Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:138878-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27493 of 2025 Petitioner :- Nanhelal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sumit Suri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shiv Prakash Gupta Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Additional C.S.C. appearing for the State respondents and Shri Ashutosh Gupta, learned counsel for Meerut Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction commanding the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority- respondent no.2 to forthwith pay 8% annual interest to the petitioner for a period w.e.f. 20.02.2013 till the date of actual payment by adjusting 4% interest already paid by the respondent no.2 on the amount Rs.13,44,216/- deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the allotment letter dated 22.01.2014 in respect to Flat No.57 area 39.75 sq. mtrs. situated in Lohiya Nagar Residential Scheme, in Sector NA, Pocket CP, District Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief, which is pressed in the instant proceeding is no more res-integra. The controversy in hand is squarely covered by the judgment dated 12.07.2022 passed in Writ-C No.20622 of 2021 (Ankit Verma v. State of U.P. and others) and the instant writ petition also be allowed in similar terms. 4. For ready reference, the order dated 12.07.2022 is quoted as under:- "Heard Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri J.N. Maurya for respondents no. 2 and 3. The petitioner was allotted a plot of land bearing no. B-122, Shatabdi Enclave-2 Sector-9, Meerut by allotment letter dated 26.11.2011. The amount under the allotment letter was to be deposited in eight installments. The case of the petitioner is that he has deposited all the eight installments in time, however, possession of the plot was not delivered to him, compelling him to file the instant petition praying for several reliefs one amongst them being for a direction to return the entire amount with 8% interest per annum, in the event the respondent authority is not in a position to deliver possession. The said prayer alone is being pressed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri J.N. Maurya appearing on behalf of respondents no. 2 and 3 does not dispute that the entire amount under the allotment letter has been deposited by the petitioner in time. It is also not disputed by him that Meerut Development Authority, Meerut has so far not delivered possession of the plot to the petitioner. It is submitted by Sri J.N. Maurya that possession could not be delivered as the farmers are offering resistance and have taken forcible possession of the acquired land including the plot allotted to the petitioner, demanding higher compensation. It is evident from the stand taken by Meerut Development Authority, Meerut that despite the petitioner having deposited entire amount under the allotment order, the Meerut Development Authority is not in a position to deliver possession to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in similar facts and circumstances, this Court in Writ Petition no. 40549 of 2019 (Vijay Nayak And 2 Others vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others) directed the Vice-Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut to appear in person. In pursuance of the said direction, the Vice Chairman, Meerut Development Authority, Meerut appeared in the Court and agreed to refund the entire amount deposited by the petitioners of that case along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum within one month. He submitted that similar order be passed in the instant petition. He has also placed reliance on another order to the same effect dated 16.3.2018 in Writ C No. 6110 of 2018 (Tejpal Education Trust And Another vs. Meerut Development Authority And Another). Having regard to the above facts, we are of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for refund of money deposited by him so far along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum is wholly justified and accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with direction to respondents no. 2 and 3 to ensure that the amount deposited by the petitioner so far is refunded along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of true attested copy of the instant order." 5. So far as factual and legal aspect, the same is not disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsel for Meerut Development Authority. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that similar indulgence is liable to be accorded in the instant matter also. The present writ petition is allowed in the same terms as have been given in Ankit Verma (Supra). Accordingly, the respondents are directed to ensure refund of money deposited by the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum, after adjusting the 4% interest amount, which is already paid to the petitioner, within a period of two months. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 A. Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad