Judgment :- V.G. Sabhahit, J. This appeal is filed by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter called as ‘BDA’ for brevity)-respondent 1 in W.P. No. 37897 of 2009 being aggrieved by the order dated 4-6-2010, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed the BDA-appellant herein to refund sale consideration of Rs. 1,19,70,000/- and also sum of Rs. 10,17,450/- deposited by the petitioner-respondent herein for value of the stamp paper with interest at 18% p.a. from 10-7-2007 till the date of refund and rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner for damages with liberty to file suit in that behalf. 2. The respondent herein filed W.P. No.37897 of 2009 seeking for refund of auction sale consideration deposited by him and also the amount deposited by him towards the stamp duty and damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund. 3. It is the case of the respondent herein that he had purchased a corner site and he was the highest bidder in the auction of corner site bearing No. 22A situated at Hosur Road-Sarjapur Road, measuring East to West 19 meters and North to South 10.50 meters totaling to 199.50 sq. meters in the public auction conducted by the appellant-BDA. The highest bid was accepted in the auction conducted on 15-9-2006 and thereafter, he deposited Rs. 29,92,500/-on the date of auction itself. Thereafter, the balance amount was deposited on receiving notice, belatedly along with interest at 18% p.a. In all the respondent deposited a sum of Rs. 1,19,70,000. Later, he was asked to deposit Rs. 10,17,450/-. He has taken the demand draft for the said amount in favour of the BDA and thereafter, he was intimated that sale deed will be executed after the disposal of the W.A. No. 1795 of 2006. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 9-4-2008. Even then, the sale deed was not executed. Thereafter, on the ground that thee was a suit spending regarding the said site, the respondent herein sought for refund of the amount deposited by him, which has not been considered. Therefore, writ petition was filed for refund of the above said amount. The petition was resisted by the BDA. Even then, the sale deed was not executed. Thereafter, on the ground that thee was a suit spending regarding the said site, the respondent herein sought for refund of the amount deposited by him, which has not been considered. Therefore, writ petition was filed for refund of the above said amount. The petition was resisted by the BDA. The learned Single Judge after considering the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and scrutinising the material on record held that there was no fault on the part of the allottee - the writ petitioner and he had deposited the consideration amount and the amount deposited belatedly was deposited with interest. Despite the same, the sale deed has not been executed. There was litigation regarding the site and it was the bounden duty of the BDA to refund the amount deposited by the respondent herein as he is not interested in purchasing the site which is under litigation as no sale deed has been executed as accepted by him. Accordingly, ordered for refund Rs. 1,19,70,000/- and also sum of Rs. 10,17,450/- deposited by the petitioner – respondent herein towards value of the stamp paper with interest at 18% p.a. from 10-7-2007 till the date of refund and rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner for damages with liberty to file suit in that behalf. Accordingly, allowed writ petition in part. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the respondent 1-BDA. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that since there was litigation in respect of the property for which the respondent was the highest bidder, sale deed could not be executed. There is no fault on the part of the BDA and refund could not have been ordered. However, review petition had been filed by the respondent himself admitting that he had not deposited Rs. 10,17,450/- towards the stamp duty and the order of the learned Single Judge has been modified in the said petition on 4-11-2010. The order of the learned Single Judge has been modified by deleting the order to refund Rs. 10,17,450/-,. Wherefore, the question of refunding the said amount would not arise. 6. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and scrutinized the material on record. 7. The order of the learned Single Judge has been modified by deleting the order to refund Rs. 10,17,450/-,. Wherefore, the question of refunding the said amount would not arise. 6. We have given careful consideration to the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and scrutinized the material on record. 7. The material on record would clearly show that admittedly public auction was held in respect of site bearing No. 22-A situated at Hosur Road-Sarjapur Road, measuring East to West 19 meters and North to South 10.50 meters totaling to 199.50. Respondent was the highest bidder and he has deposited an amount of Rs. 29,92,500/-on the date of auction. Thereafter, after issuance of the notice by the BDA, he has deposited the balance amount with interest at 18% p.a. and the total amount deposited was Rs. 1,19,70,000/-. However, there is an averment that he has also deposited stamp charges of Rs. 10,17,450/-. The said claim is given up by deleting in the review petition filed by the respondent herein himself by order dated 4-11-2010. 8. The material on record would further show that the said site was under litigation in W.A. No. 1795 of 2006. It was dismissed on 9-4-2008. Even thereafter, sale deed was not executed on the ground that some civil suit is pending in respect of the property. Wherefore, the fact that litigation was pending in respect of the property to which the writ petitioner-respondent herein was the highest bidder which was accepted and not disputed. Since the property itself is in dispute, the respondent was not interest in pursuing the allottment of the said site. Therefore, BDA is bound to refund the amount deposited by the respondent as the site which is under litigation was auctioned and there was no fault on the part of the respondent. Wherefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing refund of Rs. 1,19,70,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 10-2-2007 cannot be found fault with. Award of interest at 18% p.a. is also reasonable as BDA itself had charged interest at 18% p.a. for the belated payment of the suction amount offered by the respondent. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this appeal. Since the appeal is disposed of on merits finally, it is unnecessary to consider the applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and for stay. The same are disposed of accordingly. The appellant is granted three months time from today to refund the amount to the respondent as ordered by the learned Single Judge as amended in the review petition.