Nadeem Ahmed vs The Bengaluru Development ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1292 Kant

                          -1-


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                           AND

            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

            WRIT APPEAL No.534/2020 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

NADEEM AHMED
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O. ABDUL RASHEED,
R/AT NO.33, 2ND CROSS,
CHUNCHAPPA BLOCK, R.T. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 032
REP. BY HIS BROTHER,
GPA HOLDER NAVEEN AHMED.                    ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY SECRETARY-1,
BDA OFFICE, KUMARA PARK.
BENGALURU - 560 001.                      ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI BASAVARAJA H.T., ADVOCATE)

       THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 10/03/2020 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.2793/2020 (BDA)
AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDERED TO PAY THE ENTIRE AMOUNT
INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF SITE
BEARING NO.57/B, 2ND PHASE, HAL, BENGALURU, WITH 18%
COMPOUNDABLE INTEREST AND PASS ANY OTHER AS DEEMS
FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES.
                                 -2-


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-


                         JUDGMENT

The appellant herein was the writ petitioner in

W.P.No.2793/2020. He had filed the said writ petition

seeking a direction to the respondent/Bangalore

Development Authority ("BDA") to return the consideration

amount paid towards purchase of site No.57/B with

interest by considering his representation dated

29/08/2019.

2. Learned single Judge has directed the

respondent/BDA to refund the entire consideration amount

deposited by the appellant herein towards the site along

with interest at 10% p.a. and to complete the said exercise

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of

the certified copy of the order, failing which the BDA to

pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant herein.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

single Judge, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the

appellant and learned counsel for the BDA and perused the

material on record.

5. Appellant's counsel contended that although

the learned single Judge has directed refund of the

consideration amount being Rs.1,72,76,859/- (Rupees one

crore, seventy two lakh, seventy six thousand, eight

hundred and fifty nine only), nevertheless, the award of

interest of 10% per annum is on the lower side. He

contended that the site in question was auctioned and the

appellant being the highest bidder was allotted the site and

pursuant to the auction conducted on 23/07/2013, the

registration of site was made in the name of appellant's

father on 11/02/2014 by payment of registration charges

and thereafter for transfer of khata in his name. However,

the BDA allotted the very same site to one Smt.Latha and

therefore, possession of the site was not given to the

appellant. Neither was the consideration amount returned,

nor an alternative site was allotted to the appellant. He

contended that the appellant has been deprived of site as

well as the huge consideration amount, which has been

lying with the BDA since the year 2013 and the appellant

was constrained to file the writ petition seeking a direction

as the earlier representations made by the appellant to the

BDA fell on deaf ears. He contended that the appellant

must be suitably compensated inasmuch as huge amount

of Rs.1,72,76,859/- has been lying with the BDA for seven

long years. Therefore, the award of interest may be

enhanced.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent/BDA,

however, submitted that there is no merit in the appeal.

That the learned single Judge has, in fact, awarded

reasonable interest at the rate of 10% per annum in the

instant case, whereas, the prevailing bank rate of interest

is still lower. Therefore, the appeal may be dismissed.

7. Having considered the arguments of the

respective counsel, we find that the BDA ought to be

directed to refund the consideration amount deposited by

the appellant to him with interest at the rate of 11% per

annum instead of 10% per annum. We say so, because

the BDA did not return the consideration amount and the

appellant had to approach this Court to seek refund of the

same. The consideration amount has been deposited

during various periods of time right from the year 2013

and now till the year 2021 the appellant has not been

refunded by the BDA. Hence, we find it just and proper to

interfere in the matter and enhance the rate of interest to

11% per annum instead of 10% per annum ordered by the

learned single Judge. The respondent/BDA shall refund

the amount deposited by the appellant with interest at the

rate of 11% per annum within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment,

failing which the respondent/BDA shall be liable to pay cost

of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant. Appeal is accordingly

disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE S*