Judgment R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 1.4.2011 made in W.P.Nos.3913 and 3916 of 2000 quashing the impugned proceedings dated 11.5.1998 calling upon the Respondents to pay further sum in respect of the plots allotted to them and consequently directing the Appellants to hand over possession of the respective allotted plots to the Writ Petitioners without insisting on payment of enhanced cost, the Appellant, Tamil Nadu Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation Limited (in short, “SIDCO”) has preferred these appeals. 2. Brief facts are that the Respondent(s) made application on 22.2.1995 to the SIDCO for allotment of an industrial plot in Thiruverambur Industrial Estate, Thiruverambur, Trichy. By proceedings dated 6.6.1995, SIDCO allotted plot bearing Nos.16 and 17, totally measuring an extent of 2.12 acres to Krishna Wood Works. Krishna Wood Works paid the cost of the land (Rs.2,01,000/-) with service tax on 13.9.1995. In so far as W.P.No.3916 of 2000 (Aarthi Timber Industries), writ petitioner was allotted plot bearing No.15, Thiruverambur Industrial Estate, Thiruverambur, Trichy measuring an extent of 1.06 acres and Aarthi Timber Industries paid the cost of the land at Rs.1,05,000/-together with service tax on 13.9.1995. After allotment, SIDCO assessed the expenditure towards the infrastructural development in the Industrial Estate such as roads, culverts, street lights, overhead tanks, pump room, water supply, oxidation pond, etc. The SIDCO worked out the revised cost of the land after taking into account the cost of infrastructural development for the year 1995-96 as Rs.3,56,000/- per acre. SIDCO issued the impugned proceedings dated 11.5.1998 calling upon Krishna Wood Works to pay a sum of Rs.5,82,120/- towards the difference in cost of the land. Like wise, Aarthi Timber Industries was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.2,90,990/-. Challenging the said demands, the Respondent(s) have filed writ petitions – W.P.Nos.3913 and 3916 of 2000 respectively. By the order dated 13.02.2008, the single Judge set aside the order of Appellants and allowed the Writ Petitions. Appellants have filed Review Applications and by order dated 26.11.2009, the Review Applications were disposed of with directions. The order in Review Applications were challenged in Writ Appeals and Writ Appeals were allowed and the matters were remitted back to the Writ Court and taken on file as W.P.Nos.3913 and 3916 of 2000. 3. Appellants have filed Review Applications and by order dated 26.11.2009, the Review Applications were disposed of with directions. The order in Review Applications were challenged in Writ Appeals and Writ Appeals were allowed and the matters were remitted back to the Writ Court and taken on file as W.P.Nos.3913 and 3916 of 2000. 3. Resisting the Writ Petitions, Appellant Corporation filed a counter contending that the expenditure towards the infrastructural development in the Industrial Estate was assessed and such expenditure has to be proportionately apportioned among the allottees and therefore revision of the cost of land is inevitable. It has been further stated that the revision of the cost was essential as it was incurred for development and for providing infrastructural facilities intended to benefit the allottees. 4. One Ashok Saw Mill was also allotted plot bearing No.14 in the same Industrial Estate and an identical demand was served on the said allottee and the same was challenged in W.P.No.18780 of 1998. The said Writ Petition was allowed on the ground that what was allotted to Ashok Saw Mill was already a developed plot and that in the allotment order, there was no mention that the cost of the land fixed was only a tentative cost. By the order dated 30.10.2006, the learned single Judge quashed the demand and allowed the Writ Petition. Referring to the said order dated 30.10.2006 made in W.P.No.18780 of 1998, the Writ Court quashed the impugned demand notice (11.5.1998) and allowed both the writ petitions, observing that the Respondent(s) are similarly placed as that of Ashok Saw Mill and that SIDCO had consciously allowed the order in W.P.No.18780 of 1998 to become final. Being aggrieved by quashing of demand notices, the Appellant -SIDCO has preferred these appeals. 5. Mr. V.P. Sengottuvel, learned counsel for SIDCO contended that demand of Rs.5,82,120/- for two developed PlotS bearing Nos.16 and 17 allotted to Krishna Wood Works was based on the development cost required for providing infrastructural facilities like formation of road and other essentials. Learned counsel contended that the land cost initially demanded by the Appellant was only tentative and the same was made without taking into account the cost of development during 1995-1996. 6. Learned counsel contended that the land cost initially demanded by the Appellant was only tentative and the same was made without taking into account the cost of development during 1995-1996. 6. Insofar as Aarthi Timber Industries is concerned, learned counsel for SIDCO contended that demand of Rs.2,90,990/-for developed plot bearing No.15 allotted to Aarthi Timber Industries was based on the cost of development corresponding to the year of allotment viz., 1995-1996 and the land cost initially demanded by the SIDCO was only tentative. It was submitted that the infrastructural facilities are intended to the benefit of allottees in the Industrial Estate and as such, the allottees cannot evade to make the payment as per demand which is based on the development cost required for the provision of infrastructural facilities. It was argued that the learned single Judge was not right in placing reliance upon the order in W.P.No.18780 of 1998 and the Writ Court did not keep in view the order passed in W.P.Nos.45 and 46 of 1997 dated 25.6.2004 which was confirmed by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 22.12.2008 in W.A.Nos.3789 and 3790 of 2004. 7. Mr. S. Sethuraman, learned counsel for Respondent(s) submitted that the cost earlier demanded from the Writ Petitioners was firm cost and it is the cost for developed plot and such being the case, SIDCO cannot demand any additional amount. Learned counsel contended that based on the order in W.P.No.18780 of 1998, the learned Judge has rightly quashed the demand notice and the impugned order warrants no interference. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the order in W.P.No.18780 of 1998 and also the Judgment in W.A.Nos.3789 and 3790 of 2004 dated 22.12.2008. 9. Whether the single Judge was right in quashing the demand notice dated 11.5.1998 which is based on the developmental expenses is the point falling for consideration in these appeals. 10. In Thiruverambur Industrial Estate, Plot Nos.16 and 17 measuring 2.12 acres were allotted to Krishna Wood Works at the land cost of Rs.94,800/- per acre applicable for the year 1995-1996. Plot cost of Rs.2,11,050/- was paid by Krishna Wood Works on 13.09.1995. Based on the development cost required for the provision of essential infrastructural facilities like formation of road etc., the land cost of Industrial Estate at Thiruverambur was revised as Rs.3,56,300/- per acre for the year 1995-1996. Plot cost of Rs.2,11,050/- was paid by Krishna Wood Works on 13.09.1995. Based on the development cost required for the provision of essential infrastructural facilities like formation of road etc., the land cost of Industrial Estate at Thiruverambur was revised as Rs.3,56,300/- per acre for the year 1995-1996. Consequent upon the revision of land cost, by notice dated 11.5.1998, Krishna Wood Works was called upon to pay an amount of Rs.5,82,120/- to SIDCO. Demand notice was issued to Aarthi Timber Industries to pay Rs.2,90,990/- for Plot No.15 allotted to it. Learned single Judge quashed the demand notice mainly placing reliance upon the order dated 30.10.2006 in W.P.No.18780 of 1998 filed by Ashok Saw Mill – allottee of Plot No.14. The said order in W.P.No.18780 of 1998 is in respect of one allottee – Ashok Saw Mill. Whereas in respect of two other allottees of the year 1995 challenging the demand notice to pay development cost, W.P.Nos.45 and 46 of 1997 were filed. By the order dated 25.6.2004, Writ Court dismissed both the Writ Petitions. The said order was challenged in W.A.Nos.3789 and 3790 of 2004 and by Judgment dated 22.12.2008, both the appeals were disposed of with a direction to the Appellant therein to pay the amount demanded. In the light of two contradictory orders, we have directed the Appellant Corporation to file an affidavit in respect of payments made by all the allottees of Plots in 1995 and the affidavit sworn in by the 2nd Appellant has been filed. 11. As per the affidavit of 2nd Appellant, one Industrial shed and nine Plots were allotted to various entrepreneurs which includes the Respondent(s) in these appeals. The allottee of Shed No.1 – Ashok Timber Enterprises, represented by its Partner Mohan N.Patel challenged the demand notice and also sought direction to the Corporation to hand over the Shed without insisting for payment of the revised cost in W.P.No.5346 of 1998. 12. It is stated that in pursuance to the order of the Court dated 30.10.2006 made in W.P.No.5346 of 1998, the said allottee had paid the difference in cost due to development expenses of Shed No.1 i.e. Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum before handing over of the shed. 12. It is stated that in pursuance to the order of the Court dated 30.10.2006 made in W.P.No.5346 of 1998, the said allottee had paid the difference in cost due to development expenses of Shed No.1 i.e. Rs.1,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum before handing over of the shed. It is stated that out of nine Plots allotted during the year 1995, two of the allottees of Plot Numbers New Plot No.8A (Old Plot Nos.15 and 16) and Plot Nos.33, 34 and 35 have paid difference in costs viz., development expenses. By perusal of the judgment in W.A.Nos.3789 and 3790 of 2004, it is seen that two other allottees who were allotted Plot Nos.6 and 7 were unsuccessful in challenging the demand notice. Remaining three allottees of Plot Nos.14, 15,16 and 17 challenged the demand notice in the High Court. Only Writ Petition (W.P.No.18780 of 1998) filed by Ashok Saw Mill – allottee of Plot No.14, came to be allowed by order dated 30.10.2006. The judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.3789 and 3790 of 2004 was produced before the single Judge. Except Ashok Saw Mill – allottee of Plot No.14, all other allottees in the year 1995 have paid the difference in development cost. When similarly placed allottees paid the difference in cost viz., development expenses, the learned Judge was not right in placing reliance upon the sole order in W.P.No.18780 of 1998. 13. As rightly contended by the Appellants, the demand was towards cost of development expenses and to provide essential infrastructural facilities like roads etc. The infrastructural facilities are intended to benefit all the allottees and has to be shared by all of them. Since all other similarly placed allottees like that of the Respondent(s) have paid difference in development cost, we are of the view that the order of single Judge quashing the demand notice dated 11.5.1998 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 14. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, learned counsel for Appellant Corporation submitted that the amount is payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of demand i.e. 11.5.2008. Learned counsel for Respondent(s) submitted that Respondent(s)-allottees cannot be burned to pay heavy interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 14. Insofar as rate of interest is concerned, learned counsel for Appellant Corporation submitted that the amount is payable with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of demand i.e. 11.5.2008. Learned counsel for Respondent(s) submitted that Respondent(s)-allottees cannot be burned to pay heavy interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the order passed in W.P.No.5346 of 1998 where the Court has directed the Writ Petitioner-allottee therein to pay Rs.1,65,000/- towards difference in cost of the shed with interest at the rate of 9% from 08.1.1998 till the date of payment. Since similarly placed allottee has paid the interest at 9% per annum, we are of the view that the difference in cost of development expenses is payable with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Accordingly, the Respondent(s) are directed to pay the amount indicated in the notices of demand with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 11.5.1998. 15. In the result, the order of single Judge in W.P.Nos.3913 and 3916 of 2000 (01.4.2011) is set aside and these appeals are partly allowed. Respondent in W.A.No.2320 of 2011 – Krishna Wood Works shall pay an amount of Rs.5,82,120/-towards difference in cost of development expenses with accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 11.5.1998 to Appellant Corporation. Similarly, Respondent in W.A.No.2321 of 2011 – Aarthi Timber Industries shall pay an amount of Rs.2,90,990/-towards difference in cost and development expenses with accrued interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 11.05.1998 to Appellant Corporation within a period of four weeks from today. On such payment along with accrued interest, Appellant Corporation shall execute the sale deed and hand over possession of the respective plots to the Respondent(s) within a period of four weeks thereafter. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.