Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President—Briefly, the facts are that the complainants gave bid for a plot No. A-3/133 measuring 100 sq. yds (20' x 45'), Paschim Vihar in an auction held by the Delhi Development Authority on 4.1.88. Their bid for Rs. 2,92,000/- was the highest bid. They deposited Rs. 75,000/- as earnest money at the spot. They were informed by the D.D.A. vide letter dated 18.1.88 that their bid had been accepted and the balance amount of the plot be deposited before 18th February, 88. They deposited the balance amount on 17th February, 88.

2. Inspite of their repeated requests it is alleged, they were not informed about the date of delivery of the possession. Ultimately, they were directed to take possession on 14.6.88. An officer informed them on that date at the site that the measurement of the plot differed from what had been auctioned and until plan was checked the possession could not be delivered to them.

3. In April 89 the complainants were directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 41,594.55 by the D.D.A. as excess money of the area exceeding the area auctioned, within 15 days vide letter dated 26th April, 89. The excess area was 11.91 meters. It is pleaded by the complainants that they deposited the amount on 12th August, 89, though no consent had been obtained from them for alloting excess area. They were again directed to deposit an account of Rs. 3,033/- as interest and they also deposited the same on 5.11.89. Ultimately, the possession was given to the complainants on 1.12.89. The complainants have claimed interest on the amounts deposited by them.

4. They further averred that they were not liable to pay interest of Rs. 3,033/- to the D.D.A. which was charged @ 25% per annum. They have also made a grievance that the frontage of the plot had been reduced from 20' to 17½'. It is further alleged by them that the reserve price of the plot was Rs. 2,25,000/- whereas they were required to deposit Rs. 2,92,000/-. Thus they were entitled to refund of Rs. 67,000/- on this account and an amount of Rs. 44,627.50p. on account of excess amount deposited subsequently and interest on that amount. Total amount claimed is Rs. 2,68,777.50 p.

(Note: The totals given in the complaint are not correct but the figures given by them have been retained as they are)

5. The claim has been contested by the D.D.A. which has inter alia pleaded that the area which was to be auctioned at the spot was approximate area. It was clarified to the auction purchasers at the time of auction that if there was variation of 15% in the area, the purchasers were bound to accept the same, and in case the variation was more than 25%, allottee had the option to return the plot and claim refund of the amount. It is further pleaded that they were not entitled to any interest as claimed by them.

6. The main question that arises for determination is as to whether the D.D.A. was entitled to Rs. 44,627.50 p on account of excess area given to the complainants. It is not disputed that 11.91 sq. meters was allotted to them in excess of the area which was auctioned at the site. According to condition No. 3 of the conditions of sale, the complainants could be given 15% either way of the area auctioned at the spot and for the excess area the price was to be worked out at the rate at which the bid had been given by a purchaser. So that D.D.A. could charge the price of the excess area measuring 11.9 meters from the complainants according to the terms of the sale and the complainants cannot make a grievance in this regard.

7. The second question that arises for determination is whether the D.D.A. could reduce the frontage from 20 feet to 17½ feet. We have seen the complaint carefully and find that no prayer by the complainants in mat regard has been made in the complaint. However, there is no substance in this claim of the complainants as well. As already mentioned, the complainants were bound to accept 15% variation in the land. Variation would include the variation in