ORDER : By our Order dated 10.12.2015 we had while reserving pronouncement of orders in this appeal directed the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation to file an affidavit indicating whether the Corporation has been buying properties like the one involved in the present case and whether it was willing to reconsider the offer earlier made by the appellant, despite the two earlier rejections to purchase the property @ Rs. 78,352/- per square meter for a total area of 1324 sq. meters (1628 sq. yards) which works out a sum of Rs. 10,37,38,048/- and whether the Corporation will also be agreeable to pay a reasonable rate of interest which this Court may determine for the period commencing 01.06.2014 till actual payment of the sale consideration. We had further observed that in case an affidavit on the above line was filed, pronouncement of orders in the appeal shall remain deferred for three weeks from the date of filing of the affidavit to enable the Corporation to take an appropriate decision regarding the proposed purchase of the property in dispute. 2. An affidavit, pursuant to the above direction, was filed by the Managing Director of the Corporation in which it was inter alia stated that the Corporation was willing to reconsider the offer made by the appellant for the purchase of the property in question. The Corporation, it appears, has gone a step further and reconsidered the offer made by the appellant culminating in a decision by the Executive Committee(M) approving the proposal for purchase of the property in question @ Rs. 78,352/- per sq. meter for a total area of 1324 sq. meter amounting to a total of Rs. 10,37,38,048/- which approval the Corporation has placed on record along with I.A. No. 6 of 2016 inter alia praying for the Executive Committee decision being taken on record and disposal of the appeal by an appropriate direction after deducting a sum of Rs. 17,40,000/- towards deficit stamp duty which according to the Corporation remain outstanding against the appellant in connection with the sale of the property in its favour. 3. The appellant has at the same time filed an application seeking modification of our Order dated 10.12.2015 to the extent the said order mentions the total area of the property in question to be 1324 sq. meters and the amount payable for the same at Rs. 10,37,38,048/-. 3. The appellant has at the same time filed an application seeking modification of our Order dated 10.12.2015 to the extent the said order mentions the total area of the property in question to be 1324 sq. meters and the amount payable for the same at Rs. 10,37,38,048/-. The application points out that the actual area of the property in question is 1361 sq. meters and not 1324 sq. metres as mentioned in our Order dated 10.12.2015. 4. Mr. S.Guru Krishna Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant draws our attention to a joint memo signed by the appellant and the officer of the respondent-Corporation on 10.07.2014 in which the total area comprising the property in dispute is said to be 1361 sq. meters equivalent to 1628 sq. yards. It is submitted by Mr. Gurukrishna Kumar that the said memo more than sufficiently proves the actual measurement of the property calling for a correction of the order of this Court so as to show the area in question to be measuring 1361 sq. metere instead of 1324 sq. metre and the price payable to the appellant to be Rs. 10,66,37,072/- instead of Rs. 10,37,38,048/-. 5. Appearing on behalf of the respondent-Corporation Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned senior counsel submitted that the question of true and correct measurement of the property in dispute which the Corporation has decided to purchase @ Rs. 78,352/- per sq. meter could be resolved by directing a joint measurement to be taken by the parties. He submitted that while such measurement can be directed to be carried out within the time specified by this Court, the Corporation shall have no difficulty in depositing before this Court the amount, which according to it, is payable to the appellant assuming the measurement to be 1324 sq. meter. He submitted that differential, if any, could also be directed to be paid once the measurement are complete. He further submitted that the outstanding liability of Rs. 17,40,000/- towards deficit stamp duty recoverable from the appellant also ought to be taken care of while releasing the amount in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that while the said amount could be directed to be deposited with the stamp duty authorities who have raised a demand against the appellant, the appellant could be left free to seek redress against any such demand in appropriate proceedings. 6. At this stage, Mr. It is submitted that while the said amount could be directed to be deposited with the stamp duty authorities who have raised a demand against the appellant, the appellant could be left free to seek redress against any such demand in appropriate proceedings. 6. At this stage, Mr. Chandra submitted that if the disposal of this appeal were to get delayed only on account of the issue regarding measurement of the property in question, he has instructions from the appellant who is also present in person to say that the appellant shall be satisfied in case the measurement of the property were taken to be 1324 sq. mt. only and the matter finally disposed of on that basis. In that view, we see no reason to defer the disposal of this appeal as all essential aspects of the matter seem to have been satisfactorily worked out by the parties except the rate of interest which may be payable to the appellant for the period commencing 01.06.2014 onwards. Given the prevalent bank rate of interest, we are of the opinion that interest @ 9% p.a. ought to meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances, therefore, and in view of the subsequent developments to which we have referred herein above we pass the following order: 7. The appeal is allowed the judgment and order dated 24.03.2009 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan in Special Appeal No. 168 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 2168 of 2004 set aside and Writ Petition No. 168 disposed of with the following directions: (1) The respondent-Corporation shall deposit a total sum of Rs. 10,37,38,048/- with interest @ 9% p.a. calculated w.e.f. 01.06.2014 till 28.02.2016 in this Court. The deposit shall be made on or before 15.03.2016. (2) On deposit of the amount as mentioned above, the appellant shall execute a sale deed, transferring all his rights of ownership, easement etc. in favour of the Corporation. Needful shall be done within six weeks from the date deposit is made. (3) With the execution of the sale deed and its due and proper registration before the competent authority at Jaipur, expenses whereof (stamp duty and registration charges) shall be borne by the respondent-Corporation, the amount representing sale consideration deposited by the Corporation in this Court shall stand released in favour of the appellant less Rs. (3) With the execution of the sale deed and its due and proper registration before the competent authority at Jaipur, expenses whereof (stamp duty and registration charges) shall be borne by the respondent-Corporation, the amount representing sale consideration deposited by the Corporation in this Court shall stand released in favour of the appellant less Rs. 17,40,000/- which amount shall be transferred to the stamp duty authority in terms of judgment and order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the ADM, Stamps, Jaipur. The said authority shall be free to appropriate the said amount towards the outstanding amount in connection with the sale of the property in favour of the appellant. The appellant shall however be free to seek such redress as may be open to him against the judgment aforementioned or any other related order which the competent authority may pass determining additional liability of stamp duty on the sale made in his favour. We express no opinion about the merits of any such claim which the competent authority shall be free to determine. 8. We make it clear that the transfer of the sum of Rs. 17,40,000/- shall not prevent the authority concerned from raising any further demand or recovering any deficit over and above the amount remitted under the orders of this Court. 9. We also make it clear that the burden of any such demand shall not fall on the respondent-Corporation who shall stand indemnified against any such claim upon deposit of the sale consideration in this Court and the payment of Rs. 17,40,000/- out of the same to the stamp duty authority. The parties are free to bear their own costs.