Partly allowed

Smt Rekha H v. the Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2023WP/19983/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka directed the Bangalore Development Authority to refund Rs.35,73,522/- paid by the auction winner, along with interest at 21% p.a. and Rs.25,000/- as costs, dismissing the urgent injunction to register the property in the petitioner's name.

What did the court decide?

Refund of Rs.35,73,522/- with 21% p.a. interest and Rs.25,000/- cost within four weeks.

Smt Rekha H Vs the Commissioner Bengaluru Development… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35908 WP No. 19983 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19983 OF 2021 (BDA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. REKHA H., W/O M. DEVANAND, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 130/4, ALLAMAPRABHU ROAD, GAVIPURA, BANGALORE - 560 019.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. ANANDITHA CHAKRABORTHY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHARATHCHANDRA M.M.J., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE COMMISSIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHIWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶14

FINANCE MEMBER,

¶15

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHIWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶16

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

¶17

T. CHIWDAIAH ROAD,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:35908 WP No. 19983 of 2021

¶20

KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO REGISTER THE PROPERTY AS MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE-B IN NAME OF THE PETITIONER AND ETC.,

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they would not intend to press the relief sought at prayer column 1 and 2 and would be satisfied if alternative relief is granted.

¶27

Submission taken on record.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that he being the

¶29

successful bidder in an auction process, was allotted site bearing No.451 on 08.07.2015 as per Annexure-B. That the petitioner has paid total sum of Rs.35,73,522/-. That for no fault of the petitioner, petitioner is not in a position to enjoy the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:35908 WP No. 19983 of 2021

¶32

fruits of the site which was purchased as above, as the same has been allotted in favour of one Smt. Sandhya.

¶33

Respondent-BDA filed its affidavit on 26.09.2023 admitting the fact of petitioner being the highest bidder and having declared as a purchaser of the auction site has paid the value of the site. The receipt of the amount from the petitioner is also admitted. It is further admitted that the site which was purchased by the petitioner in auction had been inadvertently registered in the name of aforesaid Smt.Sandhya and a lease cum sale Agreement had also been executed and registered in her favour on 02.03.2018 and that the respondent-BDA has passed resolution in its Board meeting held on 09.06.2017 vide Resolution No.68/17 resolving to rectify its mistake by initiating proceedings in the nature of filing a suit before jurisdictional Court for cancellation of said registered lease cum sale Agreement dated 02.03.2018. The affidavit further reads that, after obtaining necessary orders or decree of cancellation of said registered Lease cum sale Agreement, steps will be taken to hand over the possession of the site to the petitioner.

¶34

In response learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the learned counsel for the respondent-

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:35908 WP No. 19983 of 2021

¶37

BDA has not neither made any submission or given any undertaking regarding the time frame within which the matter would be resolved. The petitioner would not be in position to wait endlessly. Therefore it is submitted that petitioner would be satisfied if the alternate prayer in the nature of direction to the respondent-BDA is issued to refund the admitted amount along with interest of 21% P.A and to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA has no objection in direction being issued to the respondent-BDA for refund of the amount paid by the petitioner. He however submits that petitioner may not be entitled for interest of 21% P.A.

¶39

Since, there is no dispute with regard to payment of said value by the petitioner, receipts of the same by the respondent-BDA, only point requires consideration is the rate of interest. In this regard as seen in Annexure-A, the respondentBDA has been charging the interest as under:

¶40

After 45 days from the date of receipt of Confirmation Letter-No Interest.

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35908 WP No. 19983 of 2021

¶42

After interest free 45 days further 90 days-18%

¶43

Interest per annum.

¶44

After interest free 45 days + 90 days-18% Interest

¶45

further period of 120 days-21% per annum.

¶46

The aforesaid rate of interest being charged in terms of Notification dated 27.07.2011 issued under Rule 6(4) of Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites, Intermediate sites and Commercial Sites) Rule 1984. Admittedly amount of Rs.35,73,522/- has been paid by the petitioner during 2015. Therefore it is just and proper that respondent-BDA be directed to pay the interest at 21% as per its own circular on amount paid by the petitioner besides, in view of the so called mistake committed by the respondentBDA, it is just and proper that petitioner shall also be compensated by directing the respondent-BDA to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost.

¶47

In that view of the matter, petition is partly allowed . The respondent-BDA is directed to refund the admitted amount of Rs.35,73,522/- with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. from the

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:35908 WP No. 19983 of 2021

¶50

date of payment till realization along with Rs.25,000/- being cost of proceedings . The aforesaid amount with interest and the cost to be paid within a period of four weeks from the date

¶51

of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

PHM

Smt Rekha H v. the Commissioner Bengaluru Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rekha H v. the Commissioner 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

Sri. Krishnappa Vs Union of India

Sri Muniyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Papanna Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Fashion Power Vs Bangalore Development Authority

Sri. Chandrakanth @ Chandrappa Vs the Commissioner

Smt Devika Vs the Commissioner