JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that the action of the Haryana Urban Development Authority in demanding the interest at the rate of 18% and making a demand for Rs. 45,116/- is arbitrary and unfair. She prays that the communication dated May 30, 1996 issued by the authorities in this behalf be quashed and that the respondents be directed to deliver possession of the plot. 2. A few facts as admitted by the learned Counsel for the parties may be noticed. On November 13, 1985, the petitioner was allotted a plot bearing No. 1521 in Sector 23, Gurgaon, for a total price of Rs. 28,726/-. This plot measured 135 Sq. Mts. The petitioner paid a total sum of Rs. 26,015/- towards the price of this plot. However, despite repeated requests, the respondents did not give possession of this plot. Ultimately, vide letter dated March 1, 1994, the respondent-authority offered plot No. 1708, Sector 10-A, Gurgaon, to the petitioner. It demanded a price of Rs. 76,088/-. The petitioner accepted the offer. She requested the authority to adjust the amount already paid by her. In addition she made certain payments. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has a record of at least the following payments : Date Rs. Date Rs. August 12, 1996 7,500 March 14, 1998 2,000 September 18, 1996 6,000 December 5, 1998 5,000 October 15, 1996, 19,000, 3. The deposit of these amounts has not been controverted on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Rajesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that some more amount may have also been paid. In any event, Rs. 65,550/- have admittedly been paid by the petitioner. Despite the lapse of a long time, the possession of the plot was not still offered to her. Consequently, she filed the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Rajesh Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner has made a two fold submission. Firstly, it has been submitted that in view of the fact that the respondents had failed to hand over the possession of the plot allotted in the year 1985, they should be allowed to charge only the price which was prevalent in the year 1985 for the plot which was offered to the petitioner in the year 1994. Firstly, it has been submitted that in view of the fact that the respondents had failed to hand over the possession of the plot allotted in the year 1985, they should be allowed to charge only the price which was prevalent in the year 1985 for the plot which was offered to the petitioner in the year 1994. Secondly, the counsel has submitted that even if the first contention is not accepted, the respondents had admittedly kept a substantial amount paid by the petitioner for a long time and had failed to deliver possession. Thus, they are not entitled to charge any interest till the date the possession is actually given to the petitioner. 5. On August 14, 2000, the case was adjourned to enable the respondents to explain as to why there was such a long delay in offering the possession. They were called upon to explain as to why the petitioner be not compensated by waiver of interest. No reply has been filed. It has only been stated that the possession was offered to the petitioner vide letter dated April 3, 2000. It is, thus, clear that the respondents have kept the petitioners money since 1985. Nothing was done by them till February, 1994. On March 2, 1994, a new plot was offered to the petitioner. She had accepted the offer. She had paid the money also. Despite that the possession was not given to her till April 2000. We cannot compliment the respondents on the delay caused by them. Despite opportunity no explanation has been given. In these circumstances, we find that the petitioner can be compensated by waiver of interest on the price of the plot. 6. Mr. Ashutosh Mohunta, submits that the value of the property has risen. It may be so. A fact remains that even the cost of construction has risen. The petitioner, who needs the plot for raising a roof over her head is not benefiting by the rising value of the plot. She is only suffering the loss on account of rise in the cost of construction. In any event, the delay caused by the Haryana Urban Development Authority is too long and totally unexplained resultantly, the only way to compensate the petitioner is by waiver of interest. 7. She is only suffering the loss on account of rise in the cost of construction. In any event, the delay caused by the Haryana Urban Development Authority is too long and totally unexplained resultantly, the only way to compensate the petitioner is by waiver of interest. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall work out the total amount deposited by the petitioner. If it is found to be less than the amount of Rs. 76,088/- which was admittedly the price of plot No. 1708, Sector 10-A, Gurgaon, the petitioner shall make the remaining payment within one month of the receipt of information. In the circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to award costs to the petitioner. The costs are assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. Petition disposed of.