THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15968 of 2010 Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, 2nd respondent herein issued a notification in September, 2007 inviting bids and tenders for sale of plots at various places in and around Hyderabad. One such location was at Nallagandla. The auction was conducted on 12t h to 14th of September, 2007. As required under the notification and the brochure issued by the 2nd respondent, petitioners made a deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit and participated in the auction conducted on 13.09.2007. They were declared as the highest bidders in respect of plot No.110/R of Nallagandla, admeasuring 318.75 Sq.yards at the rate of Rs.17,500/- per sq.yard. The petitioners made initial deposit of 1/4th of the bid amount. For payment of the balance, the petitioners intended to obtain loan from M/S ICICI bank. The 2nd respondent issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ on 27.10.2007 enabling the petitioners to obtain loan. The Bank directly paid the sanctioned amount to the 2nd respondent. It is stated that when there was delay in processing of the loan, 2nd respondent collected the penal interest at the rate of 18% amounting to Rs.27,036/-. Ultimately the sale deed was executed and registered on 07.06.2008 and possession was delivered. 2. When the petitioners started clearing the bushes upon the site, one Sri N.Krishna objected to the same, stating that he purchased the said plot from 2nd respondent in the year 1997. The petitioners brought this fact to the notice of 2nd respondent. After verifying from records, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioners that the plot conveyed to them is part of 1005.53 Sq. yards purchased by Sri N.Krishna and others and that they are prepared to accommodate the petitioners at another place, if they are willing for it. The petitioners state that no plot is available in the locality and that they made several requests to the respondents to refund the sale consideration and registration charges with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. Their grievance is that the respondents are not acceding to their request. Voluminous correspondence that ensured between the parties is placed before this Court. 3. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 counter-affidavit is filed stated that on account of an inadvertent mistake the plot in question was sold in favour of the petitioners. It is stated that the four plots including plot No.110/R covering an extent of total area of 1230.35 Sq.yards were carved out of piece of land covered by plot No.B1, which was sold in public auction held on 15.05.1997. Detailed reference is made to the method of payment made by the petitioners. It is alleged the interest of 24% claimed by the petitioners is excessive. 4. Heard Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.Surendra Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 5. It is rather unfortunate that an Authority created under A.P. Urban Areas Development Act, has taken up the sale of plots as one of its principal activities. This would naturally cause a dent into its primary statutory duty of providing infrastructure and adequate planning of the city. The sad part is that in its anxiety to get more and more revenue, it did not undertake proper verification as to whether the land, which is converted into plots is available to be sold at all. The activity of selling one and the same property to different persons, which is generally resorted to by unscrupulous elements, came to be undertaken by the 2nd respondent, also may be due to inadvertence. 6. The petitioners paid the entire consideration and part of it, with penal interest, and a sale deed was executed. For any defect in the title of the 2nd respondent, vis-à-vis the plot, the petitioners are entitled to file a suit claiming damages also. However, they have reconciled to the one of seeking refund of sale consideration and the registration charges, with interest. The respondents do not deny their obligation to refund the sale consideration and the registration charges. Much controversy is about the rate of interest. 7. The petitioners claimed interest at the rate of 24%. By any standard, it is excessive. All the same, they must be awarded interest since they borrowed substantial amount from bank on interest. As a matter of fact, 2nd respondent levied and collected interest from the petitioners for delayed payment. The same principle would apply when it comes to the question of refunding the amount. 8. Normally, this Court awards interest at the rate of 9% on various transactions. However, if one takes into account the fact that the petitioners are paying higher interest to the bank, from which they borrowed the amount, a slightly different approach needs to be adopted. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondent Nos.2 to 4, to refund the entire sale consideration, stamp duty and registration charges in respect of plot No.110/R of Nallagandla with interest at 12% Per annum, within two months from the date of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 25th March, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in One week. B/O. KSP