THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.575 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent issued a notification in December, 2007, proposing to conduct auction of the open lands, in bulk, within the limits of the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. Plot No.15, admeasuring 28 acres of Madhurawada, was also notified. The auction was conducted on 06-01-2008. However, at the time of auction, the extent was reduced to Ac.13.90 cents. The petitioner has emerged as the highest bidder for Rs.98,13,40,000/-. A promise was held out to the petitioner, to the effect that the balance of the land, which is under litigation, would be offered to the petitioner itself, at the same rate. Further communication was to the effect that, in case the litigation was not resolved, the petitioner would have the option to exit from the contract. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent did not get the dispute resolved, and as a result, it has chosen to exit from the contract. On 16-06-2008, a request was made for refund of the amount, deposited by it. It is stated that the 1st respondent has refunded a sum of Rs.10.5 crores, so far. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the balance of the amount is not refunded. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, a further sum of Rs.5 crores was refunded. The respondents filed counter-affidavits, narrating the circumstances, under which, the area had to be reduced, and those, under which, the petitioner made an exit from the contract. The gist of their stand is that, the dispute is purely civil in nature, and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is also stated that, as observed by the 2nd respondent, while according permission, the amounts would be paid, as and how the sales takes place, and funds are mobilized. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Advocate-General for the respondents. With the fond hope that substantial revenue can be generated by it, the 1st respondent has initiated proposals for sale of open lands, which were made over to it, by the Government, or were acquired, otherwise. However, it emerged that the disputes existed, as regards the part of the land, that is sought to be sold. It is no doubt true that the matter is purely contractual in nature. However, having regard to the nature of the activity undertaken by the 1st respondent, it cannot be said that the contract is purely commercial. An identical issue was dealt with by this Court, in IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., v. Hyderabad Urban Development Authority[1]. The only difference is that, the said writ petition pertained to the sale of lands by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, whereas in the instant case, it is the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority. Reference was made to the relevant provisions of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975; the judgment of the Supreme Court, and ultimately the writ petition was allowed, directing that the amount due to the petitioner therein shall be refunded within three months. A further direction was issued to the effect that, if the amount is not refunded within that time, it shall carry interest, from the date of deposit, till the date of payment. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed, and it is directed that the respondents shall refund the amount, due to the petitioner, within a period of three months from today. In case the amount is not refunded, it shall carry interest at 9% per annum, from the date on which, the amount is due, till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09-02-2011. KO [1] 2010(3) ALD 659