The Bangalore Development Authority Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2022 PASSED IN WP No.18955/2021 PASSED BY THE

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB W.A. No.23/2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

¶26

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18955/2021.

¶27

The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent No.2 filed a writ petition seeking prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the appellant-BDA to consider his representation dated 01.10.2020 and accept the amount along with interest, if any and register the site allotted in his favour. The respondent No.2 was allotted site No.158 measuring 20 x 30 feet at Jnanabharathi Layout (Valagerahalli II Stage) and issued an allotment letter dated 01.12.2006. The respondent No.2 claims to have made payment on 08.07.2010. The respondent No.1 submitted representations dated

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB W.A. No.23/2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

29.05.2010, 12.07.2010 and 01.10.2020 requesting the appellant to accept the sital value with interest. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing the appellant to consider the representations and collect the interest, if any, by executing the necessary sale deed within a period of twelve weeks.

¶31

Sri.B.Vachan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. T. SEETHARAMAPPA (DEAD) THR. LRs¹ , considering the earlier decision allowed the appeal filed by the Bengaluru Development Authority by setting aside the orders of this Court wherein a direction was issued to accept the sital value belatedly with interest. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

¶32

Though the notice is served on the respondent

¶33

No.2, there is no representation.

¶34

1 SLP Nos.13871-872/2021 dt. 14.05.2025

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB W.A. No.23/2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶39

The respondent No.2 filed a writ petition seeking prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the appellant-BDA to consider the representation dated 01.10.2020 and accept the amount along with interest, if any, and register the site allotted in his favour. The respondent No.2 was allotted site No.158 measuring 20 x 30 feet at Jnanabharati Layout (Valagerahalli II stage) and was issued an allotment letter dated 01.12.2006. The respondent No.2 claims to have made payment on 08.07.2010. The respondent No.2 submitted representations dated 29.05.2010, 12.07.2010 and 01.10.2020 requesting the appellant to accept the sital value with interest. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition by directing the appellant to consider the representations and collect the interest, if any, by executing the necessary sale deed within a period of twelve weeks. It is not in dispute that the appellant has allotted the site in favour of the respondent No.2 on

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB W.A. No.23/2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

01.12.2006 as is evident from Annexure-C. As per the prevailing allotment rules, the respondent No.2 was required to make the payment within a period of 3 years. However, he submitted representations and made payment on 08.07.2010 as is evident from Annexure-D which is beyond the period stipulated under Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T. SEETHARAMAPPA, referred supra has held as under:

¶43

"9. At the same time, learned counsel for the BDA relied upon the Order dated 11.04.2022, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2884 of 2022 (The Bangalore Development Authority vs. Gundappa R.), where in identical circumstances, this Court has held as follows:

¶44

“11. Rule 13(1) of the Rules mandates the allottee to deposit sital value deducting the initial deposit. The appellant could extend time for payment for a further period not exceeding sixty days as a final chance along with additional interest. Since the writ petitioner failed to deposit the amount within the stipulated period, therefore, there is no corresponding obligation on the appellant to allot an alternative site to the writ petitioner. If the writ petitioner was being transferred from place to place, it was his duty to keep the appellant informed about his change of address on which he could be communicated. The appellant had no duty to find out the address of the writ petitioner. The sole duty to communicate the address, his place of posting etc. was on the writ petitioner alone. In the absence of any proof of change of address, the writ

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB W.A. No.23/2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

petitioner has lost his right of allotment of the said site and also to claim any alternative site. [Emphasis Supplied]

¶49

10. Though learned counsel for the respondents has earnestly attempted to distinguish the cited decision, however, we find that the issue involved in this set of appeals is broadly similar to the one resolved by this Court in the cited decision. Independently thereof also, we see no valid justification for the respondents not to pay even the nominal allotment price and/or to sit at home silently for over six years and then approach the High Court for obvious reasons of hike in market value.

¶50

11. That being so, we are inclined to maintain consistency. The instant appeals are, accordingly, allowed; the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside.

¶51

12. The amount, if any, deposited by the respondents is ordered to be refunded to them within a period of two months, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of deposit till actual payment thereof."

¶52

7. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by

¶53

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be interfered. The appellant-BDA is directed to return the amount, if any, received from the respondent No.2 immediately, along with

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB W.A. No.23/2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of receipt of the

¶57

amount till the payment is made.

¶58

For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to

¶59

pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶62

ii. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.06.2022 passed in W.P.No.18955/2021 is set aside.

¶63

iii. The appellant-BDA is directed to refund the amount received by it from the respondent No.2 immediately along with interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of receipt of the amount till the payment is made.

¶64

No order as to costs.

¶65

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶66

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

¶67

RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

The Bangalore Development Authority v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Bangalore Development Authority v. the State of Karnataka

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

Ms Pegah Zangeneh Naseri Vs the State of Karnataka

K C Umesh Vs Sri Gourav Gupta

The Commissioner Vs Sri Chandrashekhar

Mahesh Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Naremma Vs Station House Officer

M/S Abhayahastha Multi Speciality Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs Varsha Chettri