BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application for early hearing. This application is allowed. With the consent of the parties, the arguments in the main writ petition shall be heard today itself. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was allotted plot No. 29 in Sector No. 2, in Pocket-D of the bawana Industrial Estate, Delhi pursuant to the relocation scheme. The petitioner took possession of the said plot on 06. 07. 2004 The petitioner also paid, though under protest, an additional sum of 10% over the cost of the plot on the ground that the plot allotted to the petitioner was a corner plot. ( 3 ) IN this petition, the petitioner is seeking the quashing of the letter/ notice dated 23. 03. 2004 raising the demand for extra 10%, claiming the plot in question to be a corner plot. The petitioner, having paid the extra amount of rs. 1,05,000/- on account of the plot being alleged to be a corner plot, seeks a mandamus directing the respondent to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 18% per month. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the boundaries of the said plot No. 29 are, admittedly, as under:- ( 4 ) THIS being the position, it is clear that the plot No. 29 is bounded on two sides by other industrial plots, on one side it is bounded by a road and on the fourth side it is bounded by a 400 sq. meter park. According to the petitioner unless and until a plot is bounded by an intersection of two roads on two sides, it would not amount to a corner plot. For this purpose he showed the building bye-laws of 1983 issued by the Delhi Development Authority and in particular he referred to bye-law 2. 76, which reads as under:- "2. 76 Site Corner " A site at the junctions of and fronting on two or mores intersecting streets. " ( 5 ) THUS, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, plot No. 29, admittedly not being bounded by two intersecting roads, would not be a corner plot and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to charge an extra 10% on the ground that the plot was a corner plot. " ( 5 ) THUS, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, plot No. 29, admittedly not being bounded by two intersecting roads, would not be a corner plot and, therefore, the respondents were not entitled to charge an extra 10% on the ground that the plot was a corner plot. ( 6 ) MS Salwan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the DSIDC, submitted that the petitioner was well aware that the plot No. 29 was a corner plot as construed by the DSIDC under the relocation scheme. She submitted with reference to paragraph 1 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the DSIDC that the term "corner plot" had been defined by the Committee for relocation and readjustments of plots in the layout for Bawana Industrial Area. The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 21. 12. 2201 and 22. 12. 2001 have been set out in Annexure R-1 to the said counter-affidavit. Paragraph 3 of the decisions taken in the said meeting is relevant for the purposes of this case and the same reads as under:- "any plot which is open from two sides will be treated as corner plot. The plots which have small structures like kiosks, Pole Mounted Transformer etc. abutting to one side not covering more than 50% of the side and are fully open on the other side will also be treated as corner plots. The plots adjacent to parks and parkings will be considered as corner plot. " ( 7 ) MS Salwan submitted that the definition given in the building bye-laws of the DDA would not be applicable and only the definition, as approved by the committee, would be applicable in the present case. As per the said definition, a plot which is adjacent to parks and or parking areas, would be considered as a corner plot. Admittedly, the plot No. 29 is adjacent to a park on one side and is also bounded by a 24 meter wide road on the adjacent side. Therefore, plot no. 29 would clearly fall within the definition of a corner plot as approved by the Committee for relocation / readjustment of plots on the layout plan of bawana Industrial Area. She also submitted that the petitioner very well knew about this fact at the time of allocation and allotment and accepted the same with open eyes. Therefore, plot no. 29 would clearly fall within the definition of a corner plot as approved by the Committee for relocation / readjustment of plots on the layout plan of bawana Industrial Area. She also submitted that the petitioner very well knew about this fact at the time of allocation and allotment and accepted the same with open eyes. She submitted that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that a higher amount is being charged for the present plot, she is even willing to take instructions so as to provide the petitioner with another plot, which is not a corner plot and the 10% additional amount would then be refunded to the petitioner. This offer was not accepted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 8 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the definition of a corner plot had been settled by the said Committee in respect of Industrial plots at Bawana Industrial Area in December, 2001. The allotment to the petitioner was made much later in 2004 In my view, the applicable definition of the corner plot would be the one as taken by the Committee and not as per the dda bye-laws. This being the position, the petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the additional amount of 10% in respect of a corner plot. I hold that the plot No. 29 is a corner plot and the petitioner has been appropriately charged for the same and the petitioner has also paid the said amount. No mandamus for grant of refund can be issued. This writ petition is dismissed. No costs.