Costs have been deposited.

          Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum.  Petitioner applied to the respondent Trust for allotment of a plot under Plot Guarantee Scheme floated by Urban Improvement Trust, Alwar (Rajasthan) on 22.6.1983 and deposited Rs.6,000/- as security in advance.  He had given first preference to Phool Bagh, second to Malviya Nagar and third to Dayanand Nagar.  On 25.7.1986, the respondent Trust expressed its inability to allot a residential plot in Phool Bagh Scheme but was ready to allot a plot in Malviya Nagar or Vijay Nagar within 6 months.  Petitioner, vide his letter dated 15.9.1986, accepted the proposal of the respondent Trust and agreed to take a plot in Malviya Nagar Scheme.  Respondent, vide its letter dated 6.11.1986, expressed its inability to allot a plot of 300 sq.yds. and asked the petitioner to take a plot of 200 sq.yds. in any of the schemes, either in Malviya Nagar or in Vijay Nagar.  Petitioner, vide its letter dated 17.12.1986 again accepted the proposal of the respondent Trust and agreed to take a plot of 200 sq.yds.  On 29.10.2001, the respondent Trust allotted a plot measuring 272.22 sq.yds. at the rate of Rs.310 per sq.yd. in Budh Vihar Scheme, which was not under the guarantee scheme.  The price of the plot was 3 times more than the guarantee price under the guarantee scheme.  Petitioner was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.74,413.20, i.e., the final price, within 30 days from the date of allotment, which the petitioner did not accept as the petitioner had applied for ‘C’ Plan, which was an instalment plan.  Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum, vide its order dated 12.10.1995, disposed of the complaint with the observation that if the complainant did not want to take the plot in Budh Vihar, then his security deposit should be refunded along with interest at the rate of 12% within 2 months.  Petitioner, being not satisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been disposed of by the impugned order with the following directions :

“In view of the facts stated above we direct that if any plot is available for allotment to the appellant in any of its scheme, the same shall be allotted to him at the original minimum price @ Rs.120/- per sq.yd. within a period of 2 months from today.  In case the respondent Trust is not in a position to allot such plot at that rate to the appellant in any of its scheme his amount of Rs.6000/- shall be refunded to him with interest @ 18% p.a. from 1.1.1984.  The appellant shall further be entitled to compensation of Rs.3500/- for mental agony and Rs.1500/- as cost of litigation from the respondent.”

          This Commission, vide its interim order dated 5.9.2006, directed the respondent to file an affidavit as to whether any vacant plot was available under the guarantee scheme.  The respondent has filed an affidavit of Shri V.P. Sharma, HLA of the respondent, stating therein that no plot under the guarantee scheme is available at this point of time.  Counsel for the petitioner asserts that plots are available but he is unable to give the numbers of the vacant plots and prays that a direction be issued to the respondent to allot the plot, if any available, otherwise the order of the State Commission be upheld.

          In view of the statement made by the counsel for the petitioner, we direct the respondent to allot the plot, if any available under any of the guarantee schemes and if the same is not available, then the order of the State Commission shall prevail.

          Revision Petition stands disposed of accordingly.