Judgment :- (This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed in the writ petition No. 23667/2005 dated 04.07.2007.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7.2007 passed in WP No.23667/2005 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner/appellant for direction to the respondent. No.1 to allot alternative site No.4099, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore and for completing the formalities in respect of said alternative site or for ejectment of 3rd respondent from Site No. 83 of Kattariguppe, Banashankari III stage, Bangalore. 2. The facts leading to the presentation of this appeal as set out by the appellant, are as under; BY Notification dated 12.1992 the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA) proposed to auction corner sites carved in the acquired land bearing Sy. Nos.17, 134/2 and 120 of Kattariguppe, Banashankari III Stage, Bangalore, on 212.1992. In respect of Site No.83 totally measuring 297.32 Sq.mts which was also proposed for auction, the appellant was the highest bidder and his bid at Rs.1930/- per Sq.mts. was accepted. The total cost of the site at that rate was Rs.5.73,828/-. As per the contents of the Notification and the relevant rules, the appellant deposited Rs.1,43,500/- being 25% of the total cost of the site on the date of auction and the balance amount was payable within 45 days from the date of confirmation. By resolution dated 27.1.1993, the BDA confirmed the auction sale of Site No.83 in favour of the appellant and the said resolution was communicated to the appellant on 29.1.1993 and she was called upon to pay Rs.4.30,328/- being the balance 75% of the amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The appellant deposited Rs. 3,80,000/- on 29.1.2003 itself and another sum of Rs.50,328/- on 16.3.1993. Thereafter the BDA executed sale agreement on 1.1994 in respect of site No.83 and also issued possession certificate on 18.6.1994. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent claiming to be in unauthorized occupation of site No.83, sought regularization of the unauthorized construction put up by him on the site in question under the provisions of the Karnataka Regularization of Unauthorised construction in Urban Areas Act, 1991 before the appropriate authority. The 3rd respondent also approached this Court in WP No. 25654/1994. In the meanwhile, the 3rd respondent claiming to be in unauthorized occupation of site No.83, sought regularization of the unauthorized construction put up by him on the site in question under the provisions of the Karnataka Regularization of Unauthorised construction in Urban Areas Act, 1991 before the appropriate authority. The 3rd respondent also approached this Court in WP No. 25654/1994. In the said writ petition, a direction was issued to the authorities to consider the application of the 3rd respondent herein and further direction was issued not demolish the construction existing thereon until the application for regularization is decided. Pursuant to the said direction, the competent authority considered the request of the 3rd respondent and by order dated 210.1996 rejected the request of the 3rd respondent for regularization of unauthorized construction. Against the said order an appeal was filed by the 3rd respondent under Section 8-A of the said Act before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority by order dated 17.3.1997 remanded the matter to the competent authority to consider the matter afresh. After remand, the competent authority by order dated 19.1997 rejected the prayer of the 3rd respondent. The appeal filed against the said order also came to be dismissed and thus, the request of the 3rd respondent for regularization of unauthorized construction came to be rejected by the competent authority. .3. In the light of the claim made by the 3rd respondent as stated above, the appellant by her letter dated 19.1995 requested the BDA to remove the unauthorized construction and to deliver vacant possession of site to her. The said letter was followed by series of requests and letters to BDA. However, the BDA did not consider the request of the appellant for removal of unauthorized construction and to deliver vacant possession of site to her. Under these circumstances, the appellant by her letter dated 24.2002 requested the BDA for grant of alternative site as her request for removal of unauthorized construction on Site No.83 and to place her in possession of the same had not been considered favourably. Pursuant to her request, the BDA decided to allot site No. 4099 measuring 2400 Sft. Situated at Banashankari II Stage to the appellant as alternative site, in lieu of Site No.83 and the same was intimated to her by letter dated 16.2003. Pursuant to her request, the BDA decided to allot site No. 4099 measuring 2400 Sft. Situated at Banashankari II Stage to the appellant as alternative site, in lieu of Site No.83 and the same was intimated to her by letter dated 16.2003. As the alternative site allotted was smaller in size than the site which the appellant had purchased in public auction, the appellant through her letter dated 16.2003 requested the BDA to clarify the difference in area and to identify the alternative site so as to complete the formalities. On physical verification of the alternative site, it was found that it was adjacent to a slum. Therefore, the appellant again made a request to BDA to allot any other site if possible similar in size of the site purchased by her in the public auction. As there was no reply in this regard, the appellant by her letter dated 19.2004 requested the authorities to suggest the formalities which she is required to comply with so as to .occupy the alternative site. However, the appellant received the endorsement dated 2.2005 from the BDA intimating her that her request for allotment of alternative site is rejected and she was called upon to submit all the documents and to take refund of the money. Being aggrieved by the endorsement dated 3.2005 issued by the BDA, the appellant filed WP No.23667/2005 seeking issue of writ of certiorari to quash the said endorsement dated 3.2005 produced at Annexure-L to the writ petition and for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the BDA to complete the formalities for allotment of alternative site No.4099 or in the alternative to direct the BDA to remove the unauthorized construction found on site No.83 and to deliver vacant possession of the said site to her. 4. Therespondents did not file any counter to the writ petition. 5. After hearing both sides, the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal disposed of the writ petition, partly allowing the same at the preliminary hearing stage itself. The request of the appellant for allotment of alternative site and to complete the formalities in respect of the alternative site and the alternative requests of the appellant for removal of unauthorized construction on Site No.83 and to deliver vacant possession of site No.83 were rejected by the learned Single Judge. The request of the appellant for allotment of alternative site and to complete the formalities in respect of the alternative site and the alternative requests of the appellant for removal of unauthorized construction on Site No.83 and to deliver vacant possession of site No.83 were rejected by the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge directed BDA to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of site No.83 within 30 days from the date of communication of the order if the appellant produces the requisite stamp duty and registration charges. The learned Single Judge further observed that upon sale deed. Being executed in favour of the appellant, it is open to her to initiate action against the 3rd respondent for recovery of possession. Having regard to the fact that the appellant was the successful bidder in the public auction held on 212.1992; that the sale agreement was executed on 1.1994; that possession certificate was issued to her on 18.6.1994; and since the records made available by the BDA showed that the appellant has acknowledged having taken possession of auctioned site on 22.1994, and since there are no materials on record to clearly indicate as to at what point of time the 3rd respondent entered upon the property and put up illegal construction, the learned Single Judge held that the prayer of the appellant for direction to BDA to remove the unauthorized construction cannot be granted. The learned Single Judge has further observed that once the appellant was put in possession, it is for her to protect her possession and if 3rd respondent has encroached upon the property and now asserting his right over the said property, it is for the appellant to take action to evict the 3rd respondent and take possession. The learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of the appellant for quashing the endorsement at Annexure-L on the ground that as the appellant was claiming a site by way of public action, the relevant rules do not provide for allotment of alternative site. .6. The learned Single Judge has rejected the prayer of the appellant for quashing the endorsement at Annexure-L on the ground that as the appellant was claiming a site by way of public action, the relevant rules do not provide for allotment of alternative site. .6. Beingaggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, the appellant has presented this appeal interalia on the grounds that the learned Single Judge failed to notice that before the completion of the auction proceeding, the unauthorized construction had already been put up and therefore actual .physical possession of the property was not delivered to the petitioner, as such, the BDA is responsible to remove the unauthorized construction and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the appellant and in view of this, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant should initiate action against 3rd respondent to recover possession, is erroneous; that the learned Single Judge has failed to see that the endorsement at Annexure-L, canceling the allotment of alternative site has been issued without notice to the appellant and without affording an opportunity of being heard, therefore, the order refusing to quash Annexure-L is erroneous, that the observation of the learned Single Judge that the appellant was not entitled for alternative site is also erroneous as the BDA itself having regard to the fact that 3rd respondent has put up unauthorized construction on Site No.83 and was staking claims on the said site, allotted alternative site and therefore the BDA had no authority to cancel the said allotment. 7. Respondents 1 and 2 are represented by their learned counsel. Inspite of service of notice of this appeal, respondent No.3 has remained absent and he is unrepresented. .8. On 27.2008, a direction was issued to the learned counsel appearing for BDA to file an affidavit of the responsible officer of BDA to explain the reason for issuance of Annexure-J dated 16.2003 intimating allotment of alternative site and also regarding withdrawal of the same later on. This direction was issued in view of the fact that the writ petition had been disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage and no explanation of any sort by way of objection statement came to be filed by the respondent-authority. Pursuant to such direction, the affidavit of one S.N.Balachandra Nanjundegowda, Deputy Secretary-II, BDA was filed on 29.7.2008. This direction was issued in view of the fact that the writ petition had been disposed of at the preliminary hearing stage and no explanation of any sort by way of objection statement came to be filed by the respondent-authority. Pursuant to such direction, the affidavit of one S.N.Balachandra Nanjundegowda, Deputy Secretary-II, BDA was filed on 29.7.2008. In the said affidavit, it is stated that on 29.8.1996 the appellant made an application dated 28.1996 seeking an alternative site stating that the 3rd respondent had encroached the site in question and put up a shed. On 24.2002, the appellant made an application to the BDA stating that further two persons have encroached the said site and they have put up garage. When BDA discussed the matter with the Commissioner in the light of the application of the appellant and since the 3rd respondent had filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner which was pending and one Smt. Yeshodamma had filed a suit wherein the Court granted an order of status-quo on 8.2002 in respect of Site No.83, it was suggested for allotment of site No. 4099 as an alternative site on 17.3.2003 and the allotment of alternative site Committee resolved to allot site No. 4099 as an alternative site. However, as the appellant by her application dated 16.2003 sought for other alternative site on the ground that Site No. 4099 is smaller than the earlier site No.83, the Executive Engineer informed the availability of Site No. 495, Banashankari III Stage, 3rd phase, 2nd block and the Deputy Secretary called for clarification form the Executive Engineer in the matter. Thereafter the file was forwarded to the Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority who by his order dated 19.6.2002 ordered to place the file before the Committee to take decision in the matter. Accordingly, when the file was placed before the Committee, the Committee after verifying the matter decided to reject the request of the appellant for allotment of a site as there is no provision for allotment of alternative site in lieu of .auctioned site and the Committee ordered refund of the amount deposited by the appellant. In the light of the decision of the Committee, the endorsement at Annexure-L came to be issued. 9. Wehave heard both sides and perused the records. 10. In the light of the decision of the Committee, the endorsement at Annexure-L came to be issued. 9. Wehave heard both sides and perused the records. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of the argument apart from reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo further contended that though possession certificate was issued in favour of the appellant, the actual physical possession of the site was not delivered to her on the date of issuance of possession certificate or on any date earlier thereto and as there was already unauthorized structure existing on the site as on date, actual physical possession could not have been delivered to the appellant. He further contended that having regard to the fact that unauthorized structure was standing on the site in question and since actual physical possession of the site was not delivered to the appellant, it was the duty and responsibility of the BDA to remove the unauthorized structure standing on the site in question and to deliver vacant possession of the site to the appellant and since the BDA has not done so, the learned Single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition and necessary directions in this behalf ought to have been issued to the BDA. He further contended that the act of BDA in allotting an alternative site to the appellant in lieu of the auctioned site is itself sufficient to indicate that possession of the auctioned site has not been delivered to the appellant on account of existence of unauthorized structure. He further contended that the learned Single Judge failed to note that on account of conduct of the BDA in allotting an alternative site, the appellant did not initiate any legal proceeding against the 3rd respondent. He further contended that unless the BDA executed a sale deed there will be no transfer of title in respect of the auctioned site in favour of the appellant and therefore the appellant could not have initiated any legal action against 3rd respondent, as such, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 11. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the BDA sought to support the order of the learned Single Judge and contended that the learned Single Judge having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly declined to grant the request of the appellant for allotment of alternative site or for ejectment of 3rd respondent from the site in question. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant was a successful bidder in respect of site No.83 situated at Banashankarai III Stage in the public auction held on 212.1992 and the bid offered by the appellant was accepted by the respondent-authority and within the stipulated period the appellant deposited the entire bid amount. It is also the undisputed fact that upon depositing the entire bid amount, the BDA executed sale agreement on 1.1994 in respect of the auction site and also issued possession certificate to the appellant on 18.6.1994. .13. As noticed earlier, learned Single Judge during the course of the order under appeal, has observed that since physical possession of the auctioned site was delivered to the appellant, BDA is not responsible for clearing the alleged unauthorized structure standing on the auctioned site. This finding was recorded by the learned Single Judge having regard to the fact that there was no clear evidence as to when exactly the unauthorized structure was put up. The learned Single Judge has held that the alleged unauthorized structure has come up only after delivery of possession of auctioned site to the appellant. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has held that BDA cannot be directed to clear the unauthorized structure and to evict the 3rd respondent. A copy of the possession certificate dated 18.6.1994 is produced at Annexure-C to the writ petition. On the reverse side of the possession certificate, the appellant has acknowledged the delivery of possession of the auctioned site on 22.1994. The site was put up for public auction by Notification dated 12.1992 and the public auction was held on 212.1992. Admittedly, the appellant participated in the public auction. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that as a prudent person, before offering her bid on 212.1992 the appellant must have visited the site for which she was offering her bid. The site was put up for public auction by Notification dated 12.1992 and the public auction was held on 212.1992. Admittedly, the appellant participated in the public auction. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that as a prudent person, before offering her bid on 212.1992 the appellant must have visited the site for which she was offering her bid. If really there was any unauthorized structure on the said site, she would not have offered her bid for the said site. Therefore, they very fact that she offered her bid in respect of the site bearing No.83 in the public auction held on 212.1992 would indicate that the alleged unauthorized structure was not existing on the site as on 212.1992. The appellant deposited last installment towards the cost of site on 16.3.1993. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that even as on 16.3.1993 there was no unauthorized structure as otherwise the appellant would not have deposited the balance amount if there was any unauthorized structure on the site and she would have certainly made a representation to the BDA in that regard. On 1.1994, the BDA has executed an agreement in favour of the appellant in respect of the auctioned site. If there was unauthorized structure as sought to be contended by the appellant, she would not have accepted the agreement from the BDA on 1.1994. After the exection of the agreement as per the acknowledgement made by the appellant on the reverse side of the possession certificate, she has received the possession of the auctioned site on 22.1994 and subsequently possession certificate was issued on 18.6.1994. In the light of the acknowledgement by the appellant with regard to accepting delivery of possession of the site, it is not open to the appellant to contend that actual physical possession was not at all delivered to her and that only formal possession certificate was issued. If really there was unauthorized structure on the auctioned site either on 22.1994 or on 18.6.1994, the appellant would not have acknowledged delivery of possession of the auctioned site or she would not have accepted the possession certificate issued by the BDA. From the aforesaid facts, it is reasonable to hold that the alleged unauthorized structure was not in existence on the auctioned site when the possession of the said site was delivered to the appellant. From the aforesaid facts, it is reasonable to hold that the alleged unauthorized structure was not in existence on the auctioned site when the possession of the said site was delivered to the appellant. By delivering possession of the site, the BDA performed all the acts, which it was required to do in respect of the auctioned site. After accepting the delivery of possession of site, it was for the appellant to protect her property. If some unauthorized structure is put up by some one, after the delivery of possession of the site to the appellant, BDA cannot be held responsible for the same nor BDA could be asked to clear the unauthorized structure. 14. No doubt the 3rd respondent filed writ petition before this court in WP No.25654/1994, seeking a direction to the State Government and also to the BDA not to demolish the structures put up by him on the site in question pending consideration of his application before the screening committee constituted under the Karnataka Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction of Urban Areas Act, 1981. As could be seen form Annexure-D copy of the order passed in the said writ petition, the said petition appears to have been filed sometime during the first week of September 1994 and it came to be disposed of on 9.1994 with a direction to the respondents therein not to demolish the construction put up by the petitioner therein. The said order also does not indicate as to when the alleged construction was put up by the petitioner therein. None of the documents produced along with the writ petition would show as to when exactly the alleged unauthorized structure was put up. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge is right in holding that if at all there is any unauthorized structure on the auctioned site, it has come up subsequent to the date of delivery of possession of the site to the appellant and therefore, the BDA cannot be directed to clear the alleged unauthorized structure. We see no infirmity in the said finding of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the request of the appellant to direct the BDA as sought in the petition. No doubt, on the representation made by the appellant, the BDA allotted an alternative site. We see no infirmity in the said finding of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the request of the appellant to direct the BDA as sought in the petition. No doubt, on the representation made by the appellant, the BDA allotted an alternative site. The fact that BDA allotted alternative site based on the representation of the appellant by itself cannot be construed as an admission by the BDA about the existence of unauthorized construction prior to the public auction or prior to the date of issuance of possession certificate nor it would indicate that vacant possession was not delivered to the appellant. 10.15. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel that unless the BDA executes the sale deed, the appellant could not have initiated any action against respondent No.3 in respect of the auctioned site. Of course title in an immovable property get transferred in favour of transferee only upon registration of the transfer deed. However, in the case on hand, the appellant was placed in possession of the site by the BDA pursuant to the acceptance of the bid offered by the appellant in the public auction and therefore, the appellant had every right to protect the possession of the site in question from being interfered with by any one. On the basis of the agreement dated 1.1994 and the possession certificate, the appellant could have initiated any action against any 3rd party who tried to interfere with her possession. In addition to the above, as per the terms of the agreement dated 1.1994 a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to the writ petition, the BDA is required to execute a regular sale deed in respect of the site only after the appellant constructs the building thereon and she was required to put up constructions within a period of two years. Therefore, she was not required to wait for execution of the sale deed to initiate action third parties to protect her possession. Therefore, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in this regard. .16. The next question required to be considered is whether the appellant was entitled for an alternative site. No doubt, the BDA initially allotted an alternative site to the appellant. Therefore, we see no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge in this regard. .16. The next question required to be considered is whether the appellant was entitled for an alternative site. No doubt, the BDA initially allotted an alternative site to the appellant. However, the appellant seems to have not accepted the allotment of that alternative site on the ground that it was smaller in size than the auctioned site and it was adjacent to a slum and sought for allotment of another alternative site. It is at that stage the BDA issued impugned endorsement to the appellant to the effect that she is not entitle for an alternative site. Admittedly the appellant was a successful bidder in respect of Site No.83 in a public auction. The said public auction was conducted as per the provisions of BDA (Disposal Of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984. There is no dispute that the site in question is corner site. As per the provisions of the aforesaid Rules, the corner sites in any layout formed by BDA are required to be disposed of in public auction. The said Rules do not provide for allotment of an alternative site in lieu of auctioned site for any reason. There is no provision in that regard in the said rules. The only provision providing for alternative site is contained in Rule 11A of BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. The said rule is applicable only when possession of site allotted as per that Rules could not be handed over to the allottee for any reason stated therein. In the instant case, the site No. 83 was not allotted to the appellant as per BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules. As held earlier, possession of auctioned site was handed over to the appellant and the same was acknowledged by her. Therefore, the appellant cannot press into service the above Rule 11A of BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the BDA had no power to allot an alternative site to the appellant in lieu of the auctioned site. In view of this, the initial allotment of alternative Site No.4099 in lieu of auctioned site itself was illegal and without authority of law. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the BDA had no power to allot an alternative site to the appellant in lieu of the auctioned site. In view of this, the initial allotment of alternative Site No.4099 in lieu of auctioned site itself was illegal and without authority of law. The records indicate that the appellant did not accept even that alternative site on certain grounds and sought for allotment of another alternative site in lieu if auctioned corner site. The BDA has rightly issued the impugned endorsement to the appellant that her request for allotment of alternative site cannot be acceded to. There is absolutely no error committed by the BDA in issuing the impugned endorsement. In view of the fact that the appellant did not even accept the alternative site No. 4099 question of BDA issuing any notice to the appellant before canceling the same did not arise. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the cancellation of allotment of alternative site without issuing any notice is bad. Therefore, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the appellant is not entitled for a direction to the BDA to allot alternative site or to complete the formalities in respect of the alternative site bearing No.4099 allotted to her in lieu of the auctioned site. We see no justification to interfere with the said finding of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we see no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and therefore we hold that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the various prayers made by the appellant. The learned Single Judge however has directed the BDA to execute the sale-deed in favour of the appellant within 30 days if the appellant produces the requisite stamp duty and registration charges. The learned Single Judge has also observed that on execution of such sale deed, it is open to the petitioner to initiate action against the 3rd respondent for recovery of .possession. If the appellant is interested in the auctioned site, she may produce requisite stamp duty and registration charges as directed by the learned Single Judge within 60 days from the date of this order and get the sale deed registered. If the appellant is interested in the auctioned site, she may produce requisite stamp duty and registration charges as directed by the learned Single Judge within 60 days from the date of this order and get the sale deed registered. In view of the fact that in the impugned endorsement, the BDA itself offered to return the money deposited by the appellant towards the price of the auctioned site, and in view of the fact that at some point of time the BDA itself by allotting an alternative site, made the appellant to believe that she is entitled for an alternative site on account of which she appears to have not initiated any action against the 3rd respondent, it is just and proper to direct the BDA to return the amount paid by the appellant, in the event of she not choosing to get the sale deed registered in her favour. We propose to grant this relief keeping in mind the fact that even if the appellant initiates any legal action against respondent No.3, after getting the sale deed, serious question as to whether such legal action initiated would be within the period of limitation or not may arise. As noticed above, BDA itself on the representation of the appellant allotted an alternative site. Therefore, there is considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the act of BDA in allotting an alternative site, the appellant did not initiate any legal action against the respondent No.3, and if the appellant initiate any action now, there is serious doubt as to whether she would be able to maintain such action. If BDA is directed to refund the amount, it will not be incurring any loss as, the BDA is at liberty to put up the said site for auction by clearing the unauthorized structures if any thereon. In view of the above, the observation of the learned Single Judge at the end of para 13 of the order that, “therefore this conduct of the BDA calling upon the petitioner to come and collect the money is wholly unjustified” is not just and proper. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the BDA should be directed to refund the amount paid by the appellant. 117. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the BDA should be directed to refund the amount paid by the appellant. 117. In the light of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following order: .(i) The appeal is allowed in part. .(ii) In modification of the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, it is ordered that if the appellant is interested in the auctioned site, she may produce requisite stamp duty and registration charges as directed by the learned Single Judge within 60 days from the date of this order and get the sale deed registered and upon such production of requisite stamp duty and registration charges, the BDA shall execute the sale deed in favour of appellant within 30 days thereafter. (iii) If the appellant chooses to obtain the sale deed as above, on execution of such sale deed, it is open to her to initiate action against third respondent for recovery of possession of auctioned site. (iv) In the event of the appellant not choosing to get the sale deed registered in her favour in respect of auctioned site by producing the requisite stamp duty and registration charges within the aforesaid time, the BDA shall refund the entire amount paid by the appellant towards the price of the auctioned site within a period of 30 days after the expiry of 60 days granted to the appellant to produce the stamp duty and registration charges. .(v) Upon such refund of the amount to the appellant, the BDA is at liberty to deal with site No.83, and to take any steps as is open to it under law to clear the unauthorized structures if any on the site. .(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.