JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Bihar State Housing Board. 2. The original petitioner, Arun Kumar Singh, had filed the writ petition for a direction upon the respondent Housing Board to execute the title deed of Plot No. 1L/49, situated in Digha, Patna in favour of the petitioner and also give possession of the aforesaid plot of land to the petitioner and alternatively for a direction to the respondents to refund Rs. 650/- deposited by way of registration charges and Rs. 6,648/- deposited by the petitioner in response to the letter No. 3805 dated 28.9.1991 issued by the Estate Officer- cum-Under Secretary, Bihar State Housing Board and also for payment of penal rate of interest at the rate of T8% per annum on the deposited amount from the date of payment till its refund. 3. The original petitioner applied for allotment of a plot of land situated in Digha, Patna under the M.I.G. category pursuant to the advertisement published by the Housing Board in a local newspaper and deposited an amount of Rs. 650/- as registration charges on 1.5.1981. By letter No. 3805 dated 28.9.1991 of the Estate Officer-cu -Under Secretary of the Board the original petitioner was informed that in view of the decision of the Board at its meeting held on 11.9.1991 he had been allotted Plot No. 1L/49 measuring 990 sq. feet in Digha, Patna. In response to the said letter and as demanded therein the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 6,648/- on 31.10.1991. Thereafter by letter dated 13.12.1996 issued by the respondent No. 3 the petitioner was directed to approach the respondent No. 4, Executive Engineer of the Board for the purpose of registration of the said plot. However, despite several efforts in this regard the registration was not done. The petitioner continued to move from pillar to post but to no effect and till date the allotted plot of land has not been registered in the name of the original petitioner or in the name of his legal heirs who are now before this Court nor the possession of the plot in question handed over to them. 4. The petitioner continued to move from pillar to post but to no effect and till date the allotted plot of land has not been registered in the name of the original petitioner or in the name of his legal heirs who are now before this Court nor the possession of the plot in question handed over to them. 4. In the course of submissions a suggestion was made by learned counsel for the Housing Board that the Board might consider allowing alternatively a flat at another location to the heirs of the petitioner subject to completion of various formalities, the price of which comes approximately to Rs. 3.5 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioners on instruction submitted that after the death of the original petitioner the financial condition of the widow and children, who are the substituted heirs and legal representatives, is such that they are not in a position to accept the alternative proposal that has come on behalf of the Board. In the said circumstances, it was prayed by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners may be refunded the entire amount deposited by the original petitioner alongwith interest at the market rate. 5. In support of her aforesaid stand learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 15.10.2001 in L.P.A. No. 515 of 2001 and two analogous matters: Chairman-cum- M.D., Bihar State Housing Board vs. Smt. Aparna Devi & Ors., etc. in which in exactly similar circumstances the Division Bench had refused to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge to refund the full deposited amount alongwith interest at the rate of 10% com- poundable per annum from the date of the deposits till the date of payment and also awarded cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The Division Bench observed as follows: "After having heard learned counsel for the parties this much is clear that advertisement was issued in the year 1981, In view of the advertisement the allotment was to be made within four years and the probable cost of the flat was fifty thousand only (Rs 50,000/-) but allotment has been made after twenty years and the cost has increased to more than five lakhs of rupees. In such a situation, if the writ petitioner-respondents refused to take flats on such price the same cannot be a ground to deny the interest on the amount deposited by them. In such a situation, if the writ petitioner-respondents refused to take flats on such price the same cannot be a ground to deny the interest on the amount deposited by them. The learned Single Judge having taken note of the fact that there is inordinate delay on the part of the Board, in our view, has rightly ordered for payment of interest." 6. Learned counsel also relies upon a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ramkeshwar Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar and Others: 2003(3) PLJR 45 , in which again in similar circumstances the respondent Board was directed to refund the entire amount including earnest money and subsequent deposits with 12% interest with a quarterly rest. 7. Learned counsel for the Housing Board, on the other hand, submits that in terms of the regulation of the Housing Board only simple interest at the rate of 5% is payable on the amount of earnest money deposited by the applicant and, thus, according to her, the petitioners are not entitled to any higher amount of interest. 8. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the case of the petitioners stands practically on an identical footing as that in the three LP.As., which have been dismissed by order dated 15.10.2001 by a Division Bench of this Court. The issues regarding the regulation providing for payment of only 5% interest on the earnest deposit and other deposits have already been considered by this Court in the decision cited above and it has been held that it is on account of laches and lapses of the authorities of the Board that the contract has been frustrated and in the said circumstances it was not open to the respondent Board to rely upon its regulation. The Board having kept the money deposited by the petitioner for a long period of time is liable to refund the same with compound interest. 9. Hence, the claim for grant of interest is fully justified. In any case, I am bound by the decision of the Division Bench. 10. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed. The authorities of the respondent Board are directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the original petitioner, namely, Rs. 650/- + Rs. 9. Hence, the claim for grant of interest is fully justified. In any case, I am bound by the decision of the Division Bench. 10. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is allowed. The authorities of the respondent Board are directed to refund the entire amount deposited by the original petitioner, namely, Rs. 650/- + Rs. 6,648/- alongwith interest at the rate of 10% compounded annually from the date of respective deposits till the date of payment. They are also directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioners. Let the entire amount be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.