- (1.)The Patna Regional Development Authority (in short the P. R. D. A) resolved to lease out cinema plot no. 156 measuring 100'-6" x 140'-6" situate in Maurya Lok complex on the Dak Bunglow Road in patna town through a public auction.
(2.)The auction was held on 17th March, 1981. In the said auction, the husband of appellant no. 1 offered a bid for Rs. 48,25,000. 00. The aforesaid bid being highest, was accepted by the P. R. D. A. Consequently, the husband of appellant deposited 25% of the bid amount, namely, rs. 12,06,250. 00. Subsequently, it was found that on the said plot of land, no cinema hall building could be constructed under the building regulations framed by the authority. Under such circumstances, husband of appellant no. 1 requested the P. R. D. A. either to refund the money or give an alternative plot where cinema building could be constructed. The P. R. D. A. offered an alternative plot nos. 154-156 on lease for construction of the cinema building. However, on the intervention of the state government, lease of land executed in favour of the appellant's husband could not be given effect to. It is under such circumstances the appellants filed a petition under Article 226 before the Patna High Court challenging the order passed by the state government and in the alternative, prayed for refund of money deposited by the husband of appellant no. 1. Before the High Court, the p. R. D. A. did not dispute the deposit made by the appellant's husband. However, on 1/9/1986 the P. R. D. A. deposited a sum of Rs. 48,25,000. 00 in a nationalised bank. However, this information was not given to the appellants herein. The High court was of the view that since lease deed executed in favour of appellant's husband cannot be given effect to, the appellants are entitled for refund of the money. In that view of the matter, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction that a sum of Rs. 48,25,000. 00 deposited by the p. R. D. A. in a nationalised bank along with the interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the appellants and further the appellants would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% on the said sum for the period from 23/10/1981 to 31/8/1986. It is against the said judgment of the High court the appellants have preferred this appeal.
(3.)We have heard learned counsel for the parties.