Karnataka High Court
Pairee Infotech Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 16 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.7043 OF 2024 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
PAIREE INFOTECH PVT. LTD.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
NO.24, 8TH MAIN, R.M.V. EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 080.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED DIRECTOR,
SUNKU BALAJI,
S/O S. VENKATARAMANAPPA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND 2. THE COMMISSIONER
CHAYA
Location: High Court
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
of Karnataka T. CHOWDAIAH RAOD, K.P. WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
3. FINANCE MEMBER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH RAOD, K.P. WEST,
BENGALURU - 560020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. M. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2-THE COMMISSIONER TO
PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (DISPOSAL OF CORNER SITES AND COMMERCIAL
SITES) RULES, 1984 TO CONVEY THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY
AND SIMULTANEOUSLY DELIVER POSSESSION OF THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER BY
RECEIVING THE BALANCE 75% OF THE AUCTION AMOUNT;
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to
the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to convey the
schedule property and to deliver the possession of schedule
property in favour of the petitioner by receiving the balance
75% of the Auction amount.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner-Company had
participated in the Auction Sale conducted by the respondent-
Bangalore Development Authority and being a successful
bidder, had deposited 25% amount of the bid on spot i.e.,
Rs.10,60,200/- on 30th August, 2004 and thereby, the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority has issued the
letter of allotment (Annexure-A). It is the case of the petitioner
that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the balance
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
amount within forty five days from the date of intimation as per
clause 3 of the letter of allotment produced at Annexure-A. In
the meanwhile, the petitioner received letter dated 23rd
September, 2004 (Annexure-B) from the respondent-Bangalore
Development Authority stating that the Original Suit No.6459 of
2004 is pending consideration in respect of the subject land and
as such, informed the petitioner-Company to opt for refund of
initial deposit or to wait till the disposal of case. In response to
the same, the petitioner-Company has addressed letter dated
18th October, 2004 (Annexure-E) and gave consent to wait till
the conclusion of the suit. It is further stated in the petition
that the petitioner was periodically making representations to
the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to execute
the registered Sale Deed after receiving the balance amount.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner came to know that the Original
Suit No.6459 of 2004 before the competent Civil Court was
dismissed and as such, sought for giving effect to letter of
allotment dated 30th August, 2004 (Annexure-A). In this
regard the petitioner made representation dated 13th
September, 2022 (Annexure-R), requesting the respondent-
Bangalore Development Authority to execute the registered
Sale Deed and to handover the possession of the subject
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
property, however, the respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority has not taken any positive steps. Being aggrieved by
the inaction on the part of the respondent-Bangalore
Development Authority, the petitioner-Company presented this
writ petition.
3. Heard Sri. Sampath A., learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. M.
Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2
and 3.
4. Sri. Sampath A., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner-Company invited the attention of the Court to clause
3 of the letter of allotment dated 30th August, 2004 (Annexure-
A) and submitted that the petitioner has paid 25% of the total
bid amount on 30th August, 2004, however, the execution of
registered Sale Deed was strained on account of letter dated
23rd September, 2004 (Annexure-D). He further submitted that
the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority has not
intimated about the conclusion of suit in Original Suit No.6459
of 2004 though the same has been dismissed. Therefore,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought for writ of
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
mandamus to the respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority to execute the registered Sale Deed.
5. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner places reliance on the judgment of co-ordinate Bench
this Court in the case of MIR NAVEED AHMED vs.
BANGALORE DEVOLPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
made in Writ Petition No.11759 of 2024 decided on 28th
August, 2024 and contended that, under similar circumstances,
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to collect the
balance amount and to execute the necessary deed of transfer
in favour of the petitioner therein.
6. Per contra, Sri. M. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel
appearing of the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority
vehemently contended that the sale made in favour of
petitioner is not concluded and the auction bid is subject to the
terms and conditions stipulated in the letter of allotment dated
30th August, 2004 (Annexure-A). It is also submitted by
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bangalore
Development Authority that, as the respondent-Bangalore
Development Authority had no clarity about the conclusion of
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
the suit referred to above, the execution of Sale Deed was not
done in favour of the petitioner. He also submitted that, the
petitioner-Company cannot be permitted to pay the prevailing
price as on the date of the allotment, after a period of twenty
years. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority, by inviting the
provisions contained in Rule 6(3) and (4) of the Bangalore
Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and
Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984, submitted that the respondent-
Bangalore Development Authority has no power to extend the
time for payment of balance amount beyond 210 days.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-Government argued
on similar lines.
8. Having taken note of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the
petitioner-Company is the highest bidder in the Auction Sale
conducted by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority
and the bid made by the petitioner was accepted and
accordingly, letter of allotment was issued as per Annexure-A.
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
The total value to be payable by the petitioner was
Rs.42,40,500/- in terms of the letter of allotment. In terms of
clause 3 of the letter of allotment, the petitioner deposited 25%
of the amount i.e., 10,60,200/- on the date of Auction
conducted on 30th August, 2004. In the meanwhile, the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority addressed letter
dated 23rd September, 2004 (Annexure-D) intimating the
petitioner that the Original Suit No.6459 of 2004 is pending
consideration in respect of the subject land and as such, the
petitioner to opt for refund of the initial deposit amount or to
gave a consent to wait till the disposal of the suit. It is to be
noted that the petitioner as per letter dated 18th October, 2004
(Annexure-E) gave a consent to the respondent-Bangalore
Development Authority that the petitioner-Company will wait
until the aforementioned suit came to be concluded before the
competent Civil Court. Undisputably, the initial deposit of 25%
was lying with the respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority.
9. Perusal of writ petition would indicate that the
petitioner had periodically submitted representations seeking
execution of registered Sale Deed. It is also pertinent to
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
mention here that the aforementioned Original Suit No.6459 of
2004 was dismissed by competent Civil Court and admittedly,
the petitioner was not a party in the said proceedings and the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority was a party in
the said suit. In the backdrop of this aspect, the respondent-
Bangalore Development Authority intimated the petitioner to
avail the benefit of refund or to wait till the conclusion of the
suit. The main ground on which the respondent-Bangalore
Development Authority sought for dismissal of writ petition is
based on Rule 6(3) and (4) of the Bangalore Development
Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites)
Rules, 1984, stating that the Bangalore Development Authority
has no power to extend time beyond 210 days. It is also to be
noted that, such an argument cannot be accepted on the
ground that the petitioner is having a legitimate expectation
under Article 14 of Constitution of India, expecting the
respondent-Bangalore Development Authority to intimate about
the conclusion of the suit as per letter dated 18th October, 2004
(Annexure-E). The respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority, being an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of
the Constitution of India, ought to have acted reasonably
informing the petitioner about the disposal of the case on the
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
ground that the 25% of the initial deposit made by the
petitioner was lying with the respondent-Bangalore
Development Authority. This Court in the case of MIR
NAVEED AHMED (supra), under identical circumstances held
that, delay of payment of balance amount is at the instance of
the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority and not from
the side of petitioner therein. Therefore, I find force in the
submission made by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the respondent-Bangalore Development
Authority is excepted to act being a statutory authority in
accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, laxity on the part of the respondent-Bangalore
Development Authority for not informing the petitioner about
the disposal of the suit and that apart, not executed the
registered Sale Deed and concluded the formalities as per the
terms and conditions stipulated in the letter of allotment cannot
be accepted. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
1) Writ Petition is allowed;
2) Respondent-Bangalore Development Authority
is directed to collect the balance consideration
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42091
WP NO.7043 OF 2024
of 75% of Auction amount as specified in the
letter of allotment dated 30th August, 2004
(Annexure-A) within an outer limit of four
weeks from the date of receipt of this order
and execute the necessary deed of transfer in
respect of the subject property in favour of
the petitioner-Company, within two months
thereafter.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
