S. Sujatha, J.This appeal is filed challenging the correctness of the order passed by the learned single judge in writ petition no. 26718/12 dated 27.3.13.

2. The appellant had filed the writ petition seeking for a direction, directing the respondents to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant in respect of site no. 35 formed in Sy. nos. 38/1 and 39/1 of Valageri Halli Village, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore and put him in possession of the same.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant submitted an application for allotment of site along with payment of Rs. 1500/- through DD on 20.2.1985 pursuant to the Town Municipality, Kengeri publishing a notification for allotment of sites in Sy. Nos. 38/1 and 39/1 of Valageri Village, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore. The Town Municipality, Kengeri had allotted site no. 35 measuring 30 x 40 feet to the appellant on 29.7.1986 subject to the payment of balance amount. The appellant made payment of Rs. 4000/- towards the site through DD on 24.09.1986 and further payment of Rs. 5500/- towards the site through DD on 16.7.1993, totally of Rs. 11,000/- as against the total amount of Rs. 25000/-. The respondents had issued an endorsement on 25.11.2009 to the effect that the 3rd respondent had decided to refund the amount with interest @ 18% p.a. and the same shall be refunded which was challenged by the appellant in Writ Petition No. 26718/2012 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 27.03.2013 dismissed the writ petition against which this writ appeal is filed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The appellant has placed reliance on the Judgment of this Honble Court in Writ Petition Nos. 4816-4818/11 disposed off on 03.12.2012 whereby this Honble Court issued appropriate directions to the respondents to allot the site and execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners therein. The appellant has further relied on the case of Sri K Boregowda who had approached the District Consumer Forum seeking for relief of allotment of site. Though the District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint, the said Sri K. Boregowda challenged the same before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Appeal No. 2056/2008 wherein the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had directed the BBMP-1st respondent to receive the balance amount with 12% interest and thereafter to execute the sale deed. It is further pointed out that the 1st respondent filed the revision before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission challenging the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which had upheld the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission and the consequent Special Leave Petition before the Honble Supreme Court had been rejected. The appellant has also placed reliance on the judgment of this Honble Court in Writ Appeal No. 42/2011 c/w Misc. No. 6702/2011 dated 05.07.2011.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that similar benefit has to be extended to the appellant and accordingly, sought for quashing of the endorsement dated 25.11.2009 and for issuance of a direction to the respondents for allotting the site and to execute the documents.

7. Learned Single Judge distinguished the case of Sri K Boregowda and the judgment passed by the Honble Division Bench in Writ Petition Nos. 4816-4818/11 disposed off on 3.12.2012. Learned Single Judge having examined the case in detail has observed that the appellants have approached this Honble Court belatedly in the year 2011 and 2012 accordingly dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner, in any event, would be entitled to refund of the amount with interest at 18% p.a. as indicated in the endorsement dated 25.11.2009-Annexure "E". The respondents are directed to refund the amount with interest as indicated therein within two weeks from the date on which the petitioners approach the respondents along with a certified copy of the order.

8. The only question that arise for our consideration is, "Whether the appellant is entitled to the allotment of site at this belated stage, against the endorsement dated 25.11.2009 issued by the respondents"

9. Admittedly, the appellant has filed the application for allotment of site formed in Sy. Nos. 38/1 and 39/1 of Valgeri Halli Village, Kengeri Satellite Town, Bangalore on 20.3.1985 along with payment of Rs. 1500/- and further has made the payment of Rs. 4000/- on 24.9.1986 and Rs. 5500/- on 16.7.1993 respectively as against Rs. 25,000/-. Despite the 3rd respondent having issued the endorsement on 25.11.2009 to the effect that BBMP decided to refund the money remitted by the appellant together with interest @ 18% as no rules were followed before the grant of site, the appellant not immediately challenging the said endorsement, was sitting on a fence and watching the proceedings of similarly placed persons.

10. The said Sri K Boregowdas case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As noticed by the learned Single Judge, the said Sri K. Boregowda has taken immediate action against the refusal to allot the site for short payment of sale amount. In Writ Petition Nos. 4816-4818/11 disposed of on 03.12.2012 the petitioners therein had made the payments of the amount in full in the year 1992. Similarly, even in Writ Appeal No. 42/2011 c/w Misc. W. No. 6702/2011 an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited in the year 1992 itself. The appellant having failed to deposit the amount of Rs. 25,000/- within the prescribed period, lost the right of allotment of site by his conduct and neglect. If he was serious and interested would have deposited the full amount itself and would have challenged Annexure "E" at the earliest point of time.

11. If such belated petitions are entertained, it would continue to open flood gates as similarly placed persons would approach this Honble Court seeking for similar relief resulting in no finality in the proceedings. Over a period of time, the value of the sites would naturally fetch higher value and if such direction is issued to the respondents to allot the site and execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, it is against the public interest affecting the exchequer as rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, we pass the following:

ORDER

The writ appeal is dismissed. The respondents are directed to refund the amount with interest as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.