JUDGMENT 1. - In pursuance of the application submitted by the petitioner in August 1988, he was allotted an industrial Plot No. A-165 in Industrial Area, Indraprastha, Kota measuring 13,223 sqr. mtrs. on the terms and conditions mentioned in the allotment letter dated 21-11-1988. For the reason that the respondent No. 1 allots the developed industrial plots and the development of such plots do involve development expenditure, the RIICO recovers such development expenditure from such allottees. The development expenditure is assessed at the relevant time when the development takes place. In the present case initially the development charges which were being charged by the RIICO from such allot tees was Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. which was enhanced to Rs. 25/- per sq. mts. vide Annexure-2 dated 1-11-1988. The petitioner was directed to deposit the enhanced development charges at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. within the period stipulated. Initially the petitioner had objected to such unilateral enhancement on the ground that the petitioner was liable to deposit the development charges which were prevalent at the time of allotment. However, the money was deposited under protest. Vide Annxure-4 allotment of the plot was made. 25% of the amount was to be deposited whereas the remaining 75% amount was to be deposited lateron. The petitioner did deposit the required amount as demanded i.e. 25%. 2. The petitioner defaulted in depositing the remaining amount of 75%. The petitioner was informed that he was required to deposit all dues on account of 75% development charges. Economic rent and service charges in regard to the plot in question. He was directed to deposit 75% of the development charges. The petitioner did deposit the amount of Rs. 60,000/- and asked for extension for deposit of the remaining amount. Vide Annexure-8 dated 29-3-1989 the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount with a condition that he would have to pay an interest at the rate of 19% p.a. for the defaulted period. The petitioner deposited another amount of Rs. 70,000/- on 26-9-1989. Vide Annexure-10 dated 25-11-1989, the petitioner was informed to deposit the balance of the amount within 15 days. The petitioner deposited another amount of Rs. 70,000/- and prayed for extension. The petitioner deposited another amount of Rs. 70,000/- on 26-9-1989. Vide Annexure-10 dated 25-11-1989, the petitioner was informed to deposit the balance of the amount within 15 days. The petitioner deposited another amount of Rs. 70,000/- and prayed for extension. At this stage vide letter Annexure-12 dated 21-2-1990 the petitioner was informed that the Management corporation had decided to grant extension for the purpose of depositing amount with the condition if the petitioner deposits Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr. instead of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtrs. as already fixed by the department vide Annexure-2 towards development charges. The petitioner approached even the Industrial Minister in this regard vide Annexure-14 objecting to the enhancement of the development charges. The petitioner was informed yet by another order Annexure-15 passed on 18- 7-1990 to the effect that for the reason that he had not deposited the development charges Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr. and, therefore, the earlier amounts deposited by the petitioner i.e. Rs. 70,000/- deposited on 26-9-1989, Rs. 66,500/- deposited on 10-8-1988 and a further cheque of Rs. 1,69,717/- deposited on 22-12-1989 were ordered to be returned to the petitioner with a further direction that in case the petitioner deposits the amount at the rate of enhanced development charges i.e. Rs. 25/- to Rs. 40/- only then the extension would be granted. The petitioner protested vide Annexure-16. The petitioner was informed vide letter dated 14-9-1990 (Annexure-17) while deciding his representation that the deposit of the amount made by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3,91,198/- towards the price of the plot shall be adjusted only if the petitioner is prepared to deposit the enhanced development charges @ Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. Aggrieved vide the impugned orders the petitioner has come up with the writ petition for quashing the orders dated 21-2-1990, 14-9-1990, 18-7-1990 Section far it relates to the revision of the rate of development charges from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. with a further direction to the respondents to accept the amount at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtrs. 3. The petitioner has also attached a representation Annexure-18 wherein he has mentioned that many establishments as narrated in para 5(n) of the writ petition were similarly directed to pay the development charges at the revised rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. 25/- per sq. mtrs. 3. The petitioner has also attached a representation Annexure-18 wherein he has mentioned that many establishments as narrated in para 5(n) of the writ petition were similarly directed to pay the development charges at the revised rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr., but on their representations the rates were reduced to the original position i.e. to Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. which fact is not denied in the written statement. It is admitted in the written statement that many establishments mentioned by the petitioner were initially asked to deposit Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr., but the rates were reduced to Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. for certain other reasons. In the reply filed by the respondents, the facts as stated are not denied. It is admitted that the petitioner had deposited certain amounts, however, the respondents submit that the development charges were enhanced w.e.f. 27-12- 1989 vide Annexure R/1 and for the reasons that the development charges stood revised w.e.f. 27- 12-1989, the petitioner was liable to pay the revised development charges in case he wanted any extension. In Annexure All the RIICO had taken a decision that the previous rates of development in the industrial area mentioned therein are to be revised w.e.f. 27-12-1989. The industrial are Indraprastha is mentioned at Sr. No. 12 and the revision is shown to have been made from Rs. 25/- to Rs. 40/- per sq. mtrs. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the development charges which could be charged from the petitioner were to be charged at the time when the allotment and possession was given. It is not disputed that initially the respondents had revised the development charges from Rs. 20/- to Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. The petitioner was directed to pay the amount at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. as per the allotment letter. It is also not denied that the development charges are fixed at the development expenditure which is to be incurred by the respondents in laying down the scheme, plans, road etc. etc. and after spending such an amount the development charges are included in the cost. It is nowhere stated that the development charges in the case of the petitioners industry had to be enhanced because of any further development made in the area of the petitioner. etc. and after spending such an amount the development charges are included in the cost. It is nowhere stated that the development charges in the case of the petitioners industry had to be enhanced because of any further development made in the area of the petitioner. It is also not stated that the area requires any further development. Rather, it is admitted case that at the time of allotment and giving of the possession, the development had already been completed and after completion of development, the department had come to a final conclusion that initially the development charges to Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. were required to be enhanced to Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. was charged. Had there been no default on the part of the petitioner, the development charges would have remained as Rs. 25 per sq. mtr. It is not the case of the respondents that the development charges at the enhanced rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr. have been charged from each and every establishment in the Indraprastha industrial area, even though the possession might have been given long back. Only because of the reason that there was some default on the petitioner to pay the balance of the amount and in the mean time the development charges had been revised from 27-12-1989, it cannot be said that the development charges are to be recovered retrospectively from the allottees whose allotments have been completed and possession have been given and development had accomplished. Of course, if some development is in progress and the expenditure comes higher than estimated expenditure, the development charges are to be paid by such allottees, but that is not the facts in the present case. Only because of the reason that for future developments, the rates have been enhanced w.e.f. 27-12-1989, it cannot be said or held that such rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr. shall also be applicable to the cases which had been completed. The allottee is entitled to remain in certainty. In the present case Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. Only because of the reason that for future developments, the rates have been enhanced w.e.f. 27-12-1989, it cannot be said or held that such rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr. shall also be applicable to the cases which had been completed. The allottee is entitled to remain in certainty. In the present case Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. was the development charges fixed at the time of allotment and giving of the possession and putting of any condition vide the impugned orders for extension in payment of the balance of amount shall only be granted if enhanced development charges which were admittedly not applicable at the time when the allotment was made or possession was given or was required to be given or when the development had been completed, can not be sustained in the eyes of law. There may be certain cases where the price of the land is enhanced because of some subsequent events i.e. enhancement price or compensation if is fixed at the higher rate on any reference or Section and in that situation the RIICO may be entitled to raise the prices for the reason that the initial price of the land must have been fixed at the then prevailing cost of the land, but Section far as development charges are concerned, after the accomplishment of the development, the development expenditure is known at a particular time and the expenditure once incurred remains the same which includes the maintenance also. 5. For the reasons mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the conditional extension of depositing the balance of the amount of the development charges over and above Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. was not legally maintainable and as such is to be quashed. The respondents should not have returned the amounts deposited by the petitioners towards the development charges at the rates, offer and the demand as was made vide Annexure-2. In the circumstances, the impugned orders dated 21-2-1990, 14-9-1990 and 19-7-1990 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are quashed with the direction that the respondents shall accept the development charges as per Annexure-2 i.e. Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. which development charges were applicable and prevailing in the year 1988 and the revised development charges which came into effect on 27-12-1989 are not applicable to the cases already accomplished. 6. 25/- per sq. mtr. which development charges were applicable and prevailing in the year 1988 and the revised development charges which came into effect on 27-12-1989 are not applicable to the cases already accomplished. 6. For the reasons that the respondents themselves had returned the amount to the petitioner, the respondents shall not be entitled to recover any interest on the amount Section returned except on the balance of the amount which remained to be paid at the time when the amount was returned. The petitioner shall deposit 75% of the development charges at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. within three months of this order. The petitioners shall also return back the amount which was sent back to them by the respondents. The petitioners shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 19% p.a. as was demanded by the RIICO vide Annexure-8 dated 29-3-1989 on the balance of the amount which remained unpaid out of 75% as development charges till the date of actual payment. However, whole if 75% balance amount is not deposited within three months, the petitioner shall be liable to pay interest on whole of the amount i.e. 75% of the balance amount at the rate of 19% p.a. from the date of the order Annex 8 dated March 29,1989 till the actual payment. The writ petition is allowed with the above said observations with no order as to costs. Petition allowed. *******