JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by Jaipur Development Authority ('JDA'), assailing the order dated 12.8.2009 whereby the JDA Appellate Tribunal has directed the JDA to refund the amount of auction bid deposited by respondents-2 to 4. along with interest @ 12% on the premise that despite auction purchasers having deposited total bid amount the authority (JDA) was unable to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the property in question. 2. The NIT was issued by petitioner JDA on 27.1.2006 for auction of certain farm houses in which respondents-2 to 4 had also participated and being highest bidder, their bid was accepted and total bid amount indisputably was deposited by them on 8.2.2006, details whereof have been referred to by respondents in para No. 1 of their Reference application filed before the Tribunal. 3. After the total bid amount in terms of the NIT was deposited by respondents, it was obviously expected from the authority, in whom the people still have a faith that the vacant and peaceful possession of the property in auction will be handed over to its purchasers. But it appears that one Vasudev Singhi filed revenue suit and in appeal preferred before revenue appellate authority, interim stay order was granted on 4.2.2006 and it was held that the land in dispute belonged to Bhonri Devi - on account of which, respondents (auction purchasers) were dispossessed from the land in dispute - possession of which at one time was handed over by the JDA. 4. Since respondents were not holding possession of the land in dispute having been purchased in an open auction held by the JDA and the money having been deposited with the JDA, was also not refunded, at this stage, an appeal was preferred by respondents (auction purchasers) before JDA appellate Tribunal and after adjudication the Tribunal finally directed the JDA (petitioner) vide order dated 12.8.2009 to refund the total bid amount of Rs. 7475845/- deposited by auction purchaser along with interest @ 12% from the date it was deposited till actual payment of refund, against which the present petition has been filed by the JDA (petitioner). 5. 7475845/- deposited by auction purchaser along with interest @ 12% from the date it was deposited till actual payment of refund, against which the present petition has been filed by the JDA (petitioner). 5. Counsel for petitioner submits that it has not been disputed by the parties that the authority was unable to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the land in dispute having been put to auction, the bid amount whereof, has to be refunded but Counsel submits that rate of interest having been awarded by the Tribunal is unreasonable and to that extent, it requires interference. In support, Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in M/s Udasee Stampings (P) Ltd. v. Central Bank of India, (CWP-3167/2007 decided on 29.5.2009) . 6. On the other hand, Counsel for respondents while supporting the impugned order of the Tribunal submits that in terms of the powers of Raj. Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 ('Rules, 1974') if the auction purchaser/successful bidder fails to make payment and commits default, he has to pay interest Cam: 15% p.a. and if default has been committed by the authority, at least the same rate of interest has to be paid by the authority (JDA) but in the instant case, the Tribunal has only awarded interest @ 12% per annum which cannot be said to be unreasonable and what has been observed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference. 7. This Court has considered rival contentions of counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined the material on record. It remains undisputed that respondents-2 to 4 were highest bidder and on the acceptance of their bid, the amount demanded by the JDA was deposited on 8.2.2006 - reference whereof has been made in para 1 of their application before the Tribunal; and on revenue suit being filed by one Shri Vasu Dev Sindhi and because of an interim stay order passed by revenue appellate authority, vacant and peaceful possession of the auctioned plot could not have been handed over to respondents-2 to 4; in such circumstances, the JDA was tinder legal obligation to refund the bid amount along with interest. 8. 8. As regards rate of interest, under Rules, 1974, when auction purchaser or successful bidder commits default, he is made liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum and in the instant case, if the authority (JDA) committed default in handing over the auctioned plot, the same rate of interest in the ordinary course is liable to be paid by the authority, as well. However, in the instant case, looking to the fact that after 5-6 months, a dispute arose and peaceful possession could not have been handed over to the auction purchase even after the bid amount being deposited within time schedule under the NIT. 'Taking an over all conspectus of the material on record, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% per annum which cannot in any manner be said to be unreasonable. 9. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the JDA (petitioner) is directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal impugned within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs.Petition dismissed. *******