Judgment R.L.Anand, J. 1. The controversy in this writ petition is very short i.e. whether the petitioner is entitled to claim refund of the amount deposited by her from the Haryana Development Authority, along with interest, if so at what rate? 2. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner. Vide allotment letter dated 5.8.1991 petitioner Smt. Manju Dhawan was allotted a residential plot in Sector 23, Sonepat and the number of the plot was 1350/P, some of the instalments were paid by the petitioner. It was incumbent as per the allotment letter that HUDA shall deliver the possession to the petitioner. It is the common case of the parties that the possession of the plot in question was never delivered to the petitioner, as a result of that, the petitioner stopped paying the instalments, vide order dated 2.3.1995 (Annexure P-5) the HUDA resumed the plot and forfeited the amount of instalment" paid by the petitioner. the petitioner has challenged the action on the part of the respondent-authority and has prayed for the refund of the amount of the instalments alongwith interest. 3. The contest of the respondent-authority is that the plot was resumed vide a specific order dated 2.3.1995 and that the said order has never been challenged by the petitioner, either by way of appeal or by writ petition, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the amount. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the judgment dated 28.9.1998 passed by the Honble D.B. in C.W.P. No. 10307 of 1998 and submitted that under similar circumstances, the Honble D.B. was pleased to direct the HUDA for the refund of the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 18%. Learned counsel also submitted that HUDA has never delivered the possession to the petitioner, which was obligatory on its part under the terms of the allotment order. In these circumstances the petitioner could not deposit the remaining instalments. He further submitted that the aforesaid order dated 28.9.1998 was challenged by the HUDA before the Supreme Court and the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to uphold the operative portion of the judgment but had reduced the interest from 18% to 10% simple. 5. In these circumstances the petitioner could not deposit the remaining instalments. He further submitted that the aforesaid order dated 28.9.1998 was challenged by the HUDA before the Supreme Court and the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to uphold the operative portion of the judgment but had reduced the interest from 18% to 10% simple. 5. The learned counsel Shri G.S. Bal, appearing on behalf of the HUDA has tried to distinguish the cited judgment on the plea that with the passing of the order dated 2.3.1995, a right of appeal arose to the petitioner. The said order has never been challenged., The order dated 2.3.1995 was appealable. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the amount or interest. 6. I do not subscribe to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-authority. As per clause 7 of the allotment order (Annexure P-1) the possession of the said plot was to be delivered on the completion of the development works in the area. It was further undertaken by the respondent that in case of building, the possession, however, shall be delivered within 90 days from the date of the issuance of the allotment letter. Admittedly, the possession was never delivered to the petitioner. In these circumstances, there was a default on the part of the HUDA and if it is so, as to how it could forfeit the amount deposited by the petitioner and how it can resume the plot. Respondents cannot take the advantage of his own wrong. 7. In these circumstances, it has to be held that the money deposited by the petitioner was wrongfully with held by the respondent-authority and the petitioner is entitled to seek the direction of this Court for the refund of the amount. 8. In this view of the matter the petitioner stands allowed and directions are given to the respondent-authority to return the amount of instalments along with interest at the rate of 10% which shall be calculated from the dates of the respective deposits of the instalments. The order of the High Court shall be complied with by the respondent-authority within two-months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order.