ORDER : 1. The petitioner was allotted vacant land bearing Plot No. MIG B 150 ad-measuring 196.056 sq meters in Alampatti Village, Kovilpatti Phase II in Survey No.4/pt, Kovilpatti Taluk, Thoothukudi District. 2. The present challenge is to a demand made for a mandamus directing the respondents to measure the land and handover 910 sq.ft as mentioned in the sale deed dated 18.03.2011 or refund proportionate amount of money for the shortage of 910 sq ft along with proportionate amount spent towards registration of the sale deed. 3. In the counter filed by the respondents on 05.12.2022, they concede to the position that the petitioner has been over charged and that consideration relating to 2111 sq ft has been collected in spite of the approved layout ad-measuring 1200 sq ft only. They brush it away attributing it to 'faux pas' in the allotment order. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the counter are extracted below, for completion of narration:- “6. I respectfully submit that the petitioner is eligible of refund of money collected for 910 Sq.ft, in excess of 1200 Sq.ft. The standard extent of MIG Plot in the approved layout is 1200 Sq.ft only and not 2111 Sq.ft. Due to faux pas in the Allotment Order, excess amount was collected. As per the existing norms of the Respondent – Board, the petitioner is eligible for refund of excess money collected for 910 Sq.ft. As such, the Respondent – Board is willing to refund the excess money collected from the petitioner. 7. To sum up, a. The Standard measurement of MIG Plot is only 1200 Sq.ft ad not 2111 sq.ft as erroneously mentioned in the official records of the Respondent – Board. b. If another plot is allotted to the petitioner to compensate 910 sq.ft. as claimed by the petitioner, would amount to double allotment, which will not be in accordance with the existing norms of the Respondent – Board and will be against the core objective of “One House One Family” of the Respondent – Board. c. Moreover, the respondent – Board is prepared to refund the excess cost collected from the petitioner, as per the norms of the Respondent – Board.” 4. The respondents are thus categorically of the view that the amount that has been collected in excess will be returned. So far so good. c. Moreover, the respondent – Board is prepared to refund the excess cost collected from the petitioner, as per the norms of the Respondent – Board.” 4. The respondents are thus categorically of the view that the amount that has been collected in excess will be returned. So far so good. However, the question that arises relates to the rate of interest that is payable. In the computation, the respondents were asked to compute the amount that they will pay back and the consideration to be refunded has been correctly quantified as Rs.1,67,440/-. This then is the consideration which is to be refunded. The registration fee at 11% that has been paid by the petitioner is a sum of Rs.18,418/-. The aforesaid two amounts are not in dispute. However, the interest computed is only at the rate of 4% which according to the respondents is as per Board norms. The terms of allotment reveal that had there been any default or delay in remittance of instalments of consideration on the part of the allottee that is, the petitioner, the interest charged would have been at the rate of 13.5%. 5. In such circumstances, I see no justification whatsoever for the difference in yardstick to be adopted by the respondents. The reference to Board norms leaves me unconvinced. If at all there are Board norms to the effect that the interest on the refunds by the Board must carry interest only at 4% whereas interest on principal to be collected is 13.5% alone. It is high time that the Board revise the norms such that they are equitable. 6. The amount of Rs.1,67,440/- plus Rs.18,418/- shall carry interest at the rate of 13.5% from 2011 when it has admittedly been received and shall be paid over to the petitioner within two weeks from today. I am also inclined to impose an additional cost seeing as the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the year 2014 and counter has been filed only in December 2022. This shall be considered when the matter is called for reporting compliance two weeks from today. 7. This writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid order. No costs. 8. List on 21.02.2023 under the caption 'for reporting compliance'.