JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajnish Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Jagrit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No. 1. 2. The petitioner has approached to this Court with the prayer for commanding the opposite party No. 2 to refund back the amount of Rs. 8,62,125=00 (deposited by the petitioner as development charges of the Plot No. 4B, Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow) forthwith alongwith 18% interest till the date of payment. 3. The facts, in brief, for adjudication of the present controversy are that the Lucknow Development Authority, without any acquisition proceedings or without awarding any compensation to the petitioner, had taken over the possession and utilized the land of the petitioner bearing Khasra No. 2408, measuring 0.228 hectares, situated at Village-Ujariaon, Pargana, Tehsil and Zila - Lucknow. On request of the petitioner for return of his land back, the Lucknow Development Authority, in order to compensate the petitioner had alternatively allotted another piece of undeveloped land (50% in area to that of petitioner’s original land), bearing Plot No. 4B, situated at Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, measuring 1140 Sq. Meter to the petitioner and directed him to deposit an amount of Rs. 8,62,125=00 vide letter dated 6.2.2006 as requisite development charges in respect of the alternatively allotted plot. In response thereof, the petitioner had deposited the said development charges by way of Pay Order No. 144155, dated 14.2.2007 and the receipt dated 15.2.2007 in respect thereof was issued by the Lucknow Development Authority. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner intimated to the Executive Engineer(Acquisition) that the requisite development charge has been deposited. But, neither the said plot was developed and handed over to the petitioner nor any amount of compensation was awarded and paid to the petitioner in lieu of the petitioner’s land, the possession of which was taken by the Lucknow Development Authority. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had approached to this Court by means of filing Writ Petition No. 11113 (M/B) of 2014 : V.S.Promoters & Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, with a prayer to direct the respondents to award compensation for his land or in the alternative, to execute the sale-deed of the alternatively allotted Plot No. 4B, Vikalp Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in favour of the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 19.11.2014 disposed of the writ petition providing therein that the petitioner may make a representation ventilating all the grievances before respondent No. 2/Vice Chairman, LDA within two weeks alongwith certified copy of the order and on such representation being made, the respondent No. 2 shall consider and decide the same by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within eight weeks thereafter. In compliance thereof, the petitioner moved a representation before the Lucknow Development Authority who decided the representation of the petitioner granting consent/sanction to award compensation to the petitioner in respect of his land on 3.3.2015. Accordingly, the compensation was awarded and paid to the petitioner and, in turn, the Lucknow Development Authority had got executed a registered sale-deed of the land bearing Khasra No. 2408, measuring 0.228 hectares, situated at Village Ujariaon, Pargana, Tehsil and Zila - Lucknow in its favour from the petitioner. 5. In view of above, it is clear that the Lucknow Development Authority had admitted its mistake of taking the land of the petitioner without any acquisition proceedings and without any compensation to the petitioner for more than eight years. Accordingly, the compensation was awarded and paid to the petitioner in lieu of his land. However, the development charges received from the petitioner by the Lucknow Development Authority in respect of the Plot No. 4B (measuring 1140 Sq. Meter) Vikalp Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow allotted to the petitioner in exchange of his land was not returned to him. Accordingly, the petitioner preferred a representation dated 4.11.2015 before the Lucknow Development Authority with a request to refund the development charges of Rs. 8,62,125=00 alongwith 18% interest. Even then the same was not returned to the petitioner, so the petitioner was constrained to approach to this Court by means of filing the present writ petition. 6. This Court had passed the following order on 22.12.2015 directing the Lucknow Development Authority to refund the entire amount of development charges forthwith without any further delay or show-cause by filing a counter-affidavit by the next date, which on reproduction, reads as under: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mukund Tiwari, who has put in appearance for the respondent-Lucknow Development Authority. The petitioner alleges to have been allotted a plot by the respondent - Lucknow Development Authority that ultimately failed as the possession of the land could not be handed over to the petitioner. In lieu of the original land taken over from the petitioner he was duly compensated. The petitioner, who had not been handed over any possession of the allotted land, had also deposited the development charges to the tune of Rs. 8,62,125/- which was received by the respondent-Lucknow Development Authority. The petitioner contends that since no land was allotted to the petitioner there is no occasion for retention of the said development charges for the land which admittedly was never allotted to the petitioner. Prima facie, the contention appears to be correct. The respondent-Lucknow Development Authority is directed to refund the entire amount of development charges forthwith without any further delay or show-cause by filing a counter-affidavit by the next date fixed. List on 18.1.2016." 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2015 passed by this Court, the Lucknow Development Authority refunded the amount deposited towards development charges alongwith 4% interest on the amount from 16.2.2007 to 15.6.2015 through cheque dated 14.1.2016, total amounting to Rs. 11,20,762=00 after deducting the TDS and filed a short counter-affidavit disclosing the details which is reproduced as under: (a) Amount deposited towards development charges Rs. 8,62,125 (b) 4% interest on the amount from 6.2.2007 to 15.6.2015 Rs. 2,87,375 (c) Total amount Rs. 11,49,500 (d) TDS @ 10% Rs. 28,738 (e) Total amount paid Rs. 11,20,762 8. The petitioner filed a short rejoinder-affidavit stating therein that the payment made by the Lucknow Development Authority is deficient, as payment has been made with a lesser interest at the rate of 4% from 6.2.2007 till 15.6.2015, that too not up to the date of payment. 11,49,500 (d) TDS @ 10% Rs. 28,738 (e) Total amount paid Rs. 11,20,762 8. The petitioner filed a short rejoinder-affidavit stating therein that the payment made by the Lucknow Development Authority is deficient, as payment has been made with a lesser interest at the rate of 4% from 6.2.2007 till 15.6.2015, that too not up to the date of payment. He further stated that the petitioner is entitled for a better and adequate rate of interest on his deposit on account of the fact that the development authority in the present case has not discharged its obligations fairly and the deposit made by the petitioner has been illegally retained since the year 2007 without transferring the property against which the same was procured and has not refunded despite of several oral and written representations and the same has been refunded after almost eight years when the petitioner was constrained to approach to this Court and stated that the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% from 15.2.2007 until the date of payment in view of various judgments of this Court. 9. While hearing the writ petition this Court had passed the following order on 3.10.2017: “The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 11,20,762/- has been paid to the petitioner in pursuance to the order dated 22.12.2015 vide cheque dated 14.1.2016, which includes an amount of Rs. 2,87,375/- as interest @4% for a period with effect from 6.2.2007 to 15.6.2015 only and no reason has been explained for not giving interest upto date of issuance of cheque as well as as to how the figure of 4% has been decided for granting interest on the amount of Rs. 8,62,125/-, whereas the amount in question remained with the opposite parties for more than eight years and, therefore, he should have been paid the interest at least at the bank rate. Mr. Mukund Tewari, learned Counsel fro the respondent prays for and is granted a week’s time to seek instructions in the matter. List this case on 12.10.2017." 10. As stated on 3.10.2017, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for interest at least at the bank rate on which learned counsel for the respondent was granted time to seek instructions in the matter. 11. List this case on 12.10.2017." 10. As stated on 3.10.2017, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled for interest at least at the bank rate on which learned counsel for the respondent was granted time to seek instructions in the matter. 11. The respondent Lucknow Development Authority has filed a supplementary counter-affidavit indicating therein that the petitioner has been paid interest on the refund from 16.6.2015 to 30.11.2017 at the rate of 4%, total amounting to Rs. 19,322 after deducting the TDS at the rate of 10%. The details of which, as given in the supplementary counter-affidavit, are reproduced hereinunder: (a) 4% interest on the amount from 16.6.2015 to 30.11.2017 Rs. 21,469 (b) TDS @ 10% Rs. 2,147 (c) Total amount paid Rs. 19,322 12. In supplementary counter-affidavit, the order passed by the Vice Chairman on 24.8.2004 has been annexed indicating therein that in the cases in which the allotment could not be made to an applicant, interest at the rate of 4% would be payable. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Lucknow Development Authority without acquiring the land of the petitioner had taken the possession of the land and not paid any compensation to the petitioner, accordingly it had alloted the undeveloped plot to the petitioner and charged Rs. 8,62,125/- in respect of the development charges for the said plot which was deposited by the petitioner on 15.2.2007. But till filing of the earlier writ petition by the petitioner which was disposed of on 19.11.2014, neither the said plot was developed and handed over to the petitioner nor any compensation was paid to the petitioner. Subsequently in compliance of the order passed on 19.11.2014 in Writ Petition No. 11113(M/B) of 2014, Lucknow Development Authority decided to pay the compensation in lieu of the land of the petitioner and got the sale-deed executed in its favour which goes to show that the Lucknow Development Authority had admitted its mistake of not awarding the compensation as well as not developing the plot alloted to the petitioner but the development charges to the tune of Rs. 8,62,125=00 were received from the petitioner. Throughout this period, Lucknow Development Authority utilized the same for the benefit of the authority. 8,62,125=00 were received from the petitioner. Throughout this period, Lucknow Development Authority utilized the same for the benefit of the authority. It is further submitted that if the same would have not been deposited by the petitioner, he must have earned at least the interest on the fixed deposit of the bank rate for this period. But the Lucknow Development Authority has returned the amount only with interest at the rate of 4% which is too less. The petitioner has also been harassed by the opposite parties and he has to approach this Court twice. He further submitted that the order dated 24.8.2004, relied by the Lucknow Development Authority, is not applicable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly the writ petition is liable to be allowed with cost. 14. Sri Mukund Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that since the matter was in litigation so the amount deposited by the petitioner could not be refunded earlier. He further submitted that since there is no other provision in respect of such cases, the order dated 24.8.2004 is applicable and the Lucknow Development Authority has rightly refunded the amount alongwith interest at the rate of 4%. He further submitted that the petitioner has received the compensation of his land and executed sale-deed of the said land in favour of Lucknow Development Authority so he is not entitled for the plot and accordingly the amount deposited by the petitioner towards development charges has rightly been refunded as per policy of the Authority. 15. We have considered the submissions of the parties and gone through the records. 16. This is a case in which Lucknow Development Authority without acquiring the land of the petitioner had taken the possession of the land of the petitioner and utilized the same for its benefit for a long period. On being represented by the petitioner he was alloted an undeveloped plot and an amount of Rs. 8,62,125=00 was received from the petitioner for development of the said plot. But neither the plot in question was developed since 2007 till 2014 and handed over to the petitioner nor the compensation was paid to the petitioner in lieu of his land. On being represented by the petitioner he was alloted an undeveloped plot and an amount of Rs. 8,62,125=00 was received from the petitioner for development of the said plot. But neither the plot in question was developed since 2007 till 2014 and handed over to the petitioner nor the compensation was paid to the petitioner in lieu of his land. It is only after the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1113 (MB) of 2014, filed by the petitioner, the Lucknow Development Authority took a decision on 3.3.2015 to pay the compensation to the petitioner in lieu of his land and after paying compensation, got the sale-deed executed. Even thereafter the money deposited by the petitioner towards the development charges of the alternative plot alloted to the petitioner was not refunded to the petitioner. It is only after filing of the present writ petition and a direction issued in the present writ petition on 22.12.2015 the money was refunded with interest at the rate of 4% but that too was not given till the date of payment as the payment was made vide Cheque dated 14.1.2016 while the interest was paid for a period w.e.f. 6.2.2007 to 15.6.2015. However, subsequently the interest has been paid up to 30.11.2017 only after order by this Court. 17. We have gone through the order dated 24.8.2004 which, on reproduction, reads as under: ^y[kuÅ fodkl izkf/kdj.k esa iathd`r ,sls vkosnd] ftudk vkcaVu ugha gks ldk gS] mudh iathdj.k /kujkf'k ij pkj izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls] C;kt ns; gksxkA blds vkx.ku gsrq vkosnu iz= tek gksus dk ekg rFkk fjQ.M gsrq vkosnu i= tek djus dk ekg lfEefyr u gksxkA ;g vkns'k fnukad 16@8@2004 ls ykxw gksaxsA^^ 18. The order dated 24.8.2004 shows that it is in respect of the registered applicants in whose favour the allotment could not be made. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the same is not applicable on the facts of the present case, as in the present case the petitioner had not made any application for allotment as such he cannot be said to an applicant registered in the Lucknow Development Authority. It was the authority who, for its own wrong, had alloted undeveloped plot to the petitioner and received development charges for development of the said plot. It was the authority who, for its own wrong, had alloted undeveloped plot to the petitioner and received development charges for development of the said plot. Even thereafter, it had neither developed the same nor handed over to the petitioner for a long period. 19. Since the payment has already been made to the petitioner, therefore, the core question involved in the present writ petition remaining to be determined is what should be the rate of interest on the refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. 20. The respondents have failed to show any provision in respect of the interest in such cases and the provision shown is not applicable, as such, in view of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rampur Fertilizer Ltd. v. Vigyan Chemical Industries; (2009) 12 SCC 324 , Section 34 of Civil Procedure Code would be applicable, which provides that where there is no contractual rate, the rate of interest would be on which money are lent or advanced by nationalized bank in relation to commercial transactions. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in SLP (C) No. 18997 of 1999; Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Union of India and another that interest on equitable grounds can be awarded in appropriate cases. However the rate of interest awarded in equity should neither be too high nor too low. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that the Clause relating to no interest on refund can be applicable only to such cases in which the claimant itself is responsible for creating circumstances providing occasion for refund. It has further held that in the cases in which the fault has been found with the authority, the authority does not have any justification for resisting refund of the claimants amount with interest. 22. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ganesh Prasad v. Lucknow Development Authority; 2012(1) ADJ 247 (DB)(LB), has held that the petitioner therein deposited the total cost but could not get plot. As such on the one hand the petitioner suffered and on the other hand LDA invested the amount in business which is unjust enrichment. Similarly in the present case though the plot was alloted in lieu of land of petitioner and development charges received but the same was not developed and handed over to the petitioner for a long period and the money was utilised by LDA. 23. Similarly in the present case though the plot was alloted in lieu of land of petitioner and development charges received but the same was not developed and handed over to the petitioner for a long period and the money was utilised by LDA. 23. Admittedly Rs. 862,125/- was received by the petitioner on 15.2.2007 and because of the fault of the Lucknow Development Authority, neither the plot was developed nor handed over to the petitioner for a long period and after the decision taken by the Lucknow Development Authority on 19.11.2015 to pay the compensation to the petitioner in lieu of the land of the petitioner and get the sale-deed executed the petitioner was entitled for refund of the amount but that too was not refunded till filing of the present writ petition which shows the arbitrary and callous attitude of the authority. The petitioner has to approach twice to this Court for redressal of his grievance for no fault of his. It is nothing but harassment of the petitioner for which the petitioner is liable to be compensated suitably by a suitable rate of interest. The petitioner has also in the last hearings submitted that he is entitled at least the interest at the bank rate. 24. Considering the submission of parties and in view of aforesaid findings, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled for the interest at the bank rate on the fixed deposit of nationalized bank and since it is lowering down continuously it would be appropriate if the petitioner is paid 8% interest on the amount deposited by him from the date of deposit till the date of actual and complete payment of interest @ 4% i.e. 30.11.2017. 25. Accordingly the writ petition is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay the interest at the rate of 8% to the petitioner on the amount of Rs. 8,62,125=00 deposited by the petitioner and pay the difference of amount of interest which has already been paid from the date of deposit and till the date of payment i.e. 30.11.2017 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 26. No order as to costs.