JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J. (Oral):- The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition for quashing of order dated 07.01.1998 (Annexure P-6), whereby the representation of the petitioner against charging the compound interest on the delayed payment of enhanced cost of acquisition has been dismissed on the ground that the compound interest was charged as per HUDA policy/instructions dated 19.09.1985. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to refund a sum of Rs.27,614/-, which was charged in excess on the basis of the aforesaid policy/instructions. 2. On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed by this Court:- “The petitioner was allotted a residential Plot No.407 (measuring 250.8 Sq. Yards), Sector-7, Karnal, on free hold basis, vide allotment letter dated 27.02.1986 (Annexure P-1). As per condition No.9 of the said allotment letter, the petitioner was liable to pay the additional price on account of enhancement of compensation of the acquisition cost. Consequently, a notice for payment of additional price of Rs.21,977.60/- was issued to the petitioner, vide letter dated 07.03.1989 (Annexure P-2). According to the said notice, the petitioner was also liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum on the said amount, if the same was not paid within 30 days of the notice. Another notice dated 10.12.1991 (Annexure P-3) was issued to the petitioner for payment of the second additional price on account of enhancement of compensation of the acquisition cost. Vide this notice, a sum of Rs.12,339.40/- was demanded from the petitioner, which the petitioner was asked to pay within 30 days from the date of issuance of this notice, failing which interest @ 15% per annum was to be charged. It is case of the petitioner that as far as the amount of the second enhancement was concerned, the same was paid without interest on 29.12.1993 and the amount of the first enhancement cost was not paid till then. In the year 1997, petitioner was to get the permission for transfer of the said plot and for this he had to deposit a sum of Rs.91,965/- towards the enhanced cost with interest. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents charged the compound interest on the delayed payment and the said amount has been paid. In the year 1997, petitioner was to get the permission for transfer of the said plot and for this he had to deposit a sum of Rs.91,965/- towards the enhanced cost with interest. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents charged the compound interest on the delayed payment and the said amount has been paid. According to the petitioner, the respondents have charged excess amount and his representation was wrongly rejected on the ground that HUDA is competent to charge compound interest under the instructions/circular dated 19.09.1985. In the written statement, it has been admitted that the compound interest was charged under the aforesaid instructions/circular. The counsel for the petitioner contend that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of this Court passed in Gian Inder Sharma Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, 2003(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 279 and Haryana Urban Development Authority and another Vs. Vinod Mittal and others, [2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3564 (DB)] : (L.P.A. No.933 of 2009) decided on 16.10.2012 as well as a Division Bench decision of this Court passed in [2014(1) Law Herald (P&H) 546 (DB)] : CWP No.16558 of 2009 titled as ‘Prem Singh and another Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and another’ decided on 11.07.2013. In the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that even under the old instructions/circular dated 19.09.1985, HUDA was not competent to charge the compound interest. Since no-one is present on behalf of the respondents, on the asking of this Court, Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate, who is present in Court, puts appearance on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to have instructions in this regard. Adjourned to 17.09.2013.” 3. During the course of hearing, it has been admitted that in the present case the respondents have charged the compound interest and the payment made by the petitioner includes the components of compound interest. 4. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we allow this petition, quashing the order dated 07.01.1998 (Annexure P-6) and direct the respondents to refund the compound interest charged by them from the petitioner with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its payment, in view of the aforesaid judgment after calculating the same, within a period of three months from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this order. ---------0.B.S.0------------