Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to charge simple interest from him at the rate of 15% per annum on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question on account of enhanced compensation paid by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a residential plot, bearing No. 1615, Sector 7, Karnal, was allotted to the petitioner on free hold basis on 22.5.1987. The total cost of the said plot was Rs. 90,597/-. Initially, the petitioner deposited 25% amount of the cost of the plot, i.e., Rs. 22.649.25 vide bank draft on 15.5.1987. Thereafter, the allotment letter dated 22.5.1987 was issued. As per para 6 of the allotment letter, the balance amount i.e. Rs. 67,947.75 was to be paid in lump sum within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six annual instalments. The first instalment was to fall due after one year of the issuance of the said letter. Each instalment was to be recoverable with interest on balance price at the rate of 10%. The petitioner deposited all the instalments in time with the aforesaid interest. Nothing was due towards him against the price of the plot. Subsequently, the respondents raised two demands for addition price of the plot on account of payment of enhanced compensation to the land owners. The first demand of Rs. 31,4448.65 was made on 19.4.1990 at the rate Rs. 87.63 per square yard and the second demand of Rs. 17,650/- was made on 10.12.1991 at the rate of Rs. 49.20 per square yard. The aforesaid additional amount was recoverable from the petitioner in the same manner as instalments of the plot were to be recovered. The grouse of the petitioner is that the respondent-HUDA is demanding the aforesaid additional price of the plot with compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum, whereas the respondents are not entitled to charge the compound interest from him and he was always ready to pay simple interest on the said amount. On 17.6.2001, the respondents issued a statement of account to the petitioner. Copy of which is Annexure P/5-A, according to which the petitioner was to pay Rs. 2,13,306/- i.e., Rs. On 17.6.2001, the respondents issued a statement of account to the petitioner. Copy of which is Annexure P/5-A, according to which the petitioner was to pay Rs. 2,13,306/- i.e., Rs. 1,76,350/- on account of additional price with interest upto 6.6.2001 and Rs. 36,956/- on account of extension fee upto 31.10.2000. The petitioner, under the threat of resumption, deposited Rs. one lac on 14.8.2001 and another Rs. one lac on 28.8.2001 under protest towards the outstanding dues. After making the payment, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 29.8.2001 (Annexure P-7) requesting that the respondents are only entitled to charge simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum and no compound interest can be charged from him in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, when he had already paid the entire sale consideration in time and the outstanding amount is only on account of additional price of the plot, being enhanced compensation paid by the respondents to the land owners. In this letter, he gave calculation that regarding first instalment, he is liable to be pay only Rs. 85,065/- (Rs. 31,441.65 as principal amount plus Rs. 53,6237- as simple interest @ 15% per annum). Regarding second instalment, he stated that he paid Rs. 10,000/- on 6.3.1992 and against this instalment, he was liable to pay only Rs. 19,9717-. By giving detailed calculations, he submitted that he had already made the payment in excess under protest, therefore, he requested that only simple interest should be charged from him and the remaining amount, which was paid by him in excess be refunded to him. When the respondent did not consider his request the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 3. That contention of the petitioner is that in the facts and circumstance of the present case the respondent cannot charge the compound interest on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question. When the respondent did not consider his request the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 3. That contention of the petitioner is that in the facts and circumstance of the present case the respondent cannot charge the compound interest on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question. They can only charge simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum, in view of the judgment of this court given in Civil Writ Petition No. 2278 of 1999, titled as M7s Bhatia Brothers v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, decided on February 14, 2000 by a Division Bench of this Court, in which it was held that the respondent cannot charge compound interest from the allottees, as there is no provision in the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred as the Act) or Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 Regulations) and the conditions of allotment stipulated in the allotment letter that the respondents can charge the compound interest. The Special Leave Petition filed by the respondents against the aforesaid judgment was also dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India on 11.9.2000. In view of the aforesaid decision the petitioner contended that the respondents should be directed to calculate simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot and by adjusting the said amount, the excess amount paid by him may be ordered to be refunded to him. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents are charging the compound interest on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question upto 31.8.2000, when the policy was framed regarding charging of simple interest of delayed payment. However, after 31.8.2000, they are charging simple interest. 5. We have considered the submissions made by the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. We are of the opinion that the respondent are not entitled to charge compound interest on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question. They can charge only simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the said amount. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Division Bench decision of this Court in M/s Bhatia Brothers case (supra). They can charge only simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the said amount. The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Division Bench decision of this Court in M/s Bhatia Brothers case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents could not point to us any provision of law under the Act and the 1978 Regulations or any condition in the allotment letter, which authorised the respondents to charge compound interest on the delayed payment. As per Clause 6 of the allotment letter, the respondents are entitled to charge 10% interest on the amount of instalment. The contention of the petitioner that he is liable to pay simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in the question is totally justified. The respondents inspite of the decision of this Court are illegally demanding the compound interest on the aforesaid delayed payment from the petitioner. We find that action of the respondents in demanding compound interest from the petitioner is totally unreasonable and arbitrary and without any authority of law. Therefore, we direct that the respondents can charge only simple interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the petitioner on the delayed payment of additional price of the plot in question. Since the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 2,10,000/- under protest with the respondents towards the additional price, the respondents are directed to calculate the additional price with 15% simple interest and adjust the same towards the above payment made by the petitioner. If there is any excess amount the same shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of three months. It is however, made clear that no penalty can be charged from the petitioner on account of delayed payment of additional price. However, if there is any other amount due against the petitioner, the same shall also be adjusted against the payment already made by him and after making adjustment, if any amount is found due towards him the same can be recovered from him. 6. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition is allowed with no order as to costs.