Judgment , J. 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged order Annexure P.9 dated 25.5.1999 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Cooperation), Punjab, Chandigarh exercising the powers of the State Government under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). 2. The case set up by the petitioners is that in the year 1999, land measuring 619 Kanals l9 Marias was acquired by the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. (for short HOUSEFED), for the construction of a Co-operative Housing Complex, at Dabwali Road, Bhatinda. The land was acquired at the rate of Rs.45,000/- per acre. The petitioners case is that the HOUSEFED had invited applications for allotment of plots at the Housing Complex Dabawali Road, Bathinda and the petiti6ners along with other members of the Society applied for the allotment of the plots. It is the further case of the petitioners that as per the original plan the built up houses were to be allotted which were subsequently abandoned and a decision was taken that only developed plots were to be given at the rate of Rs.110/- per square yard. The price of the plots thereafter was enhanced to Rs.300/- per square yard. The petitioners were allotted different plots in the draw of lots held on 20.4.1990 and copy of one of such allotment letter has been annexed as Annexure P.2 with the present writ petition. As per the terms and conditions of the allotment 25 per cent of the cost was to be paid on allotment and balance 75 per cent was to be paid in 8 equal half yearly installments along with interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. 3. The petitioner were aggrieved by charging of interest on installments on the plea that the interest could be charged only after the physical possession of the plots was handed over to them. Representation, in this regard was also made to the Secretary, Co-operation for waiving of interest. It is the case of the petitioners that on the representation the interest was waived off for first two installments vide letter Annexure P.3 dated 19.8.1990. The respondents, according to the petitioners, had also undertaken to develop the plots within one year and the possession was to be handed over to them on 1.4.1991 i. e. before the first installment became due. The case of the petitioners is. The respondents, according to the petitioners, had also undertaken to develop the plots within one year and the possession was to be handed over to them on 1.4.1991 i. e. before the first installment became due. The case of the petitioners is. therefore, that the Secretary, Co-operation, had accepted the plea of the petitioners that no interest shall be charged without handing over the physical possession of the plots. The petitioners further pleaded that even though assurance was given that the plots would be handed over on 1.4.1991 but the same could not be done as provisions of Colonisation Act were not complied with by the HOUSEFED while drafting the original plan and therefore, the original site plan had to be changed and thereafter fresh draw of lots was held on 10.1.1992 and by the said date the committed date of handing over the possession had expired. Respondent No.4, thereafter changed the second plan and fresh draw of lots was held on 10.4.1993 at Chandigarh at the back of the petitioners and finally the plots were allotted to the petitioners on 29.9.1993. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the different developments from time to time, the matter was already settled on 26.8.1992 when interest was waived off till handing over of actual possession. It is also the case of the petitioners that the Court enhanced the compensation and in view of the enhancement of additional price, Rs.40/- per square yard was demanded from them vide letter No.235 dated 22.2.1995 (copy attached as Annexure P6. with the present writ petition ). It is the case of the petitioners that though compensation was enhanced with respect to the whole land under the development project, the enhancement of compensation is being claimed from the petitioners though it should not have been spread over to the whole project and part of it should have been paid by the HOUSEFED. This claim is based on the fact that 25 plots and market comprising shops etc. were not allotted to the members of the Society and was, infact, sold by respondent No.4 in an open auction and thereby they earned about 1.5 crores. This claim is based on the fact that 25 plots and market comprising shops etc. were not allotted to the members of the Society and was, infact, sold by respondent No.4 in an open auction and thereby they earned about 1.5 crores. It is the case of the petitioners that after demand of additional price of Rs.40/-per square yard was raised, the Managing Director of HOUSEFED issued a letter dated 20.2.1995 giving an offer of possession of plots subject to the production of "no Dues Certificate" by 15.4.1995. It is the case of the petitioners that the demand was being raised in respect of the fact that it was within knowledge of the HOUSEFED that element of interest should be waived off till the delivery of physical possession and thus, the case of the petitioners is that this offer was with the object to dislodge the claim of the petitioners with regard to the waiver of interest The petitioners further alleged that the plots was not fully developed. 4. The petitioners thereafter claimed that after issuing the letter of possession respondents stalled claiming interest on installments though the letter bearing No.235 dated 22.2.1995 was never revoked by the authority. The petitioners challenged the action of respondent No.4 regarding recovery of additional price by filing C. W. P. No.4956 of 1995. However, the said writ petition was not entertained as the petitioners could raise a dispute under Sec.55 of the Punjab State Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 (for short the Act ). 5. The petitioners thereafter raised a dispute under Sec.55 of the Act before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh and the said case was transferred to the Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab for adjudication and award Annexure P.7 was passed by the Additional Direction, Co-operative Societies, Punjab on 21.10.1996. The Additional Registrar acting as an arbitrator passed the award. The operative part of the award reads as under: In view of the above, it is decided that applicants are allowed to deposit the enhanced amount up to 15.12.1996 without any interest and thereafter interest will be charge @ 15% by Housefed. After full realisation of the cost of plot from individual members Housefed will hand over the physical possession to the applicants without insisting upon "no due Certificate" from SDO as all the relevant record regarding Housing Complex Bathinda is with the Housefed. After full realisation of the cost of plot from individual members Housefed will hand over the physical possession to the applicants without insisting upon "no due Certificate" from SDO as all the relevant record regarding Housing Complex Bathinda is with the Housefed. If there is any doubt about the actual realisation of costs, Housefed will issue accounts statement to the individual members as per their record, if so desired by the members. Therefore, P-6 is quashed. The case was heard on 15.10.1996 and judgment was reserved. The case has been decided and judgment has been pronounced on 20.10.1996. The parties may be informed accordingly. 6. The petitioners were satisfied with the award passed and thereafter did not take the matter further. However, Housefed filed an appeal before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Sec.68 of the Act against the order and vide order dated 5.4.1998 appeal was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners and other allottees to deposit with the HOUSEFED interest at the rate of 15% per annum and the HOUSEFED was also directed to hand over physical possession to the applicants on production of "no Dues Certificates". The operative part of the order reads as under: After thoughtful consideration of the arguments adduced by the counsels for the parties and perusal of the case file, the appeal is disposed of with the directions that the respondents-allottees are hereby allowed to deposit the appellant-Housefed @ 15%. Housefed is hereby directed to ensure handing over of physical possession of plots to the applicants on production of "no Dues Certificate" from the concerned S. D. O. who would be made available the relevant record pertaining to the housing complex Bathinda within seven days of the submission of applications from the respondent-allottees. 7. Dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate Authority, the HOUSEFED filed a revision petition under Sec.69 of the Act before the Financial Commissioner, Co-operation, Punjab, Chandigarh, who accepted the appeal and operative part of the order dated 25.5.1999 passed by the Revisional authority reads as under: I have carefully considered the arguments adduced by the counsel for the parties and also have perused the record on the file. Condition No.5 of the allotment letter specifically lays down that additional price due to enhancement of compensation of acquired land granted by any Court is liable to be recovered within 30 days of date of demand even after delivery of possession. Recovery of enhanced compensation is generally provided in such allotments and the same has been done by the petitioner. But both respondent Nos.1 and 2 have ignored condition No.5 of the allotment. The allottees do not have any right to ask for adjustment of enhanced price against any profit earned by the petitioner. The petitioner Federation has already paid the enhanced price. In view of the provision of recovery of enhanced price in the terms and conditions of the allotment, the appeal is accepted, the order dated 15.4.1998 passed by RCS is set aside and the petitioner Federation is allowed to recover the enhanced price with interest. The order which was reserved on 11.5.1999 has been passed today. The parties be informed. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that it was not open to the HOUSEFED to claim enhancement of price of Rs.40/- per square yard as it was only part of the acquired land which was handed over to the Society for allotment of plots and part of its was retained by itself. He referred to the calculation Annexure P.10 filed with C. M. No.1527 of 2000 and according to him the share of the Society would only come to Rs.24/- per square yard. It was next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it was not open for the respondents to claim interest before handing over physical possession of the plots. It is also contended that no compound interest could be charged and on this ground it was pleaded that the order Annexure P.9 is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the point regarding bifurcation of the price between HOUSEFED and the petitioners was not the subject-matter of the reference and it was not open to the petitioners to set up a new case for the first time. Copy of the petition filed under Sec.55 and 56 of the Act is. not on record. The respondents have also denied that any compound interest has been charged as claimed by the petitioners. Copy of the petition filed under Sec.55 and 56 of the Act is. not on record. The respondents have also denied that any compound interest has been charged as claimed by the petitioners. It was further contended that there was no question for charging any compound interest as the order passed by the Revisional authority merely allowed the respondents to claim enhancement of compensation of acquired land as per terms of the letter of allotment. 10. I have considered the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and find that in the allotment letter it was clearly stipulated that the price of the plots was subject to variation with reference to the measurement of the size of the plots as well as in case of enhancement of the compensation by the Court or otherwise. It also provided that additional price was to be paid to HOUSEFED within 30 days of the demand notice. In view of the clear stipulation in the allotment letter, it was not open to the petitioner to challenge that no enhancement can be claimed. The point that only part of enhanced compensation could be claimed from the petitioners also cannot be sustained. Firstly, for the reason that the petitioners did not raise any reference in this regard and the only dispute raised was with regard to the charging of interest without handing over the physical possession and reliance for the said purpose was placed on the order Annexure P.5 It would further be seen that the land was acquired for the construction of a Co-operative Housing Complex and the petitioners being beneficiary of that are liable to pay and therefore, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner. Consequently, I find no merit in the writ petition and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. .