Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-By this writ petition the petitioner mainly pressing the relief of the refund of excess amount of Rs. 23,833/-realized from the petitioner by the respondent-Board. 2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted House No. 152/32 in HIG category in Mansarover Scheme, Jaipur in a skeleton form vide allotment letter dated 30.05.1994. The case of the petitioner is that without providing the basic amenities i.e., road, water line, fixing of electric pole, electricity line as well as providing drainage system and road light, the said house was allotted to him. Therefore, the petitioner be paid interest @ 20% on the amount deposited by him till the aforesaid amenities are provided. The petitioner has also challenged the charging of lease money, ancillary service charges, land cost etc. The petitioner has pressed only the plea of refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 23,833/-on the ground that without providing the aforesaid amenities, there was no justification for even charging the amount mentioned in the allotment letter. 3. The respondents have filed common reply and submitted therein that the basic amenities were available but the petitioner has not applied for the connection of electricity and water and further the amount of Rs. 23,833/-was on account of interest for delay in payment as the petitioner was required to deposit the amount within three months from 30.05.1994 i.e., the date of allotment but the petitioner has deposited the said amount on 18.01.1995. The interest on the delayed payment was charged as per the terms and conditions for allotment of houses. 4. The submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that there was no justification for charging Rs. 23.833/-, more particularly, in the facts and circumstances when the basic amenities were not available. .5. The submission of the Counsel for the respondents is that the basic amenities were available and the said amount has been charged on account of not depositing the amount within three months from 30.05.1994 as per condition No. 1 mentioned in the allotment letter. Therefore, in the possession letter dated 25.01.1995 (Annexure-10), it was mentioned that please ensure that the allottee has deposited a sum of Rs. 23,833/-before handing over the physical possession of the house. .6. I have gone through the record of the case and considered the rival submissions of the parties. .7. Therefore, in the possession letter dated 25.01.1995 (Annexure-10), it was mentioned that please ensure that the allottee has deposited a sum of Rs. 23,833/-before handing over the physical possession of the house. .6. I have gone through the record of the case and considered the rival submissions of the parties. .7. The petitioner was also aware of the fact that he has deposited the amount of Rs. 3,06,298/-on 18.01.1995 after the expiry of three months. Therefore, the said condition was imposed in the possession letter dated 25.01.1995 wherein a note of rate of interest is also mentioned. 8. I am of the view that the charging of the interest on the delayed payment is correct. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.