Allowed

Nadeem Ahmed v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2021WA/534/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ appeal, the High Court of Karnataka enhanced the rate of interest from 10% to 11% per annum to be paid by the BDA on the refund of site purchase consideration deposited by the appellant, due to the delay in refund.

What did the court decide?

Respondent directed to refund deposited amount with interest at 11% p.a. within one month; otherwise Rs.25,000 cost payable.

Nadeem Ahmed Vs the Bengaluru Development… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.534/2020 (BDA)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NADEEM AHMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O. ABDUL RASHEED, R/AT NO.33, 2^ND CROSS, CHUNCHAPPA BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 032 REP. BY HIS BROTHER, GPA HOLDER NAVEEN AHMED. ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY-1, BDA OFFICE, KUMARA PARK. BENGALURU - 560 001. ... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI BASAVARAJA H.T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.2793/2020 (BDA) AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDERED TO PAY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SITE BEARING NO.57/B, 2^ND PHASE, HAL, BENGALURU, WITH 18% COMPOUNDABLE INTEREST AND PASS ANY OTHER AS DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.

¶16

¶17

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The appellant herein was the writ petitioner in W.P.No.2793/2020. He had filed the said writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent/Bangalore Development Authority ("BDA") to return the consideration amount paid towards purchase of site No.57/B with interest by considering his representation dated 29/08/2019.

¶20

Learned single Judge has directed the respondent/BDA to refund the entire consideration amount deposited by the appellant herein towards the site along with interest at 10% p.a. and to complete the said exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the BDA to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant herein.

¶21

Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.

¶22

¶23

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the BDA and perused the material on record.

¶24

Appellant's counsel contended that although the learned single Judge has directed refund of the consideration amount being Rs.1,72,76,859/- (Rupees one crore, seventy two lakh, seventy six thousand, eight hundred and fifty nine only), nevertheless, the award of interest of 10% per annum is on the lower side. He contended that the site in question was auctioned and the appellant being the highest bidder was allotted the site and pursuant to the auction conducted on 23/07/2013, the registration of site was made in the name of appellant's father on 11/02/2014 by payment of registration charges and thereafter for transfer of khata in his name. However, the BDA allotted the very same site to one Smt.Latha and therefore, possession of the site was not given to the appellant. Neither was the consideration amount returned, nor an alternative site was allotted to the appellant. He contended that the appellant has been deprived of site as well as the huge consideration amount, which has been lying with the BDA since the year 2013 and the appellant was constrained to file the writ petition seeking a direction

¶25

¶26

as the earlier representations made by the appellant to the BDA fell on deaf ears. He contended that the appellant must be suitably compensated inasmuch as huge amount of Rs.1,72,76,859/- has been lying with the BDA for seven long years. Therefore, the award of interest may be enhanced.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent/BDA, however, submitted that there is no merit in the appeal. That the learned single Judge has, in fact, awarded reasonable interest at the rate of 10% per annum in the instant case, whereas, the prevailing bank rate of interest is still lower. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.

¶28

Having considered the arguments of the respective counsel, we find that the BDA ought to be directed to refund the consideration amount deposited by the appellant to him with interest at the rate of 11% per annum instead of 10% per annum. We say so, because the BDA did not return the consideration amount and the appellant had to approach this Court to seek refund of the same. The consideration amount has been deposited during various periods of time right from the year 2013 and now till the year 2021 the appellant has not been

¶29

¶30

refunded by the BDA. Hence, we find it just and proper to interfere in the matter and enhance the rate of interest to 11% per annum instead of 10% per annum ordered by the learned single Judge. The respondent/BDA shall refund the amount deposited by the appellant with interest at the rate of 11% per annum within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment, failing which the respondent/BDA shall be liable to pay cost of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant. Appeal is accordingly disposed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Nadeem Ahmed v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeem Ahmed v. the Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Eugenia Preethi Vs Sri. Leo John

Sri Srinivas L v Vs Smt Chennamma @ Geetha

Mr. David Doss Vs Mrs. Anusuya Kumari v

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs Smt S Lakshmi

Hanumanthappa Vs State of Karnataka

The General Manager Vs Sri Rajashekar v Handragal