Bangalore Development Authority Vs Dr Krishnaprasad M

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BDA ACT, 1976 BY ITS COMMISSIONER, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS FINANCE MEMBER.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. K KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally AND: signed by NIRMALA DR KRISHNAPRASAD M DEVI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS Location: S/O RAMA BHAT. M., HIGH COURT OF RESIDING AT NO.109, KARNATAKA 1ST MAIN ROAD, GKVK LAYOUT, JAKKUR BANGALORE - 560034

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, PASSED IN WP No. 17710/2022 DATED 06.01.2025 AND DISMISS THE WRIT

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39665-DB WA No. 1508 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶18

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶23

The present appeal has been filed after an inordinate delay of 202 days. The appellant [ BDA ] has also filed an application seeking condonation of delay. The said application indicates that the copy of the impugned order was made available to the appellant on 18.01.2025 and it was thereafter sent to the Law Section of BDA on 21.01.2025. It was thereafter placed before the Law Officer on 28.01.2025 and again put up before the Law Officer on 30.01.2025. The Law Officer, thereafter, directed that the file be sent to the Commissioner, BDA along with a Note. Thereafter, it took 18 days to send the file to the Commissioner. The Commissioner's office returned the file to the Law Section on 27.02.2025 for further action. However, it appears that thereafter,

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39665-DB WA No. 1508 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

no steps were taken for almost two months. The file was placed before the Law Officer on 17.04.2025 for permission to forward it to the Accounts Section. This permission was accorded on 13.05.2025 and thereafter, the file was sent to the Finance Section. It appears that the Finance Member of the BDA rendered an opinion for preferring an appeal after a further period of more than 2 months, that is on 16.07.2025. A month later, the file was sent (on 14.8.2025) to the Panel Advocate for preparing the appeal. It is stated that however, the papers were not clear and it took "some time" to get the file.

¶27

We are not persuaded to accept that the appellant was prevented by any sufficient cause from filing the present appeal within time. We consider it apposite to refer to the following observations made by the Supreme Court in Postmaster General and Others v. Living Media India Limited and Others : 2012(3) SCC 563, which reads as under:

¶28

"27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:39665-DB WA No. 1508 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.

¶32

Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bona fides, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody, including the Government.

¶33

In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bona fide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for the government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few."

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39665-DB WA No. 1508 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

In the present case, there is an undue delay in filing the appeals without any credible explanation. The application is accordingly rejected.

¶37

Notwithstanding the above, we have also examined the appeal on merits.

¶38

BDA has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.17710/2022 (BDA). The respondent had filed the said petition, inter alia, impugning a demand notice dated 23.02.2021 on account of interest on delayed payment of consideration for purchase of property described as site bearing No.1303, situated at VI Block, Banashankari VI stage layout, Bengaluru [ subject property ].

¶39

The subject property was subject matter of an e-auction conducted by the BDA on 12.08.2020. The respondent was a successful bidder and offered to purchase the said site for a consideration of Rs.2,86,02,758/-. 25% of the said bid amount being Rs.72,04,725/- was paid within a period of three days of the said auction as required. The respondent was required to pay the

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:39665-DB WA No. 1508 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

balance 75% of the amount being Rs.2,13,98,033/- within 45 days of the said auction. However, during the said period, the respondent visited the subject property and found that there were some disputes regarding the same. Some persons from the neighbouring property had obstructed and not permitted the officials of BDA to enter or measure the site. They claimed that they were the owners of the entire land and had not been paid any compensation for the land. Thus, BDA was not in a position to hand over the possession of the subject property to the respondent at the material time. However, this issue was resolved by the BDA on 21.11.2020 and the respondent paid the balance 75% of the purchase consideration on 30.11.2020.

¶43

The controversy is essentially is confined to the question whether the respondent is liable to pay interest on the amount quantified at Rs.3,41,029/-, on the delayed payment. The appellant had raised a demand for the said amount, which was paid under protest by the respondent. The respondent had, thereafter, filed a writ petition claiming refund of the same.

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39665-DB WA No. 1508 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

According to the appellant, the respondent was required to pay interest in terms of Rule 6(4) of the BDA (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984. However, the learned Single Judge did not accept the said contention. The learned Single Judge found that the said Rule would be applicable only if the auction purchaser had sought any extension of time to make the payments due to the appellant. However, in the present given facts, the respondent had not sought any extension of time for making the payment. It has paid the entire consideration within seven days of the appellant resolving the disputes with the neighbouring land owners. Since the appellant was not in a position to hand over the subject property at the material time, the respondent could not be expected to make the balance consideration with a hope that he would be granted possession of the subject property some time in future.

¶47

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended

¶48

that the respondent is obliged to pay interest on any delayed payment in terms of the Auction Site Confirmation Letter dated 04.09.2020, whereby the auction of the subject property was

¶49

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:39665-DB WA No. 1508 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

confirmed in favour of the respondent. He has drawn attention of

¶52

this court to paragraph 3 of the said letter, which reads as under:

¶53

If at all there is a difference in boundaries of the site and/or measurement of the site (excess/less) first to deposit the entire amount of the site as per the Site confirmation order (Except TDS) within the stipulated time. If the payment is made after the stipulated period, as explained at Sl. No.5, action will be taken as per Rule 6(4) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Auction of Corner and commercial sites) Rules, 1984. After payment of the entire sital value, if the measurement of site is less, the amount in respect of said lesser extent will be refunded without interest.

¶54

We are unable to accept that paragraph 3 of the Auction Site Confirmation Letter is applicable in the given facts. There is no material on record to indicate that there was any dispute or difference regarding the measurement of the site.

¶55

This is a case where the appellant was not in a position to hand over possession of the site in view of the disputes raised by the neighbouring owners in respect of the entire site. They claimed that they were the owners of the entire land and had not been paid compensation for the same. They were thus resisting handing over possession of the subject property. Paragraph 3 of the Auction Site Confirmation Letter dated 04.09.2020 as set out above entails

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39665-DB WA No. 1508 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

a condition whereby the auction purchaser is obliged to pay the entire amount notwithstanding any difference in the boundaries of the site and or measurement of the site. The said payments cannot be withheld on account of any such disputes and the auction purchaser is required to deposit the entire sital value. If, on measurement, the area of the site is found to be less than what is auctioned, the proportionate amount is required to be refunded to the auction purchaser without interest. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the respondent had not sought any extension of time for making payment and had made the payment within seven days of the appellant resolving the dispute with the owners of the neighbouring sites.

¶59

The appeal is dismissed both on account of delay as well as

¶60

merits.

¶61

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶62

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶63

ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33

Bangalore Development Authority v. Dr Krishnaprasad M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bangalore Development Authority v. Dr Krishnaprasad M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Anirudh. v Vs N. a. Ravigopal

Sri. Balaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vidyalakshmi R Vs Union of India

Maven Forever Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

K R Satish Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. R. Jagadeesh Vs the Assistant Commissioner