Sri. M G Patil v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026WP/34194/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BDA alternative site allotment; refund of differential site value; representation dated 18.12.2024; mandamus to consider representation; reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks; cancellation of original allotment attributable to Authority; Site No.1574 BTM Layout; Site No.5BC-312 HRBR Layout; Rule 11-A Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules; Articles 226 and 227; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; Justice K.S. Hemalekha; WP 34194/2025 (BDA).

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents (BDA) to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2024 seeking refund of the differential site value, in light of the court's observations, by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within eight weeks of receipt of a copy of the order; all other contentions of both parties kept open.

Sri. M G Patil Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct the Bangalore Development Authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2024 seeking refund of the excess differential site value collected while allotting the alternative site. +1 more

¶¶23

Court's answer

At this stage, the controversy is confined to the non-consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2024.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

The original allotment was cancelled not on account of any lapse or default on the petitioner's part, but owing to circumstances attributable to the respondent-BDA.

¶¶36

Key takeaways

The petitioner cannot be made to suffer monetarily for the failure of the Authority to honour its original allotment.ratio¶¶38
The respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2024 seeking refund of the differential site value, in light of the court's observations, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶¶39
While considering the representation, the respondent-Authority shall keep in view that the cancellation of the original allotment was not attributable to the petitioner.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No.34194/2025 (BDA), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Justice K.S. Hemalekha), decided 09-01-2026: The petitioner, originally allotted Site No.1574 in BTM Layout (2007), could not utilize it owing to landowner litigation; at his instance the allotment was cancelled and alternative Site No.5BC-312 in HRBR Layout was allotted in October 2020, for which BDA collected differential site value of `1,33,17,560 in August 2022, paid under protest; absolute sale deed followed on 01.01.2024. His representation dated 18.12.2024 seeking refund of the differential amount lay undisposed, prompting a mandamus petition under Articles 226 and 227. The Court held the controversy was confined to non-consideration of that representation; observed that the cancellation was not due to any lapse of the petitioner but attributable to BDA, and that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer monetarily for the Authority's failure to honour its original allotment. BDA was directed to consider and dispose of the representation by a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks, keeping in view that the cancellation was not attributable to the petitioner and the alternative allotment was necessitated by the Authority's inability to deliver the original site. All contentions kept open; petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.34194/2025 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI M.G. PATIL S/O LATE GANGANAGOWDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF CHULAKI PARASGAD, BELAGAUM- 591110

¶9

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O B.S. PATIL, NO.124, 6^TH ‘C’ MAIN ROAD, REMCO LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI CHANDRACHUD A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020.

¶14

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-4, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. COWDAIAH ROAD,

¶15

BENGALURU-560020.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/12/2024 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER FURTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18/12/2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶22

CAV O R D E R

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to consider and dispose of his representation dated 18.12.2024, whereby he seeks refund of the excess differential site value collected while allotting an alternative site, contending that such collection was illegal, arbitrary, and attributable solely to the fault of the respondent– Authority.

¶24

The petitioner was originally allotted Site No.1574 in BTM Layout, 4^th Stage, 2^nd Block, Bengaluru in the year 2007. Pursuant thereto, he paid the requisite site value, was

¶25

¶26

put in possession, and a lease-cum-sale agreement was executed. Subsequently, due to disputes and litigation involving the original landowners, the petitioner could not utilize the said site. On his request, the original allotment was cancelled and an alternative Site No.5BC-312 in HRBR Layout, 3^rd Block was allotted in October 2020.

¶27

While processing the alternative allotment, the respondent–BDA demanded payment of a substantial

¶28

differential site value. The petitioner paid the said amount in August 2022 under protest and under apprehension of losing the alternative site. Thereafter, an absolute sale deed dated 01.01.2024 was executed in his favour and possession was delivered. Claiming that the differential amount was illegally collected despite identical applicable rates and despite the alternative allotment having been necessitated due to the inability of the BDA to deliver the originally allotted site, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 18.12.2024 seeking refund. As the said representation

¶29

¶30

remains undisposed of, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alternative site allotment was not a fresh allotment but only a substitution for the original site, which became unusable for reasons not attributable to the petitioner. It is contended that the demand and collection of differential site value is arbitrary, illegal, and unjust, particularly when the rates applicable to both layouts were the same. The payment was made under compulsion, only to safeguard the allotment. The non-consideration of the representation dated 18.12.2024 violates principles of fairness and warrants interference.

¶32

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the alternative site was allotted at the request of the petitioner and strictly in accordance with Rule 11-A of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (‘BDA Allotment of Sites

¶33

¶34

Rules’ for short). It is contended that the original site was not de-notified and that the cancellation was effected only at the petitioner's instance due to landowner litigation. The differential amount of `1,33,17,560/was lawfully determined, demanded through intimation letters, and voluntarily paid by the petitioner in 2022. Having accepted the alternative allotment and having executed the sale deed in 2024, the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund of the

¶35

differential amount.

¶36

Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, the controversy is confined to the non-consideration of the petitioner’s representation dated 18.12.2024. It is not in dispute that the original allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled not on account of any lapse or default on his part, but owing to circumstances attributable to the respondent–BDA. The alternative site came to be allotted only because the respondent–Authority was unable to make available the originally allotted site. In such circumstances, the petitioner

¶37

¶38

cannot be made to suffer monetarily for the failure of the Authority to honour its original allotment.

¶39

At the same time, the claim for refund of the differential site value involves examination of the applicable statutory rules, rate circulars, and the manner in which the differential amount was computed. This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2024, seeking refund of the differential site value, in light of the above observations, by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

It is made clear that while considering the representation, the respondent–Authority shall keep in view that the cancellation of the original allotment was not attributable to the petitioner and the alternative allotment was necessitated due to the inability of the Authority to deliver the originally allotted site.

¶41

¶42