Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11847-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38550 of 2024 Petitioner :- Himanshu Vallabh Shukla Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Vishwakarma,Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pawan Kumar Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioner has assailed a communication by Zonal Officer dated 12.09.2024 addressed to the petitioner in reference to his application dated 07.09.2024. In the said letter, the petitioner had raised grievance regarding handing over of only 165.69 sq. mtrs. of land to him as against 212.715 sq. mtrs. of Plot no. M-1 originally allotted. The communication mentions that a transfer deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 31.03.2009 for an area measuring 212.715 sq. mtrs. but according to the amended site plan whereunder a parcel of land, three meters in width, has been reserved as buffer zone, there has been reduction in the area. The petitioner was, consequently, delivered possession of 165.69 sq. mtrs. only on 15.11.2021. The Authority had shown its willingness to refund the difference in sale consideration amount and has also left it open to the petitioner to participate in auction of another vacant plot i.e., Plot no.E-1/3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to compensation against the Development Authority for having delivered lesser area as compared to that mentioned in the transfer deed. He further submits that the respondents have illegally imposed a condition for refund of excess amount upon execution of corrigendum. 3. The Zonal Officer, Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj has submitted written instructions. According to it, vide Clause no.3 of the allotment order, it was provided that there could be reduction/increase in area and consideration amount would be adjusted accordingly. As in the amended site plan, there is alteration in the area of the plot and the Authority could deliver possession of only 165.69 sq. mtrs., therefore, it has offered to refund the difference in sale consideration amount upon execution of a corrigendum deed. It has also agreed to pay reasonable interest on the said amount. 4. The petitioner has not filed the original allotment order. Further, in view of the case of the Development Authority that there has been reduction in area because of change in the site plan and reservation of a parcel of land for buffer zone, we find no illegality in the action of the respondent-Development Authority and particularly in view of the fact that it has agreed to refund the difference in sale consideration amount alongwith interest to the petitioner. 5. Any other claim for compensation, apart from interest, is not warranted in the fact and circumstances of the instant case. 6. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of with direction to the respondent-Development Authority to return difference in the sale consideration amount, as a result of reduction in area by 47.255 sq. mtrs. within three weeks from the date of communication of the instant order alongwith the same rate of interest, which the Authority had charged from the petitioner under the allotment order. Simultaneously, the petitioner shall execute the corrigendum deed at cost and expense of respondent no.2. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Ankit. Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad