P. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition, is the Chairman of the Bangalore development Authority, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the bda" ). This case is a classic example which depicts the tale of the struggle and the hardship undergone by an allottee of a small site allotted by the then Trust Board, for a period of about 24 years to get the site free from litigation. ( 2 ) THE few facts that may be relevant for the disposal of this petition, which are not in serious dispute, may be stated as hereunder: (A) In the year 1975, the then City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trust Board'), had acquired site bearing No. 2 in Survey No. 23 of Gangenahalli, Bangalore, belonging to the first respondent; and since the first respondent did not receive any compensation towards the value of the said site, the Trust Board had, by means of allotment letter dated 21st of January, 1976, allotted site bearing No. 347 measuring 30' x 50' situated at Hebbal Gangenahalli, at an allotment value of Rs. 5,137/- in favour of the first respondent. Pursuant to the allotment of the site made in her favour, the first respondent paid the sital value in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 1,392/- was paid on 2nd of February, 1976 and the second instalment of rs. 3,845/- was paid on 18th of January, 1977. It appears that since the said site allotted to the first respondent was under litigation, the BDA allotted an alternate site bearing No. 74 measuring 30' x 50' in Survey no. 34 of Madiwala, by means of allotment letter dated 6th of April, 1989, jointly in favour of respondents 1 and 2. Pursuant thereto, the first respondent had paid an additional sum of Rs. 333/- towards the interest for the belated payment of the value of the site allotted to her; and thereafter, by means of another letter of allotment dated 16th of april, 1990, the dimension of the site was limited to 30' x 40' and it was jointly allotted in favour of respondents 1 and 2 and possession certificate dated 14th of March, 1991 was issued. According to the case of respondents 1 and 2, though the possession certificate was issued, they were not actually put in possession of the said site and the said site could not have been allotted to them in view of the litigation pending in respect of the said site, in O. S. No. 1944 of 1991 and the interim order of stay granted in the said suit. Thereafter, though the first respondent had paid the value of the site allotted in her favour as far back as in the year 1977, since respondents 1 and 2 were not put in possession of any site, they had filed a complaint in Complaint No. 3058 of 1991 before the fourth respondent. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the District Forum" ). The District forum, on consideration of the respective claims of the BDA and respondents 1 and 2, by means of its order dated 18th of October, 1993, directed the BDA to pay interest at 14 per cent on the entire value paid by the first respondent from the date of payment of the last instalment till the date the BDA puts respondents 1 and 2 in possession of the allotted site i. e. , site bearing No. 74 of Survey No. 34 of Madiwala village or until such time an alternate site is allotted to her. The operative portion of the said order dated 18th of October, 1993 reads as follows: "6. Hence, the following order is passed: order the opposite party is directed to pay interest at 14% p. a. on the entire amount paid by the complainant excluding the interest amount of Rs. 333/- from the date the last instalment was paid and upto the date the complainants are going to be put in possession of the allotted site in question or until such time an alternate site is allotted to her, if such a course is available to the opposite party. The complainants are entitled to costs of Rs. 200a". (B) Appeal No. 608 of 1993 filed against the said order before the karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") having been dismissed, order dated 18th of October, 1993 passed by the District Forum had become final. The complainants are entitled to costs of Rs. 200a". (B) Appeal No. 608 of 1993 filed against the said order before the karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") having been dismissed, order dated 18th of October, 1993 passed by the District Forum had become final. Since the petitioner did not comply with the order passed by the District forum, respondents 1 and 2 sued out execution in Complaint No. 3058 of 1991. During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner paid the interest due as directed by the District Forum till the date of filing of the objections and stated that it would pay the future interest once in every six months directly to respondents 1 and 2. However, at a later stage, the petitioner filed a memo stating that it has allotted a site measuring 30' x 50', bearing No. 199 at Nagarabhavi II Stage, 12th Block, Bangalore, as an alternate site; and the first respondent was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,76,107/- being the difference in sital value. The District forum, in the course of the proceedings, having heard the BDA and respondents 1 and 2, with regard to the question as to whether the BDA was entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 1,76,107/- towards the value of the alternate site allotted to respondents 1 and 2, during the pendency of the proceedings before the District Forum, by means of its order dated 29th of September, 1998, took the view that the BDA is not entitled to collect the said amount and directed the BDA to put respondents 1 and 2 in possession of the site in question. The operative portion of the said order reads as follows: "the opposite party is directed to put the complainants in possession of site No. 199 at Nagarabhavi II Stage, 12th Block, Bangalore allotted to them as per allotment letter dated 12-6-1998 and execute the necessary conveyance deed and issue possession certificate thereof without insisting on payment of Rs. 1,76,107/ -. The opposite party is however, entitled to collect other charges like tax etc. , which the complainants are liable to pay under the rules". (C) Aggrieved by the said order, the BDA had preferred an appeal, appeal No. 108 of 1999, before the Commission. The Commission, by means of its order dated 18th of January, 2000, dismissed the appeal. The opposite party is however, entitled to collect other charges like tax etc. , which the complainants are liable to pay under the rules". (C) Aggrieved by the said order, the BDA had preferred an appeal, appeal No. 108 of 1999, before the Commission. The Commission, by means of its order dated 18th of January, 2000, dismissed the appeal. The Commission, while considering the claims of the parties on merits, took the view that the execution proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 to give effect to the order dated 18th of October, 1993 made in complaint No. 3058 of 1991, was maintainable in law and the direction given by the District Forum to put respondents 1 and 2 in possession of the site in question without insisting on them to pay additional sital value, was justified. (D) Aggrieved by the order dated 29th of September, 1999 passed by the District Forum and the order dated 18th of January, 2000 passed by the Commission, copies of which have been produced as Annexures-B and C respectively, this petition is presented under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 3 ) SMT. Vanaja, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the execution proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 was not maintainable in law and, therefore, impugned orders at annexures-B and C are liable to be quashed. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, the second respondent, who appeared in person, pleaded that respondents 1 and 2 have been put to irreparable injury and hardship on account of the default on the part of the BDA in not allotting a site free from any litigation, to the first respondent though the first respondent had paid the sital value of Rs. 5,137/- fixed in respect of the site initially allotted to the first respondent by means of the letter of allotment dated 21st of January, 1976. It is his submission that the bda, without any justification, has been delaying the allotment of site on one or the other ground and without any justification, it is pursuing the litigation. 5,137/- fixed in respect of the site initially allotted to the first respondent by means of the letter of allotment dated 21st of January, 1976. It is his submission that the bda, without any justification, has been delaying the allotment of site on one or the other ground and without any justification, it is pursuing the litigation. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner- BDA and the second respondent, I am of the view that this petition is liable to be rejected on grounds more than one; firstly, on the ground that there is no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the BDA that the district Forum had no jurisdiction to pass order at Annexure-A since it cannot execute its earlier order as it can be seen from Section 25 of the consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the power is conferred on the District Forum and the Commission to execute its order. It is useful to refer to the said section which reads as hereunder:"25. Enforcement of orders by the Forum, the State commission or the National Commission. Every order made by the District Forum, the State Commission or the National commission may be enforced by the District Forum, the State commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, in the same manner as if it were a decree or order made by a Court in a suit pending therein and it shall be unlawful for the District forum, the State Commission or the National Commission to send, in the event of its inability to execute it, such order to the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, (a) in the case of an order against a Company, the registered office of the Company is situated, or (b) in the case of an order against any other person, the place where the person concerned voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, is situated, and thereupon, the Court to which the order is so sent, shall execute the order as if it were a decree or order sent to it for execution". From the reading of the said section, it is clear that the District Forum is conferred with the power of executing its order. From the reading of the said section, it is clear that the District Forum is conferred with the power of executing its order. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately considered by the District Forum and the commission in the course of the orders made by them. I do not find any justification to differ from the finding recorded by the Commission as well as the District Forum on this question. Secondly, this petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that the BDA being an instrumentality of the State, it is not permissible for it having suffered an order on merits before the District Forum which has been affirmed by the Commission, to go back on the said order and raise an objection that the said order is incapable of being given effect to by the District Forum on the ground that the District Forum has no power to execute the said order. It is not in dispute that the BDA is an instrumentality of the state and is created for the purpose of acquiring the land from the members of the public for distribution of sites to the members of the public after forming the layout, in terms of provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. The BDA being an instrumentality of the state in all its actions, must act reasonably, fairly and in furtherance of the object for which it has been created. Under these circumstances, if, for any reason, it is to be held that the order passed by the District forum, which has reached finality, cannot be given effect to on the ground that the District Forum has no power of executing its earlier order, in my view, such an order could be enforced by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by compelling the BDA to give effect to the said order. In my view, it will not lie in the mouth of the BDA to contend that an order passed by a judicial Authority created by means of a special statute, does not provide for a mechanism to execute its order and therefore the BDA must be allowed to flout the said order. In my view, it will not lie in the mouth of the BDA to contend that an order passed by a judicial Authority created by means of a special statute, does not provide for a mechanism to execute its order and therefore the BDA must be allowed to flout the said order. If such a contention is accepted in my views, it will run counter to the Rule of Law and the system of administration of justice we have adopted. In the instant case, the facts set out above would show that for no fault of the contesting respondents, they are deprived of a site and the possession though it was initially allotted to them as far back as in the year 1976 and subsequently, re-allotment was made and pursuant to the initial allotment made, the contesting respondents had deposited the entire sale consideration in the year 1977 itself. It is not as if there was no site with the BDA and after 1976, no fresh allotment of sites was made by the BDA. In this situation, I am unable to appreciate as to why the BDA could not allot a site to the contesting respondents which was free from litigation even if it is held that there was a bona fide mistake committed by the Board in the initial allotment made. It cannot be disputed that the cost of construction of the building has considerably gone up ever since the year 1976. The money value also has considerably gone down. Even if the money is invested in fixed deposit in a nationalised Bank, it generally doubles once in five years. In that event, the sum of Rs. 5,137/- deposited in the year 1977 would grow to the tune of about Rs. 1,50,000/ -. In this situation, when the order passed by the District Forum compels the BDA to allot an alternate site or put the contesting respondents in possession free from obstruction of the site already allotted and till that is done, to pay interest at 14 per cent per annum, I do not find any justification or reasonableness in the stand of the BDA that the contesting respondents should be compelled to pay the value of the site in question allotted to the contesting respondents. An alternate site was directed to be allotted by the District Forum in terms of its order at the price already allotted, which was deposited by the contesting respondents. The BDA, by allotting the site in question at the price notified by it, cannot be permitted to flout the order passed by the District Forum by compelling the contesting respondents to pay the price notified while allotting the site in question. No doubt, the BDA has a duty to protect its interest and its revenue, but that does not mean that it should act arbitrarily, unreasonably and whimsically in the guise of protecting its interest or revenue. I am fully satisfied that the impugned orders have not resulted in any injustice to the BDA. Therefore, looked at from any angle, I, in exercise of my writ jurisdiction, do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned orders. Finally, the conduct of the petitioner-BDA also disentitles for any equitable relief at the hands of this Court. The Board and the BDA ever since the year 1977 onwards must have allotted large number of sites to the members of the public. In these circumstances, when they have received the sale consideration from the first respondent in respect of a site which was earlier allotted to her, can it be said that it was not possible for the BDA to allot a site which was free from litigation and in respect of which the first respondent would acquire a valid title and right free from any obstruction or litigation. The lack of commitment on the part of the authorities and the officers and their response to the problem of the contesting respondents, has put the contesting respondents to considerable injury and loss. Facts narrated above would show that the contesting respondents had to wait for allotment of the site all these years. The Board and the BDA as noticed by me earlier, were created for allotment of sites to the members of the public. When a site has been allotted to the first respondent in the year 1976 and when the Board/bda has found that the site allotted to the first respondent was not available for allotment, it was the prime duty of the Board/bda to allot an alternate site. When a site has been allotted to the first respondent in the year 1976 and when the Board/bda has found that the site allotted to the first respondent was not available for allotment, it was the prime duty of the Board/bda to allot an alternate site. The deficiencies and default on the part of the BDA should not be made as a premium on respondents 1 and 2 and they cannot be compelled to pay the present market value of the site. If, in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondents 1 and 2, instead of approaching the District Forum making out their grievance, had approached this Court in my considered view, the contesting respondents would have got the relief at the hands of this Court. Further, this matter also can be examined from another angle. When the contesting respondents have acquired a right for a site free from any litigation, by virtue of the sital value paid by them pursuant to the order of allotment of site made in favour of the first respondent, the question would be, whether it is permissible for the BDA to seek for higher sital value. In my considered view, since the transaction relating to the allotment of the site and payment of the sital value had reached finality, it is not permissible for the BDA to insist upon the allottee i. e. , the contesting respondents, to pay higher sital value as has been done in the instant case. Under these circumstances, if the contesting respondents instead of approaching respondents 3 and 4, were to approach this Court seeking for quashing of higher sital value demanded, in my view, the demand made for higher sital value by the BDA would have been quashed on the' ground that such demand made is highly unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory in nature and without the authority of law. These matters this Court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot overlook. The power of this Court is required to be exercised to undo the injustice done and to protect the rights of the parties. Therefore, if the matters are examined in the light of what is stated above, I am of the view that the BDA is not entitled for the relief sought for by it in this petition. The power of this Court is required to be exercised to undo the injustice done and to protect the rights of the parties. Therefore, if the matters are examined in the light of what is stated above, I am of the view that the BDA is not entitled for the relief sought for by it in this petition. ( 6 ) IN the light of the discussion made above, I make the following: order (i) This writ petition is dismissed, however, without costs. (ii) The BDA is directed to put respondents 1 and 2 in possession of the site bearing No. 199, Nagarabhavi II Stage, 12th block, Bangalore, in terms of the orders at Annexure-A, dated 18th of October, 1993, Annexure-B, dated 29th of September, 1998 and Annexure-C, dated 18th of January, 2000 passed by respondents 4 and 3 respectively, if they have not yet been put in possession, without insisting on them to pay the sital value of Rs. 1,76,107-00 (Rupees One lakh seventy-six thousand one hundred and seven) within two weeks from today. --- *** --- .