Arguments heard. 2. The facts of the case of the complainant, Smt. Zakkireddy Fathima Sundari and others, are that the opposite party Kakatiya Urban Development Authority (KUDA) should be directed to execute registered sale deeds and deliver possession of 12 plots at Lashkar Singaram village of Hanamkonda mandal of Warangal District Developed area of plot nos. 133 to 148 and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards costs. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to deliver the possession of the plots nos. 135,136 and 139 to 148 and execute registered sale deeds thereto. It also imposed costs of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation to each of the complainants. 3. The counsel for the appellant has invited our attention towards brochure (Annexure A-1) page 33, para 7, which mentions about the payment of sale price, as under: . The applicant shall also have the option to pay the balance sale price remaining after payment of I.D. within 10 equated monthly instalments from the date of auction with interest @ 20%. b. All outstation D.D shall be payable at the S.B.I. Branch, Balasamuram Page 35 of the brochure eneral14(d) mentions, as under: he allotment is also subject to such rules and regulations as may be made under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 or directions of the Government and such other terms and conditions as may be communicated by KUDA from time to time 4. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited our attention towards the Agreement Deed of conditions to be fulfilled by the applicants/bidders, Page 38 (Annexure A-2) dated 11.3.2002, which are as under: 1. hat the bidders should pay Rs.5.00 lakhs towards in part of I.D. on 11.03.2002 and balance of I.D. i.e. Rs.6,81,286.00 should pay before one month i.e. 10.04.2002 without any interest. 2. The balance 70% of sale price as per auction rate i.e., Rs.27,79,666/- should be paid in 12 equal monthly instalments @ Rs.2,31,639/- per month without any interest 5. He further submits that out of 16 plots, 4 plots have been given to the complainant because they had complied with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Counsel for the appellant further admits that there was some delay in handing over the possession of the remaining 12 plots; although the complainants addressed letters to the opposite party / appellant dated 12.10.2006 and 13.6.2007 with a request to register these 12 plots as per the agreement and also deliver the possession thereof. However, OP / appellant refused to accept the request saying that the government of Andhra Pradesh had refused to approve the reduction in the prices made by the Authority at their own level. The counsel for the appellant invited our attention to the letter of Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 6.2.2006. The relevant portion is as follows: nvite your attention to the references cited and to inform you that the request for registration of Plot Nos. 133 to 148 in Survey No.260 of Lashkar Singaram in KUDA enclave, Warangal has been examined and same is not considered as the sale of plots by reducing the fixed price and without insisting for payment of interest will cause loss of revenue to KUDA. Further, the Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, is directed not to entertain/send such proposals in future 6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that as per brochure position, this letter could be issued, although it may be unilateral. The complainants had also filed a representation before the State Government, but the same was rejected. 7. From the careful examination of the facts on record, it becomes clear and it is an admitted case of the parties that the plots, in question, could not be sold at the initial price fixed by the Authority / OP. Thereafter, the Vice-Chairman of the Authority took a decision to reduce the price at the level of the Authority itself and the plots, in question, were then taken by the complainants at reduced price. It is difficult to fathom as to how the authority could have reduced the price without the permission of the Government and the auction was made two years, thereafter. Again, there is a considerable delay in earmarking plots. The order passed by the Principal Secretary to Government dated 31.08.2007 is unilateral. This order was passed sum moto and the complainants were not consulted. The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that saving clause in the agreement clearly mentions that ny other condition of unforeseen nature to be mutually agreed by the both parties and their successors according to the circumstances in the interest of KUDA enclave The above said incident cannot be said to be unforeseen nature and secondly the complainants were not consulted. It appears that the KUDA authority transgressed its power and we see no flaw in the order passed by the State Commission. Representation made by the complainant and its rejection does not carry any value in the eyes of law. It all boils down to a clear case of harassment of complainants. It is hereby ordered that plots be handed over to the respondents / complainants and registration be executed within one month, otherwise, they will be entitled to costs of 10,000/- per month till they receive the possession of the plots and registration is executed in their favour. We also impose special costs in the sum of Rs.40,000/- which will be deposited by the Appellant with the Consumer Welfare Fund established by the Central Government under section 12(3) read with Rule 10 (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, within three months from today, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization. Learned Registrar of this Commission at Delhi shall see compliance of the order under section 25 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and will submit the report before us immediately after the expiry of three months from today.