1. Heard Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the Meerut Development Authority, who has advanced his submissions at length and has emphasized that the award of interest by the State Commission to the extent of 9% is not justified and for that he relies on the Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in a similar case being Writ Petition No. 16564 of 2023 decided on 16.05.2023. The same is extracted herein under:

                          "1. Since controversy similar to the one raised in the present petition has been determined by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 20622 of 2021 and 20971 of 2022 against the respondent Development Authority, as such we do not deem it necessary to grant any opportunity to file a counter affidavit in the matter and the writ petition is being disposed of in terms of the previous adjudication already made by this Court. The order passed in Writ Petition No. 20971 of 2022 dated 12.09.2022 is reproduced hereinunder:-

                          "The instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 and 3 to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the petitioner under allotment order dated 25.11.2011, in respect of a HIG plot. It is not in dispute between the parties that possession of the plot could not be delivered to the petitioner in view of the resistance offered by the farmers. Learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3, states that in identical facts and circumstances, this Court by order dated 12.7.2022, in Writ - C No. 20622 of 2021, directed for refund of the entire amount deposited by the petitioner of that case, along with interest @ 8% per annum. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner has already been refunded the amount deposited by him under the allotment order. The grievance raised in the writ petition is only in regard to non-payment of interest. Sri J.N. Maurya, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3, states that the Development Authority will comply with the direction issued by this Court vide order dated 12.7.2022 in Writ - C No. 20622 of 2021. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to pay interest to the petitioner @ 8% per annum, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a true attested copy of the instant order."

                          2. The petitioner is still an allottee in the same scheme and, therefore, his claim for grant of interest on the refund amount is also directed to be dealt with in terms of the above order, on same terms."

2. We have also heard Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant, who submits that on the facts of the present case keeping in view the findings recorded by the State Commission and the interest awarded which is 9%, the same does not require any further reduction keeping in view the various judgments of the Apex Court. Reliance has been placed on a three judges Bench judgment in the case of Experion Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. Sushma Ashok Shiroor, (2022) 15 SCC

286.

3. We have considered the submissions raised and the crux of the dispute rests only on the rate of interest about which Mr. Mittal has urged that this would create disparity and therefore the rate of interest should be reduced to 8%.

4. We have perused the judgment of the Apex Court as well and we find that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/ complainant for award of 9% interest is in tune with the contemporary rate of interest awarded by the Apex Court and therefore abiding by the same we do not find any good reason to reduce the rate of interest to 8% as contended by Mr. Mittal. Mr. Mittal also urged that there was no justification for award of Rs.10,000/- compensation. This is a revision petition and therefore in exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) this factual argument, where discretion has been exercised by the Fora below cannot be interfered with keeping in view the narrow jurisdiction available with this Commission.

5. We record our appreciation for Mr. Mittal, who has assisted us with the best of his ability with his crisp arguments on the contested issue of interest.

6. It is informed that the decretal amount has already been deposited before this Commission as indicated in the order dated 15.06.2023 as corrected vide order dated 03.08.2023. Let the said amount deposited before this Commission be released to the respondent/ complainant within 15 days.

7. However, the calculation to be made, as per the decree of the fora below, shall be subject to the adjustment of the released amount when the final calculation is carried out and decree is executed before the fora below. The impugned order of the State Commission is confirmed subject to above.

8. The revision petition stands disposed off accordingly.