“So far as first point for determination is concerned, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 because both these orders have been passed after following due procedures provided under the Act and giving due opportunity of fair hearing to the appellant. At the outset, it is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that no interest more than 10 % per annum could be charged by respondents and that too when there was no developmental activity and possession of suit property was not delivered to the appellant. However, this contention of learned counsel for the appellant is devoid of legal force because as per terms and conditions of allotment letter Ex.P2, respondents could have charged 15 % interest on each ten half yearly instalment as per condition No.5 of the allotment letter Ex.P2. Similarly, respondents were also entitled to recover 18 % simple interest on the delayed payment as per note given in the allotment letter Ex.P2. Therefore, when there was contractual rate of interest agreed between the parties, then now appellant could not back out from the said contract. Similarly, if at all there was no development activity in the area where the suit property was situated and its possession was not delivered to the appellant, then appellant has failed to explain as to how and under which circumstances he had paid two instalments of Rs.69,930/- each vide receipts Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 on 18.1.99 and 12.3.1999 respectively which not only included instalment of Rs.48,000/- each but also included simple interest @ 15 % P.A. As agreed between the parties. Therefore, it can be safely said that possession of the suit property was already
