Cross-Revision petitions filed by petitioner GDA/opposite party – R.P. No.1544/2001 and respondent/complainant – R.P. No. 2516/2002, were disposed of by a common order dated 5.1.2011.  R.P. No.2516/2002 filed by the respondent/complainant was allowed.  Order of the State Commission was set aside and the GDA was directed to allot a plot measuring 112 sq.mtrs. to the complainant/respondent which was reserved for him at the then prevailing price.  If that plot was not available for one reason or other, GDA was directed to allot alternate plot of the same measurement and at the same price in some other scheme to the respondent within a period of 3 months from the date of the order.  Direction given by this Commission in R.P.2516/2002 reads as under :

“In the final analysis, the original complaint filed by the Respondent-Complainant stands allowed and the Petitioner – GDA is directed to allot the plot measuring 112 sq. mtrs. to the Respondent which was reserved for him at the then prevailing price. If that plot is not available for one reason or the other, the Petitioner should allot alternate plot of the same measurement and at the same price in some other Scheme, to the Respondent, within a period of three months from today.”

        R.P. No.1544/2001 filed by GDA was directed against the order dated 25.4.2001 passed by the State Commission in Appeal No.1588/2000 whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum directing the GDA to pay interest at the rate of 18% on each of the instalments from the date of deposit of the instalment till payment to the respondent/complainant.  Since GDA had been directed to allot alternate plot to the respondent/complainant in R.P. No.2516/2002, direction to pay interest at the rate of 18% from the date of deposit of the instalments till payment to the respondent/complainant was set aside.

        Against the order passed by this Commission, GDA filed SLP No.12333-12334/2011 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed.  After the dismissal of the SLP, GDA allotted Plot No.F-389 in Indraprastha Scheme to the respondent/complainant, as no plot was available in Govindpuram Scheme.  Respondent is not satisfied with the allotment made to him.  According to him, price of the plot in Indraprastha Scheme is much less than the price of the plot of the same measurement in Govindpuram Scheme.

        We tried to settle the dispute between the parties to avoid further litigation between them.  Unfortunately, we have not succeeded.  Respondent/complainant is put at liberty to get the order executed in accordance with law.

        Misc.Applications stand disposed of accordingly.