner demanded an extra amount of Rs.66,725/- on 5.5.2000. Both the courts gave concurrent findings by allowing the complaint and quashing the above said demand notice. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this was a condition specified in the document regarding alternative plot itself that the complainant would have to pay additional charges. He opined that under the circumstances, the order passed by HUDA is correct. He explained that it was beyond the control of HUDA to give the same plot to Shri Shyam Sunder. 3. We find it extremely difficult to countenance these contentions. It stands proved that the petitioner-HUDA was unable to give the first plot to the petitioner. It is difficult to hold that the inability of the petitioner would cost the complainant a sum of Rs.66,725/-. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner to give the alternative plot. There is no inkling that the alternative plot measured more than the previous plot. The complainant is suffering from this problem for the last 22 years. He had applied for a plot on 10.5.1990. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent also brought to our notice that new plot which has now been shown to the complainant is also not acceptable to him because a high powered wire connection runs over the plot itself. However, we have no concern with that. That matter is between the parties. So far as this case is concerned, the petitioner is not supposed to pay the above said amount for the alternative plot. The plot should have been given within two years from 1990. The petitioner is also guilty for the above said delay instead of helping the complainant, he is being harassed. ‘The law hath not been dead though it has slept. It is also well said that the ‘law is the backbone which keeps man erect’. The petitioner cannot charge more amount for which the original plot was allotted. The order passed by the fora below are flawless. The revision petition is dismissed with cost assessed in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to which the respondent is entitled. | 
