The Bangalore Development Authority Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, ROOM NO 36, 4^TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶17

M/S V R FACILITIES AND SERVICES PVT., LTD., REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO 32, CSRIE GRAPE GARDEN, 17^TH MAIN, 6^TH 'B' BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:22366-DB WA No. 1149 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

BANGALORE - 560 095. REPRESENTED BY MR K.C. VIJAY KUMAR DIRECTOR.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. M.N. SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1 SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI SR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VINAYAKA B. ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:22.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.6109/2024, AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶29

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 22.06.2024 passed by the Writ Court in WP.No.6109/2024.

¶30

The petitioner claims to be the owner of 9 acres 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.1/1 and 62 of Chikkavadeyarapura Village, Sarjapur Hobli, Anekal Taluk.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22366-DB WA No. 1149 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The petitioner's building plan for construction of a school

¶34

on the aforesaid land was approved in the year 2018.

¶35

The petitioner's request for developing plan was considered by the Town Planning Committee of the Bangalore Development Authority, subject to the payment of Rs.54,98,550/-, and this was communicated to the appellant vide letter dated 14.06.2019 (Annexure-E). The petitioner did not pay the said amount within 90 days from the date of communication, which would be 14.06.2019. However, he went ahead in constructing the school building and after the appellant authority initiated action against the petitioner, he paid the amount on 29.07.2021.

¶36

The petitioner filed the writ petition impugning the letter dated 11.07.2023 issued by the BDA for demolishing the construction carried out by the petitioners without payment of the development charges as demanded by the letter dated 14.06.2019. The petitioner's request for an extension of time for making payment of

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22366-DB WA No. 1149 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Rs.54,98,550/and the development charges was

¶40

rejected. The Writ Court, vide impugned order, has allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and directed the appellate authority to record necessary approvals to the petitioner in accordance with law to run the educational institution on the property, the subject matter of the writ petition.

¶41

We are of the view that there cannot be any manner of doubt that the petitioner was not entitled to construct the building without payment of the development charges as demanded vide letter dated 14.06.2019 and without approval of the building plans.

¶42

Though a decision was taken by the BDA to

¶43

approve the building plan on payment of development charges within a period of 3 months, as communicated to

¶44

the petitioner vide letter dated 14.06.2019, however, the petitioner failed to make the payment of Rs.54,98,550/- of the development charges as demanded vide letter dated

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22366-DB WA No. 1149 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

14.06.2019 within a period of 90 days from the date of the

¶48

said letter. Without payment of the development charges and without having approved building plan, the petitioner had gone ahead with the construction of the school

¶49

building. Therefore, the BDA had initiated the action against the petitioner and issued the impugned notice dated 11.07.2023 for the demolition of the structure put up by the petitioner. After the said notice, the petitioner made the payment on 29.07.2021, which was almost after the two years from the date of the demand.

¶50

On the last date of hearing, we suggested for

¶51

payment of penal interest at the rate of 24%, for the delay period in making payment as demanded vide letter dated 14.06.2019.

¶52

Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel

¶53

submits that the delay occurred because of the spread of deadly disease Pandemic Covid-19 throughout the country and it was not a deliberate delay in making a payment.

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22366-DB WA No. 1149 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The petitioner is ready to pay the penal interest as this Court may impose, for delay in depositing the development charges as demanded in the letter dated 14.06.2019.

¶57

Sri. Murugesh V.Charti, learned counsel has opposed the said submission and submitted that the petitioner did not make the payment within a period of 90

¶58

days and there is no power vested by the Commissioner, BDA to condone the delay, i.e., a period of two years in making the payment. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the writ petition instead of allowing the writ petition.

¶59

We have considered the submissions, there is

¶60

no dispute on factual aspect that the petitioner did not pay the development charges within a period of 90 days as per

¶61

the communication dated 14.06.2019. But it can also not be disputed that Covid-19 had spread throughout the

¶62

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:22366-DB WA No. 1149 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

country at that time, the businesses and life had come to a standstill.

¶65

Considering the aforesaid facts and also the fact the petitioner is willing to pay the penal interest, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to make payment of interest at the rate of 24% on Rs.54,98,550/- w.e.f., 15.06.2019 till 29.07.2021 roughly for a period of two years.

¶66

With the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, we dispose of this appeal. If the petitioner makes the payment of penal interest as directed above within four weeks from today, the BDA shall issue the development plan to the petitioner and may grant an occupancy certificate in favour of the petitioner subject to inspection and the building being constructed in accordance with the building regulations or with the BDA, make an inspection after the petitioner deposits the penal interest as directed above,

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:22366-DB WA No. 1149 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

and thereafter, they should issue the occupancy certificate only if the petitioner's building has been constructed in accordance with the building bye-laws .

¶71

With the aforesaid direction the appeal stands

¶72

dismissed .

¶73

We have passed this order in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of spread of pandemic Covid-19 through out the country at the time when the petitioner was required to make payment of development charges.

¶74

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶75

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶76

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 ct-vn

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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Shanthamma

Sri H K Jayanna Vs Manohar

Sri C Ashwathaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Siddagangaiah Vs Sri. G. Kempaiah

Smt Lavanya Ganesh Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivasa Reddy v Vs the Tahashildhar