JUDGMENT N.K. Jain, C.J.--All these appeals filed by the BDA, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge ordering refund of the penalty amount deposited by the respective writ Petitioners-the Respondents in appeal, involve common questions of law and as agreed, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the BDA. Sri Abdul Khader submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge ordering refund of the amount is contrary to the observations made by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 898 of 2001 dated 11.6.2001 and in view of the provisions of Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (for short the Rules) as it existed from 6.2.1998 till it was repealed by notification dated 23.10.2000. The BDA had authority to levy penalty for extension of time for construction of building and the said authority has been upheld in W.A. No. 898 of 2001. Therefore the Respondents who have paid the penalty an got the sale deed executed by paying the penalty during the above said period between 6.2.1998 to 23.10.2000 are not entitled for refund of the amount and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions are liable to be set aside. 3. Sri K. Krishna, appearing for the BDA in some of the appeals reiterated the arguments that BDA had authority to impose penalty and writ Petitioners have obtained sale deed by paying the penalty and since they have already taken benefit of execution of the sale deed by paying the penalty, they are not entitled to refund as BDA had authority to levy the penalty in view of the provisions of Rule 13(6) as it existed from 6.2.1998 to 23.10.2000. 4. A.S. Mahesh, the learned Counsel appearing for the writ Petitioners-Respondents in W.A. No. 6516 of 2002 submitted that the amount has been deposited after the repeal of provisions of Rule 13(6) and therefore the imposition of penalty is without jurisdiction and therefore the order directing refund is justified. 5. O. Shivaram Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-writ Petitioner in W.A. No. 31 of 2002 submitted that he has paid the penalty on 13.9.1997 prior to the amendment of Rule 13(6) and therefore the BDA had no authority to impose penalty and the order of refund does not call for interference. 6. 5. O. Shivaram Bhat, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-writ Petitioner in W.A. No. 31 of 2002 submitted that he has paid the penalty on 13.9.1997 prior to the amendment of Rule 13(6) and therefore the BDA had no authority to impose penalty and the order of refund does not call for interference. 6. V. Padmanabha Kedilaya, learned Counsel for the Respondent-writ Petitioner in W.A. No. 3843 of 2003 reiterating the submission of the learned Counsel O. Shivaram Bhat, submitted that the Respondent has paid the penalty on 2.5.2000 prior to the amendment of Rule 13(6) and therefore the BDA had no authority to impose penalty and the order of refund does not call for interference. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-writ Petitioner in other writ appeals submitted that this Court in W.A. No. 898 of 2001 dated 11.6.2001 has held that the BDA had no authority to collect penalty and confirmed the order passed in W.P. No. 23710 of 2000 dated 13.11.2000 and the same has been confirmed by the Supreme Court and in the contempt petition filed by the writ Petitioner in the said W.P. No. 23710 of 2000 in CCC No. 1875 of 2001 it was reported that the order passed by this Court confirmed by the Supreme Court has been complied with by the issuing cheque for refund of the penalty amount and they have paid the penalty under protest and the BDA had no authority to impose penalty and therefore the order of refund does not call for interference in these appeals. 8. Heard and considered the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, and perused the relevant provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules. Under Rule 17 of the City Improvement Trust Rules which was in force at the relevant time the allottee was required to put up construction within two years from the date of execution of the agreement or such extended period and in case of non-construction within the said period or the extended time, the Board was entitled to cancel the lease and evict the allottee from the site after forfeiting 12.5% of the value of site paid by the allottee to the Board. 9. 9. Rule 13 of the BDA Rules was amended by Amendment Rules, 1997 and Rule 13(6) was substituted and published in gazette on 14.2.1998 vide notification dated 6.2.1998 which is as follows: 2) for sub-rules, the following shall be substituted namely: 6) The allottee shall construct a building within a period of three years from the date of execution of the agreement or such extended period as the Authority may in any specified case by order in writing permit: Provided that permission for such extension of time for construction of a building shall be subject to payment of penalty at such rates as may be notified by the State Government from time to time. 10. The said amendment came into effect from 14.2.1998. Thereafter it was amended on 23.10.2000. The said sub-rule was repealed and fresh sub-rule has been substituted and therefore, it is clear that for the period from 6.2.1998 to 23.10.2000 BDA had authority to levy penalty for extension of time for construction of the building on such rates as may be notified by the State Government from time to time. On considering the above provisions and the fact situation, it is clear that the B.D.A. had authority to impose penalty. Rule 13(6) came into force on 6.2.1998 by virtue of amendment penalty can be imposed. 11. It is not in dispute that the writ Petitioners in these cases have paid the penalty and got the sale deed executed but they had not put-up construction within two years from the date of allotment as required under the Rule. Under the circumstances, the person who made payment during the period 6.2.1998 to 23.10.2000 have taken advantage of the extension of time and the execution of sale deed. Therefore, it cannot be said that during this period, the BDA had no authority to impose penalty. It is clear that penalty can be imposed but not before 6.2.1998 and so also not after 23.10.2000 when the rule was repealed. However, each case has to be seen on its own facts. In the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No. 898 of 2000 dated 11.6.2001, the penalty had been recovered prior to the coming into force of the amendment of Rule 13 by the Amendment Rules, 1997, and therefore, the said case is not helpful in the facts of the given case. In the Division Bench decision of this Court in W.A. No. 898 of 2000 dated 11.6.2001, the penalty had been recovered prior to the coming into force of the amendment of Rule 13 by the Amendment Rules, 1997, and therefore, the said case is not helpful in the facts of the given case. However, in that case it was observed that admittedly the power to levy penalty came into force with effect from 24.2.1998 and the Appellant had recovered a sum of Rs.46,995/- as penalty from the Respondent for the period earlier to 24.2.1998 (the date 24.2.1998 seems to be wrongly typed instead of 14.2.1998) and the collection was illegal and therefore the order for refund was held to be justified. As already stated, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. The observations made by the Division Bench of this Court would make it clear that the BDA had authority to impose penalty from the date on which Amendment of Rule 13 came into force and on 6.2.1998 and prior to that date the BDA had no authority to impose penalty. Therefore the said decision which has been confirmed by the Supreme Court as per the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, is helpful only to the writ Petitioners-Respondents in W.A. No. 31 of 2002 wherein the penalty has been collected on 13.9.1997. As on the said date 13.9.1997, the BDA had no authority to impose penalty and therefore the order of refund is justified. 12. In W.A. No. 2505 of 2002 it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the penalty amount was deposited on 18.1.2001 i.e., after the repeal of the provision enabling the BDA to impose penalty for extension of time for construction and therefore the imposition of penalty is not justified and refund of the same is also justified. However, it is open to the B.D.A. to recover the amount as per amended Rule in this case. However, it is open to the B.D.A. to recover the amount as per amended Rule in this case. So far as the writ Petitioners-'Respondents' in other appeal are concerned, it is clear that the Respondent-writ Petitioner in W.A. No. 7543 of 2001 paid the penalty amount on 17.9.1998, the Respondent-writ Petitioner in W.A. No. 7562 of 2001 paid the penalty on 29.12.1998, the Respondent-writ Petitioner in W.A. No. 1820 of 2002 paid the penalty amount on 21.7.2000 and Respondent-writ Petitioner in W.A. No. 2505 of 2002 paid the penalty amount and got the sale deed executed on 11.3.1999 and the Respondents-writ Petitioners in W.A. No. 3553 of 2002 and 219 of 2003 penalty was paid on 22.2.2000 i.e. within the period from 6.2.1998 to 23.10.2000 when the BDA had authority to collect the penalty for extension of time for construction and since the levy of penalty is in accordance with Rules and the writ Petitioners have paid the penalty and got the time extended for construction of the house and got the sale deed executed, they are not entitled to refund of the amount as levy of penalty is in accordance with the Rules as in existence for the period from 4.2.1998 to 23.10.2000. To that extent the order passed in the said writ petitions are liable to be set aside and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed as the writ Petitioners are not entitled to refund as sought for in the writ petitions. 13. In view of the above factual position of each case and as discussed above, we pass the following order: W.A. Nos. 6516 of 2002 and 31 of 2002 are dismissed. W.A. Nos. 7543 of 2001, 7562 of 2001, 1820 of 2002, 2505 of 2002, 3553 of 2002, 219 of 2003 and 3843 of 2003 are allowed. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge ordering refund of the penalty amount is set aside and W.P. Nos. 17887 of 2000, 17886 of 2000, 33866 of 2001, 38808 of 2000, 21341 of 2000, 3197 of 2001 and 1844 of 2003 are dismissed without any order as to costs.