ORDER 1. Application for early listing is allowed. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-JDA challenging the order dated 16.09.2019 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur whereby the reference application filed by the respondent-auction purchaser was allowed and the petitioner-JDA was directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,70,000/- to the respondent-auction purchaser along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of depositing the said amount till the date of order i.e. 16.09.2019. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-JDA issued a notice for auctioning the plots of land at Farm Houses in Taru Vihar Farm Yojna, Ballupura, Jaisinghpura Khor, which was published in the daily newspaper on 19.01.2006. The respondent-auction purchaser participated for plot No.76 in the said auction held on 23.01.2006. The respondent-auction purchaser being the highest bidder for the said plot No.76, its sale was confirmed in his favour and he deposited the amount of Rs. 11,70,000/- with the JDA and for the remaining amount a demand letter was issued by the petitioner-JDA requiring the respondent-auction purchaser to deposit the remaining amount within a period of 30 days from the date of issuance of the demand letter, which according to the petitioner-JDA, the respondent-auction purchaser failed to deposit within the stipulated period of time. However, according to the respondent-auction purchaser, when the possession of the plot in dispute was not handed over by the JDA to him, he approached the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur by filing a reference application under Section 83(8)(A) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. The Appellate Tribunal after hearing the parties and considering the material before it, passed the order dated 16.09.2019 directing the JDA to make the payment along with interest, as observed above. Hence, being aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-JDA challenging the order dated 16.09.2019. 4. Counsel for the petitioner-JDA submitted that the order passed by the JDA Appellate Tribunal is against the facts and law involved in this matter and further submitted that the tribunal has committed illegality in giving direction to the petitioner-JDA to refund the amount to the respondent-auction purchaser along with the interest @ 12% per annum. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Jaipur Development Authority Vs. The Appellate Tribunal, JDA Jaipur & Ors. 5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Jaipur Development Authority Vs. The Appellate Tribunal, JDA Jaipur & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.955/2010 decided on 06.04.2010), has held as under:- 'Instant petition has been filed by Jaipur Development Authority ('JDA'), assailing the order dt.12/08/2009 whereby the JDA Appellate Tribunal has directed the JDA to refund the amount of auction bid deposited by respondents-2 to 4. alongwith interest @ 12% on the premise that despite auction purchasers having deposited total bid amount the authority (JDA) was unable to hand over vacant & peaceful possession of the property in question. The NIT was issued by petitioner JDA on 27/01/2006 for auction of certain farm houses in which respondents-2 to 4 had also participated and being highest bidder, their bid was accepted and total bid amount indisputably was deposited by them on 08/02/2006, details whereof have been referred to by respondents in para no.1 of their Reference application filed before the Tribunal. After the total bid amount in terms of the NIT was deposited by respondents, it was obviously expected from the authority, in whom the people still have a faith that the vacant & peaceful possession of the property in auction will be handed over to its purchasers. But it appears that one Vasudev Singhi filed revenue suit and in appeal preferred before revenue appellate authority, interim stay order was granted on 04/02/2006 and it was held that the land in dispute belonged to Bhonri Devi - on account of which, respondents (auction purchasers) were dispossessed from the land in dispute - possession of which at one time was handed over by the JDA. Since respondents were not holding possession of the land in dispute having been purchased in an open auction held by the JDA and the money having been deposited with the JDA, was also not refunded, at this stage, an appeal was preferred by respondents (auction purchasers) before JDA appellate Tribunal and after adjudication the Tribunal finally directed the JDA (petitioner) vide order dt.12/08/2009 to refund the total bid amount of Rs.7475845/- deposited by auction purchaser along with interest @ 12% from the date it was deposited till actual payment of refund, against which the present petition has been filed by the JDA (petitioner). Counsel for petitioner submits that it has not been disputed by the parties that the authority was unable to hand over vacant & peaceful possession of the land in dispute having been put to auction, the bid amount whereof, has to be refunded but Counsel submits that rate of interest having been awarded by the Tribunal is unreasonable and to that extent, it requires interference. In support, Counsel placed reliance on a decision of this Court in M/s Udasee Stampings (P) Ltd Vs. Central Bank of India (CWP-3167/07 decided on 29/05/2009). On the other hand, Counsel for respondents while supporting the impugned order of the tribunal submits that in terms of the powers of Raj. Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules, 1974 ('Rules, 1974') if the auction purchaser/successful bidder fails to make payment and commits default, he has to pay interest @ 15% p.a. and if default has been committed by the authority, at least the same rate of interest has to be paid by the authority (JDA) but in the instant case, the Tribunal has only awarded interest @ 12% per annum which cannot be said to be unreasonable and what has been observed by the tribunal does not warrant any interference. This Court has considered rival contentions of counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined the material on record. It remains undisputed that respondents-2 to 4 were highest bidder and on the acceptance of their bid, the amount demanded by the JDA was deposited on 08/02/2006 - reference whereof has been made in para 1 of their application before the Tribunal; and on revenue suit being filed by one Shri Vasu Dev Sindhi and because of an interim stay order passed by revenue appellate authority, vacant & peaceful possession of the auctioned plot could not have been handed over to respondents-2 to 4; in such circumstances, the JDA was under legal obligation to refund the bid amount alongwith interest. As regards rate of interest, under Rules, 1974, when auction purchaser or successful bidder commits default, he is made liable to pay interest @ 15% per annum and in the instant case, if the authority (JDA) committed default in handing over the auctioned plot, the same rate of interest in the ordinary course is liable to be paid by the authority, as well. However, in the instant case, looking to the fact that after 5-6 months, a dispute arose and peaceful possession could not have been handed over to the auction purchase even after the bid amount being deposited within time schedule under the NIT. Taking an over all conspectus of the material on record, the Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% per annum which cannot in any manner be said to be unreasonable. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, the JDA (petitioner) is directed to comply with the order of the Tribunal impugned within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No costs. 7. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner-JDA has not handed over possession of the plot in dispute to the respondent- auction purchaser despite depositing the amount of Rs.11,70,000/-; secondly, so far as, the interest @ 12% per annum, as awarded by the Appellate Tribunal, is concerned, in view of the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Jaipur Development Authority (supra), the same, in my view also, seems to be just and reasonable and lastly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed.