JUDGMENT Mr. Satish Kumar Mittal, J. (Oral):- This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 16558 and 13947 of 2009, in which orders dated 11.2.2009 and 17.4.2008, respectively, passed by the Estate Officer, Karnal (respondent No.2 herein), which are similar in nature, have been challenged. 2. The petitioners are allottees of the residential plots by the HUDA. In both these petitions, the petitioners are claiming that they are not liable to pay compound interest on the delayed payment of outstanding amount, which has been wrongly charged from them and they are entitled to get refunded the same from the respondents. In this regard, the petitioners in CWP No. 16558 of 2009 herein, earlier filed CWP No. 13218 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court on 7.11.2008, while passing the following order :- “The Division Bench noticed that in order to avoid further litigation the respondents are expected to apply one principle and rate of interest uniformly to all the affected persons. The view of the Division Bench in the concluding para is based on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Gian Inder Sharma v. HUDA bearing C.W.P.No. 16497 of 2001 decided on 11.11.2002. After hearing the learned counsel and the consensus reached between them, we dispose of the writ petition by issuing direction in terms of the order dated 8.5.2008 passed in CWP No. 3737 of 2007 (Annexure P-2) and other connected matters. Let the needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 3. In terms of the above directions, the claim of the petitioners was considered and it was decided that in view of the instructions dated 19.9.1985, the HUDA was entitled to charge compound interest on the outstanding amounts. However, those instructions were withdrawn vide instructions dated 22.9.2000, and it was decided that the allottees shall be liable to pay simple interest at stipulated rates on all types of outstanding dues with effect from 1.9.2000. Accordingly, in view of these fresh instructions, the HUDA decided not to charge compound interest on the outstanding amount after 1.9.2000. 4. However, those instructions were withdrawn vide instructions dated 22.9.2000, and it was decided that the allottees shall be liable to pay simple interest at stipulated rates on all types of outstanding dues with effect from 1.9.2000. Accordingly, in view of these fresh instructions, the HUDA decided not to charge compound interest on the outstanding amount after 1.9.2000. 4. An argument was raised before respondent No.2 that even prior to the year 2000, the HUDA was not entitled to charge compound interest under the previous instructions, as the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Rules and the Regulations of the HUDA do not provide for charging of compound interest. While rejecting the said contention, claim of the petitioners for refund of the excess amount charged on account of compound interest was rejected by respondent No.2 vide the impugned orders, which have been challenged in both these petitions. 5. During the pendency of these writ petitions, a Division Bench of this Court in [2012(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3564 (DB)] : LPA No. 933 of 2009, titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority and another v. Vinod Mittal and others, decided on 16.10.2012, has held as under : “In view of the discussion above, we hold that : (i) That lack of amenities cannot be made a ground for not making the payment of installments in terms of the letter of allotment. The interest on installments of the deferred payment of the sale consideration alone is chargeable from the date of offer of possession. Since the possession was offered and construction raised, the allottees are liable to pay interest on the amount of installments from the date of offer of possession itself. (ii) In the event of non-payment of installments along with interest thereon, the Authority is justified in charging interest at the rate of 18% p.a. Such interest is to ensure the timely payment of the installments and is aimed at mitigating the extreme hardship which may result from resort to the last measure of resumption of land or building. However, the rate of interest at the rate of 18% cannot be compounded, as there is no provision either in the Act or in the Regulations or in the Circular for compounding of such interest. However, the rate of interest at the rate of 18% cannot be compounded, as there is no provision either in the Act or in the Regulations or in the Circular for compounding of such interest. (iii) The Authority is competent to charge interest, as it has the authority to levy penalty under Sections 16, 17 & 55 of the Act apart from the power of resumption of land or building. The charging of interest is a policy adopted by the Authority short of resorting to the extreme remedy of resumption. Therefore, such policy is in fact designed for the benefit of the allottees.” (Emphasis added) 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in view of clause (ii) of the above judgment, charging of compound interest is not permissible, as there is no such provision either in the Act, or in the Regulations or the Circular for charging the compound interest. 7. On the other hand, it has been argued that in view of the instructions dated 22.9.2000, the petitioners are not liable to pay compound interest, but as per instructions dated 19.9.1985, the petitioners were liable to pay compound interest on delayed payment, and now they cannot claim refund of the said amount. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued that the petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, are not entitled to get refund of the amount paid by their predecessors. Thirdly, it has been argued that even if for the sake of arguments, it is taken that the respondents had wrongly charged the compound interest, today the claim of the petitioners for refund is barred by the limitation. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the respondents. Once the charging of compound interest was held to be without any legal sanction, the HUDA, which is statutory authority, is not justified to retain the amount, charged on account of compound interest, by taking the plea of limitation and estoppel, or on account that such charging of compound interest was permitted under their existing instructions dated 19.9.1985. Once the charging of compound interest was held to be without any legal sanction, the HUDA, which is statutory authority, is not justified to retain the amount, charged on account of compound interest, by taking the plea of limitation and estoppel, or on account that such charging of compound interest was permitted under their existing instructions dated 19.9.1985. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners, who are subsequent purchasers, are not entitled to get refund of the amount paid by their predecessors, also cannot be accepted, as the petitioners have stepped into the shoes of their predecessors and they have all the rights to get the refund of the excess amount, which was paid by their predecessors on account of compound interest. 9. Without commenting any thing on the merits and the factual position, we are of the opinion that claim of the petitioners is required to be re-considered by the respondents, in light of the aforesaid judgment. 10. In view of the above, after setting aside the impugned orders dated 11.2.2009 and 17.4.2008 passed by respondent No.2 in CWPs No. 16558 and 13947 of 2009, respectively, the respondents are directed to re- consider the issue of charging the compound interest and its refund in the light of the aforesaid judgment, and decide the same by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Disposed of accordingly.