The Commissioner Bengaluru ... vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 13184 Kant

                          1


 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

                      PRESENT

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                         AND

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY

              W.A. NO.1297 OF 2021 (BDA)
                          IN
              W.P.No.12936 OF 2019 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU 560020.
                                           ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.,)

AND:

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      URBAN DEVELOPMENT
      VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001
      REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

2.    PRATHIBA SHIKSHANA SAMITHI (REGD)
      A REGISTERED SOCIETY
      HAIVNG ITS OFFICE AT NO 9
      18TH MAIN ROAD
      BANASHANKARI II STAGE
      BENGALURU 560070
      REP HERE IN ITS SECRETARY
      MRS. UMA NAVARATNA.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. SUDHARSHAN SURESH, ADV., FOR C/R2
    MR. B. RAJENDRA PRASAD, HCGP FOR R1)
                              2


     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN WP
NO.12936/2019 (BDA) DATED 16.12.2020.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                           JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against

order dated 16.12.2020 passed by the learned Single

Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the

respondent No.2 has been disposed of and the matter

is remitted to the Bangalore Development Authority

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') to reconsider

the liability of the respondent No.2 to pay the

amounts demanded except the lease amount in

accordance with law and in the light of the

observations made in order of the learned Single

Judge, within a period of three months.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the respondent No.2 was allotted a

civic amenity site and lease so granted to the

respondent No.2 was due to expire on 25.02.2014.

The respondent No.2 made an application on

25.08.2014 seeking renewal of the lease. The

aforesaid application was kept pending and eventually

by a communication dated 11.09.2018, the

respondent No.2 was informed that the lease has been

renewed for the period of 30 years from 23.02.2014 to

22.02.2044 subject to respondent No.2 making

payment of the amount. The respondent No.2 was

also asked to pay interest for the period from

25.08.2014 to 11.09.2018 as well as GST and service

tax. The respondent No.2 assailed the aforesaid

demands in a writ petition which has been disposed of

by the learned Single Judge.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that the learned Single Judge grossly erred in

quashing the impugned demand notices and erred in

directing the Authority to reconsider the liability of the

respondent No.2 to repay the amounts.

4. We have considered the submission made by

the learned counsel for the appellant and have

perused the record. The respondent No.2 had made

an application seeking renewal of lease on

25.08.2014. The aforesaid application was kept

pending merely for a period of four years and the

Authority, by an order dated 11.09.2018 directed

renewal of lease. The respondent No.2 obviously

could not have been held liable to pay interest for the

inaction on the part of the appellant and in respect of

the period for which the appellant did not take an

action to decide the application. From the operative

portion of the order, we find that the learned Single

Judge has remitted the matter to the Authority to

reconsider the liability of the respondent No.2 to pay

the amounts except the lease amount in accordance

with law and in the light of the observation made in

the order within a period of three months. The

aforesaid order is just and proper in the facts and

circumstances of the case and does not warrant any

interference of this Court in this intra Court appeal.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this

appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.

5. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending

interlocutory application does not survive for

consideration and is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV