JUDGMENT : P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. 1. The Commissioner, Ramnagar-Channapatna Urban Development Authority ('RUDA' for short), has preferred this appeal assailing order dated 21.07.2017 in Writ Petition No.49370/2015 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge, directing the appellant to execute the registered Sale Deed in respect of a site allotted in favour of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to as per their status in the writ petition. 3. Heard Shri Murthy D. Naik, learned Counsel for appellant. 4. The petitioner was allotted a site measuring 7.5 x 9 metres as per allotment letter dated 28.08.2009. He has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,43,949/- being the value of the site on three different dates. His grievance is that, despite receipt of sital value, RUDA has not executed the Sale Deed. 5. Before the Hon'ble Single Judge, RUDA, sought to justify it's action by contending that the petitioner was required to make payment of sital value within 90 days from the date of allotment, but, the petitioner has failed to do so and there is no provision to condone any delay in making the payment under the existing rules. 6. The Hon'ble Single Judge, on consideration of the material on record and following the view taken by this Court in Writ Petition No.14/2010 and connected matters decided on 03.08.2010, allowed the writ petition; quashed the endorsements - Annexures J & K, issued by RUDA and directed RUDA to register the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by Hon'ble Single Judge's order, RUDA is in appeal before us. 7. We have carefully considered submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the records. 8. As per RUDA, petitioner was allotted the site in question on 28.08.2009 and the petitioner failed to pay the sital value within 90 days there from. But, it is undisputed that petitioner has deposited the sital value of Rs. 1,43,949/- in the following manner : Date Amount 01.09.2010 Rs. 14,500/- 27.05.2013 Rs.1,00,000/- 06.06.2014 Rs. 29,450/- Total Rs.1,43,950/- 9. Allotment of sites by RUDA is governed by the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991. Rule 5 thereof, mandates reservation upto 30 per cent of sites for allotment to economically weaker section. 1,43,949/- in the following manner : Date Amount 01.09.2010 Rs. 14,500/- 27.05.2013 Rs.1,00,000/- 06.06.2014 Rs. 29,450/- Total Rs.1,43,950/- 9. Allotment of sites by RUDA is governed by the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991. Rule 5 thereof, mandates reservation upto 30 per cent of sites for allotment to economically weaker section. Rule 19 provides for execution of lease-cum-sale agreement and it reads as follows:- “LANGUAGE” (1) After the receipt of the allotment letter the allottee shall pay to the Authority sital after deducting the initial deposit made by him within 90 days. Thereafter, the authority shall call upon the allottee to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in Form III. If the allottee fails to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement within 60 days after the authority has called upon him to execute such agreement, the registration fee paid by the allottee may be forfeited, and the allotment of the site cancelled, and the amount paid by the allottee, may be refunded by the Authority after deducting such expenditure as might have been incurred by the Authority: Provided that the authority may extend the time-limit specified in sub-rule (1), by 30 days and levy an interest at 18% for the extended period:" (emphasis supplied) 10. Perusal of above Rule shows that, in the event, an allottee fails to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement within 60 days after the authority has called upon, the authority may forfeit the registration fee, cancel the site and refund the amount paid by the allottee. 11. Admittedly, RUDA, has accepted the aforementioned payments and retained the same as on date. Further, the petitioner, admittedly belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and the site in question is a small one measuring 7.5 x 9 metres. The payments have been made by the allottee between 2010 and 2014. Nearly seven years have elapsed from the date of first payment. The authority has not placed any justifiable reason on record for not refunding the amount paid by the petitioner. This is a serious lapse. 12. The Hon'ble Single Judge following the view taken by this Court in Writ Petition No.14/2010 and connected matters has directed RUDA to execute the Sale Deed. 13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered view, justice would be sub-served by directing the authorities to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. 12. The Hon'ble Single Judge following the view taken by this Court in Writ Petition No.14/2010 and connected matters has directed RUDA to execute the Sale Deed. 13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in our considered view, justice would be sub-served by directing the authorities to comply with the order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. We hasten to add that, this order having been passed considering the peculiar facts of the case, shall not be treated as a precedent. Further, having held that the lapse on the part of the authority in retaining the sital value paid by the allottee is a serious one, we deem it appropriate to direct the authority to take appropriate disciplinary action against the erring official/s, who have acted in dereliction in not refunding the sital value to the petitioner and cancelling the allotment at the earliest point of time. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Writ Appeal is dismissed; and (ii) the respondent-authority/the concerned Disciplinary Authority is directed to hold departmental inquiry and take appropriate action against concerned officials, whose dereliction resulted in retaining the sital value with the authority. Such inquiry shall be conducted within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The outcome of inquiry shall be reported by the Secretary, RUDA, to this Court. 14. In view of dismissal of the appeal, I.A.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. Appeal dismissed. We make no order as to costs.