The Bangalore Development Authority Vs Sri Alagu Sundaram

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.22614/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.

¶25

IN CCC NO. 866/2024

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SRI. ALAGU SUNDARAM SON OF SRI. ARJUNAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT 3/3, GANAPATHI NAGARA 8^TH CROSS ROAD, HOSAKEREHALLI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560026.

¶28

...COMPLAINANT

¶29

(BY SRI. B.V.SHANKARA NARAYANA RAO, SR. ADV. FOR SRI. MADHUSUDHAN J., ADV.)

¶30

AND:

¶31

SRI. JAYRAM N COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶32

...ACCUSED

¶33

(BY SRI. B VACHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶34

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DELIBERATE DISOBEDIENCE OF ORDER DATED 19.06.2023 PASSED IN WP NO.22614/2022 (BDA) AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED.

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48767-DB WA No. 1737 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 866 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

THESE WRIT APPEAL AND CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

¶39

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶40

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶41

We heard the learned counsel appearing for the

¶42

appellants- BDA in WA No.1737/2024 as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. We also considered the contentions advanced on either side.

¶43

We notice that the respondent had made a

¶44

representation as per Annexure-F in the writ petition dated 05.04.2008 pursuant to the judgment of the Apex Court in

¶45

Junjamma & Ors. Vs. The Bangalore Development

¶46

Authority reported in ILR 2005 KAR 608 , dated 30.09.2004.

¶47

It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the legal position stands

¶48

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48767-DB WA No. 1737 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 866 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

settled in favour of the respondent to the effect that the respondent is entitled to a site taking note of the market value which prevails as on the date of submission of representation after Junjamma's case is decided.

¶51

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well the learned counsel appearing for the respondent have placed before us the judgments of the Co-equal Benches of this Court in WA No.659/2025 dated 09.09.2025 as well as in WA No.470/2020 dated 21.01.2021. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that in WA No.470/2020, the issue with regard to the date for fixing the market value of the site has been specifically considered and it has been held as follows;

¶52

" 10. We have also considered the matter on merits and we find that the appellant-BDA has taken fourteen (14) years to consider the representation made by the respondent herein seeking allotment of an alternate site. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to interpret the expression ‘prevailing market value’ relating to date of allotment, which could be

¶53

5 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:48767-DB WA No. 1737 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 866 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

after six years, 10 years or even after 02 decades. In the instant case, it is after 14 years. He contended that the date of allotment shall be the date to assess the prevailing market value of the site. We do not think the said approach be correct for the BDA cannot consider the representation made in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Junjamma’s case (supra), as and when it desires to do so and thereby allowing a decade or beyond to pass, and thereafter go on demanding the inflated market value of the site.

¶57

11. Any representation made pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Junjamma’s case, ought to have been considered within a reasonable period and on ascertaining the prevailing market value, allotment ought to have been made. But, in the instant case, allotment has been after 14 years, after making such representation. Hence, we find that the learned Single Judge was right in interfering in the matter. We do not find any merit in the appeal, appeal is dismissed even on merits."

¶58

5. It is submitted that the same view has been

¶59

followed later by the Co-equal Bench of this Court in WA No.659/2025. The said order in WA No.470/2020 has also

¶60

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48767-DB WA No. 1737 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 866 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

been affirmed by the Apex Court in its order dated 08.03.2021 in SLP No.3898/2021. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would further contend that the respondent did not register himself for allotment of an alternate site and that the price of Rs.22,06,500/- was paid voluntarily by him without protest.

¶63

However, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent would contend that the representation seeking alternate site had been made well in advance from 2003 onwards and that it was only because the alternate site was offered on 24.06.2022, that the price had been paid subject to his representations for allotment which had been made before the BDA.

¶64

Having considered the contentions advanced, we are of the opinion that the contention that the allotment price had been paid without any protest cannot disentitle the respondent to the benefits available to all similarly placed persons. It is clear that the respondent

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:48767-DB WA No. 1737 of 2024 C/W CCC No. 866 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

had been making request for allotment of alternate site from 2003 onwards. However, it is also clear that the market value has to be reckoned taking note of the representation made pursuant to the judgment in Junjamma's case, which is the date which has to be reckoned for ascertaining the prevailing market value.

¶68

In the above view of the matter and in the light of the fact that Annexure-F is the representation dated 05.04.2008 submitted by the respondent after the judgment in Junjamma's case, we are of the clear opinion that it is the said date which has to be taken into account for fixing the market value. We are therefore of the opinion that the appeal cannot succeed and same is accordingly dismissed . Contempt proceeding is also closed . Notice issued to the accused shall stand discharged.

¶69

However, six weeks time is granted to the appellants to refund the applicable amount treating '05.04.2008' as

¶70