JUDGMENT :

The first appellant is a statutory body constituted under Section 3 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 (for short ‘the said Act of 1976’). The appellant Authority has been constituted by the State Government as required by Section 3 of the said Act of 1976. Therefore, the first appellant is an agency and instrumentality of the State.

2. The respondent is the writ petitioner and the present appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The respondent acquired the land measuring 60 ft. x 40 ft. in survey No.79 situated at Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru. A preliminary notification for acquisition of the said land was issued on 8th April 2003 and a final notification was issued on 9th September 2003. Admittedly on 7th October 2016, the respondent executed a registered deed of relinquishment in favour of the first appellant in respect of the said land. The registered relinquishment deed clearly provides that it was the first appellant which had called upon the respondent to execute the deed. The Second party described therein is the first appellant and the first party is the respondent herein. The relevant part of the said deed reads thus:

“Whereas the Second Party has called upon the First Party to execute this deed in this behalf.

Now this deed is to the effect that the First Party has handed over to the Second Party Site No.16 in part of Sy.No.79 situated in Mallathahalli Village, Yeswanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore measuring East to West 60’-00” feet and North to South 40’-00” feet as per the schedule agreeing to all the terms and conditions imposed by the Second Party in this behalf.

The property mentioned in the schedule was handed over to the Second Party and Second Party hereby agreed and allotted alternate site bearing Number 1112 measuring 108.00 Sq.Mtrs. of site in Banashankari 6th Stage, 11th Block Extension with free of cost as alternate site in lieu of the schedule property relinquished by the first Party.”

(Underline supplied)

3. Another admitted fact is that prior to execution of the relinquishment deed, the site No.1112 mentioned therein, which is hereafter described as an alternate site, was agreed to be allotted by the first appellant to the respondent and a total consideration of Rs.16,27,560/-was paid by the respondent to the first appellant by two installments much earlier to the execution of the relinquishment deed. The two installments were paid on 17th November 2015 and 5th January 2016 respectively. Thus, a few months after the payment of the two installments, at the instance of the first appellant, the respondent executed the relinquishment deed and the first appellant voluntarily agreed to allot an alternate site to the respondent, free of cost in consideration of the property relinquished by the respondent in favour of the first appellant. Thus, subsequent to the offer of allotment of the alternate site and payment of price by the respondent, by executing the relinquishment deed, the respondent surrendered the said land to the first appellant by agreeing to all the terms and conditions imposed by the appellant. In lieu of the said land which was surrendered by the respondent, the appellants specifically agreed to allot the alternate site to the respondent free of cost.

4. On the same day on which the relinquishment deed was executed, a sale deed in respect of the alternate site was executed by the first appellant in favour of the respondent.

However, the first appellant did not refund the price which was paid much earlier to the deed of relinquishment and, therefore, a writ petition was filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the refund of amount of Rs.16,27,560/-with interest. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has directed the refund of the amount. The learned Single Judge directed that on the failure to refund the amount within one month, th