the internecine quarrel between the Corporation and the revenue authorities can not be considered. The appellant cannot be faulted with in the entire episode and needs to be compensated adequately for what became a dead investment by him. The cancellation of the auction sale was not at the behest of the Corporation but was a unilateral act of the State Authorities. The bid amount was never transferred to the Corporation and remained with the revenue authorities. Therefore, the liability for compensating the appellant will as also rest with the revenue authorities alone.

The auction was held as far as back on 12.06.2006, the deposit was made by the appellant in due time, the act of cancellation was not attributable to the appellant in any manner. The Corporation had approved the sale. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider that it will be adequate compensation for the appellant to grant him 5% interest on his dues under the Rules. If the Rules have not been complied with by the State Authorities themselves, we see no reason that in the special facts and circumstances of the case, we should not award an interest of 10% on the amount deposited by the appellant.