THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in not paying the compound interest @ 24 % per annum from 14.09.2007 to 30.07.2015 on Rs.51,66,800/-

paid by the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal and unjustified.

2. Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for HMDA.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is native of Hubli, Karnataka and presently settled in USA and he is an NRI; that petitioner participated in the auction conducted by respondent No.2 on 14.09.2007, for sale of open plots and the petitioner became highest bidder in respect of plot No.666/A, Miyapur Residential Complex, Miyapur, and paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.51,66,800/- vide Challan Nos.10068/ 2007-08 dated 17.09.2007 for Rs.5,00,000/-, 10255/2007-08 dated 19.09.2007 for Rs.7,91,000/- and 45/2007-08 dated 01.10.2007 for Rs.38,75,100/- towards plot cost as per the terms of auction, by obtaining loan from ICICI Bank for an amount of Rs.48,00,000/- and was paying monthly EMI of Rs.63,000/-; that petitioner is under the impression that auctioned plots are free from litigation as the same were auctioned by Government agency, however, surprisingly he came to know that respondent No.2 allotted the said plot to D. Vijaya Jyothi in the year 1990 i.e., much prior to the auction dated 14.09.2007. In fact, registered sale deed No.7878 of 2015 was also executed in favour of D. Vijaya Jyothi. Despite payment of entire auction amount, respondent No.2 did not execute registered sale deed in favour of petitioner, therefore, the petitioner made several requests for execution of sale deed in his favour, however, the respondent No.2 did not execute the sale deed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that petitioner has requested respondent No.2 to allot alternate plot and submitted representations dated 13.01.2014 and 05.06.2014; that respondent No.2 offered plot No.960/1 to the petitioner, which is left over plot out of 300 acres developed by respondent No.2 and is much inferior to that of the plot purchased by the petitioner in all aspects, therefore, petitioner informed the respondent No.2 that he is not interested in the said alternate plot and requested respondent No.2 to refund the amount paid by the petitioner i.e., Rs.51,66,800/- along with compound interest @ 24 % per annum. The respondent No.2 refunded the said amount of Rs.51,66,800/- to the petitioner vide Cheque bearing No.641830 dated 30.07.2015, however, without any interest. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner principally contended that petitioner has paid the auction amount in the month of September, 2007, whereas, respondent No.2 refunded the said amount on 30.07.2015 i.e., after eight (08) years, therefore, petitioner is entitled to compound interest as the petitioner has been put to financial loss and hardship because of the mistake on the part of respondent No.2 in auctioning non-existing plot No.666/A. He further contended that in similar circumstances, this Court awarded interest @ 12% per annum and therefore, the petition is deserved to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to compound interest @ 24% per annum. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Judgment of this Court passed in W.P.Nos.26832 and 27310 of 2024, dated

02.05.2025.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that non-existence of plot No.666/A which was purchased by the petitioner, was noticed by respondents and the same was promptly informed to the petitioner and also offered an alternate plot bearing No.960/1 with the same extent and dimensions with that of the plot purchased by the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that petitioner was not interested in taking alternate land, and as such, respondents r