JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the appellant we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant has applied for allotment of land for two murabbas, in chak No. 61 SLD Murabba No. 221/63 and chak No. 63 SLD Murabba No. 5 221/52 The application about allotment of Murabba No. 221/52 was rejected on the ground that the said parcel of land has been de-notified for the purpose of allotment. So far as the land measuring 24 bighas and 15 biswas comprised in Murabba No. 221/63, the applicant being sole applicant it was allotted to him subject to condition to deposit 35% of the allotment to price within one month. On 1.4.1999 the demand notice requiring the petitioner to deposit 35% of the allotment price by 1.5.1999 was issued further stipulating that if that amount is not deposited, the amount deposited at the time of allotment as well as allotment was liable to be forfeited. It appears that the appellant did not deposit the amount in time and 15 later on wanted to save his allotment and forfeiture of the amount and he requested to issue fresh challan. At this request, the petitioner was allowed to deposit the amount of 35% of allotment price and he was also required to deposit interest on the said 35% of the allotment price apparently for the purpose of saving it from forfeiture. It was not the price charged for delayed 20 payment of the amount. 3. The writ petition was filed by the appellant challenging the rejection of application for allotment of land comprised in Murabba No. 221/52 and charge of interest. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the petitioner has taken advantage of his own application for saving the allotment 25 made in his favour. 4. The principle which is sought to be invoked by the learned counsel for the appellant in the matter of land acquisition proceedings where interest is allowed only with effect from the date of taking over the possession of the land cannot have any application to the fact of the 30 present case. 5. 4. The principle which is sought to be invoked by the learned counsel for the appellant in the matter of land acquisition proceedings where interest is allowed only with effect from the date of taking over the possession of the land cannot have any application to the fact of the 30 present case. 5. In the facts and circumstances, where the petitioner has paid the price for saving the allotment from being nullified alongwith the forfeiture of the earnest money, the additional amount demanded in the present case is primarily for extending the facility to the appellant for extending the period of depositing the amount and saving the allotment and forfeiture. 6. At any rate, it was a fit case in which extra-ordinary jurisdiction was not to be invoked. The appeal, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissedAppeal Dismissed. *******