1. Respondent Gauri Shanker filed a complaint before the Divisional Forum Jammu. His grievance was that in pursuance of the scheme framed for the benefit of the weaker section of the society, Jammu Development Authority allotted a plot of land being plot 86 measuring 20 x 40 at Housing Colony Digiana. Letter of allotment was issued on 13-02-1985. Petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1750/-. Jammu Development Authority did not deliver the possession as piece of land which was to be handed over to the petitioner was under an encroachment. He was allotted an alternate site. This was in Housing Colony Paloura. Measurements of this are 16.6" x 30. Petitioner was called upon to pay further amount of Rs. 6379/-. Petitioner objected to this. According to him he had already deposited the amount when initial allotment was made. On account of the remissness on the part of the Jammu Development Authority, petitioner should not be made to suffer. Divisional Forum found merit in the submission made by the petitioner. A direction was given to allot the land without calling upon him to pay additional amount. For arriving at this conclusion, following observations were made:- (i) that the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.1750/- in the year 1985, in terms of allotment. (ii) that the amount remained with the respondents for all these years. (iii) that the respondents could not give allotment because land was not available, (iv) that he was given alternate site. This was not a case of fresh allotment, (v) It was accordingly held that the petitioner is entitled to allotment of a plot without being called upon to pay extra amount. Order passed by the Divisional Forum was confirmed by the State Commission. It is this aspect of the matter which is being challenged. 2. Jammu Development Authority submits that in the last 12 years there has been an appreciable increase in the price of the plot and therefore, respondents must pay additional amount. It is submitted that petitioner is ready and willing to pay interest on the deposited amount at the rate of 09% but he cannot get the plot at the old price. 3. I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the petitioner-Jammu Development Authority cannot be sustained. Respondent No. 1 had deposited a sum of Rs.1750/- with the petitioner. This was done in the year 1985. 3. I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the petitioner-Jammu Development Authority cannot be sustained. Respondent No. 1 had deposited a sum of Rs.1750/- with the petitioner. This was done in the year 1985. Calling upon him to pay further amount at an enhanced rate when the respondents had paid the price as demanded would be totally unjustified. It is not the case where respondents had violated any terms and conditions of the allotment. There was inability of the Jammu Development Authority to hand over the plot to the respondents. For this remissness respondent is not supposed to suffer. Discretion exercised by the Divisional Forum as approved by the State Commission calls for no interference. 4. However with regard to imposition of daily fine view expressed by the Special Tri bunal cannot be sustained. This is because direction cannot be given in advance calling upon a defaulter to pay daily fine. This is because every day new lapse is committed and for every new lapse a fresh notice is required to be given. Some judicial precedents be noticed: 5. The expression continuing offence means that if an act or an omission on the part of an accused constituted an offence and if that act or omission continues from day to day then a fresh offence is committed on every day on which that act or the omission continues. State Vs. Kunjbihari AIR 1954 Patna 371. While dealing with the expression the Bombay High Court in State Vs. A. Bhiwandiwala AIR 1955 Bom. 161 observed that the expression continuing offence has acquired a well recognised meaning in criminal law. Normally an offence is committed once. But if an act committed by an accused person constitutes an offence and if that act continues from day to day then from day to day a fresh offence is committed by the accused as long as the act continues. In civil law it may be termed as a continuing or a recurring cause of action. See Emperor Vs. Chhote Lal AIR 1937 Bom. 1. See also Corporation of Cal. Vs. Sri Ishwar AIR 1954 Calcutta 47 and Subala Devi Vs. Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1953 Cal 357 where the expression continue to commit such offence was considered. Future fine cannot be imposed at the first instance, Marchia Vs. M.C. Rourkeld Air 1967 Orri 97. See Emperor Vs. Chhote Lal AIR 1937 Bom. 1. See also Corporation of Cal. Vs. Sri Ishwar AIR 1954 Calcutta 47 and Subala Devi Vs. Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1953 Cal 357 where the expression continue to commit such offence was considered. Future fine cannot be imposed at the first instance, Marchia Vs. M.C. Rourkeld Air 1967 Orri 97. When power is given to impose a certain fine at the first instance and to impose recurring fine if the accused continues to make an offence then the Magistrate cannot impose a recurring fine at the first instance MD Nadar Shah Vs. State AIR 1959 Assam 103. The direction to pay daily fine cannot be made in the initial order by which fine is imposed on a person for having created a nuisance. It is only in subsequent proceedings when such an action is taken daily fine can be imposed. Chairman Midnapore Municipality vs. Madan Tiwari 1958 Cr.LJ 169. Accordingly direction for payment of daily fine is struck down. However, petitioner would now give possession of the plot within a period of one month. In case it is not done then respondents would be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 5000/-. This petition is otherwise found to be without merit and is dismissed.