Karnataka High Court
The Bangalore Development Authority vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
W.A. No.479/2021
C/W C.C.C. No.492/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.479/2021 (BDA)
C/W
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.492/2021
IN W.A. No.479/2021:
BETWEEN:
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.,)
Digitally signed
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MANOHAR MASKI
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
EX-MEMBER KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
W.A. No.479/2021
C/W C.C.C. No.492/2021
GANGAVATHI ROAD, NEAR SUCO BANK
SINDHANURU
RAYACHURU DISTRICT-584 128.
PRESENTLY AT NO.384/A
SINDHURA, 2ND BLOCK
RMV 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H. GOVT., ADV., FOR R1
SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. ADV., FOR
SRI. H.C. PRAKASHA, ADV., FOR R2)
---
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.11182/2020 (BDA) DATED 18.12.2020 AND
THEREBY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE.
IN C.C.C. NO.492/2021
BETWEEN:
MANOHAR MASKI
S/O BASAVARAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
EX-MEMBER, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
GANGAVATHI ROAD, NEAR SUCO BANK
SINDHANURU, RAYACHURU DISTRICT-584 128.
PRESENTLY AT NO.384/A
SINDHURA, 2ND BLOCK
RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 094.
...COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. ADV., FOR
SRI. PRAKASHA H.C. ADV.,)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
W.A. No.479/2021
C/W C.C.C. No.492/2021
AND:
THE BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
SRI. M.B. RAJESH GOWDA
MAJOR.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADV.,)
---
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12
OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING
TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
ACCUSED AND HOLD THE ACCUSED GUILTY FOR
DISOBEYING THE ORDERS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.P.NO.11182/2020 (BDA) DATED 18.12.2020 AS
EVEN THOUGH ACCUSED IS AWARE OF THE ORDER OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT, ACCUSED HAS DISOBEYED THE
ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. HENCE
THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO PASS SUCH
OTHER/ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT TO GRANT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS WRIT APPEAL CONNECTED WITH C.C.C.
HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.01.2025,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS
DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
W.A. No.479/2021
C/W C.C.C. No.492/2021
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
W.A.No.479/2021 is filed by the appellant-
BDA under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act,
1961 challenging the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11182/2020.
CCC No.492/2021 is filed by the respondent No.2
alleging willful disobedience of the learned Single Judge.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are
that the respondent No.2 was allotted site bearing No.276
at HBR Layout, I Stage, 5th Block (Sy.No.53, Hennur
Village, Bengaluru) by the appellant-Bangalore
Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the
BDA'). A lease-cum-sale agreement was also entered into
between the parties. The respondent No.2 sought
allotment of an alternate site on the ground that the
allotted site was not in existence and the appellant-BDA
allotted the alternate site bearing No.18 at extended RMV
II Stage layout (Sy.No.28 of Bhoopasandra Village,
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
Bengaluru). The appellant-BDA sought additional amount
towards the value of the alternate site which was
challenged by the respondent No.2 in the writ petition.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by
quashing the endorsement dated 04.06.2020 and directed
the appellant-BDA to register the sale deed in favour of
the respondent No.2 within two months. Being aggrieved,
the present appeal is filed.
3. Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-BDA submits that the learned
Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the
appellant-BDA executed lease-cum-sale agreement and
put the respondent No.2 in possession of the site bearing
No.276 at HBR Layout in the year 2007 itself. Hence, the
question of seeking alternate site is impermissible. It is
further submitted that the learned Single Judge further
committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the
respondent No.2 cannot be asked to pay the additional
sital value as the alternate site is allotted because of the
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
fault of the appellant-BDA. It is also submitted that the
learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the
initial allotment made in favour of the respondent No.2
was at HBR layout which was formed in the year 1986-87
and the allotment of the alternate site was at RMV II Stage
layout which was formed in the year 1973-74, which was
much prior to HBR Layout. Hence, the respondent No.2 is
liable to pay the difference value of the site and the said
demand is as per the BDA Rules. It is contended that the
direction of the learned Single Judge to execute the
absolute sale deed runs contrary to the BDA Rules as the
BDA executes lease-cum-sale deed to the allottees.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned
Senior counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the
appellant-BDA allotted site No.276 at HBR layout which
was not an existing site. The learned Single Judge, taking
note of the material available on record, has come to the
conclusion that it is the fault of the appellant-BDA and
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
hence, they cannot insist for additional value of the site.
Learned Senior counsel further submits that without
standing on the technicalities, the respondent No.2 offered
to pay the differential sital value as per the endorsement
dated 04.06.2020 and accordingly, sent a demand draft.
However, the said demand draft was returned to the
respondent No.2 with an endorsement dated 02.05.2024.
Learned Senior counsel also submits that now the
appellant-BDA is insisting to pay the interest on the
differential sital value and the respondent No.2 has agreed
to pay reasonable interest on the differential sital value
only with a view to avoid further delay in the execution of
the sale deed. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 is
not admitting that he is liable to pay the difference value
and interest on the said amount and the said concession is
shown only with an intention to get the sale deed executed
at the earliest from the appellant-BDA. He seeks to issue
necessary direction to the appellant-BDA to execute the
sale deed by collecting the difference amount and
reasonable interest on the said amount.
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant-BDA, the learned Senior counsel
for the respondent No.2, perused the material available on
record and have given our anxious consideration to the
submissions and the material on record. The undisputed
facts between the parties are that the respondent No.2-
original petitioner was allotted site bearing No.276 at HBR
Layout by the appellant-BDA. Pursuant to the allotment, a
registered lease-cum-sale deed was also executed.
However, the respondent No.2 could not make use of the
said site as the same was not in existence. Be that as it
may, the material available on record indicates that the
appellant-BDA allotted the alternate site to the respondent
No.2 on 25.02.2020 at RMV-II Stage Layout as per
Annexure-H allotment letter dated 25.02.2020. Now, the
appellant-BDA cannot contend that the earlier site allotted
to the respondent No.2 at HBR layout was in existence and
the possession was handed over to him. In view of the
fact that the appellant-BDA accepted that the earlier
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
allotment was a faulty one, they have decided to allot
alternate site and accordingly, have allotted site No.18 at
RMV II Stage.
6. The allotment letter dated 25.02.2020 does not
indicate that the appellant-BDA is required to pay the
differential sital value. Only on 04.06.2020, an
endorsement came to be issued requesting the respondent
No.2 to remit the differential sital value of Rs.21,27,477/-.
The learned Single Judge, taking note of the aforesaid
fact, came to the conclusion that since it is due to the
mistake of the appellant-BDA that the alternate site has
been allotted to the respondent No.2, they cannot insist
for the differential sital value from the respondent No.2.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant-BDA has
pressed into service Rule 11-A(iv) and Rule 13(2) of the
Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites)
Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') and
contended that the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the
differential sital value and the appellant-BDA is required to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
execute the lease-cum-sale agreement. Insofar as the
contention of payment of differential sital value by the
respondent No.2 is concerned, the same need not be gone
into in the present appeal in view of the specific
submission / undertaking of the respondent No.2 that he
would pay the differential sital value as demanded by the
appellant-BDA as per the endorsement dated 04.06.2020
along with reasonable rate of interest. Insofar as the
other contention of the appellant-BDA that the learned
Single Judge has erred in directing the execution of
registered sale deed in favour of the allottee. The relevant
Rule i.e., Rule 13(2) of the aforesaid Rules reads as under:
"(2) After payment under sub-rule (1) is made,
the Authority shall call upon the allottee to
execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in Form III
and thereafter the execution of such agreement
by the allottee. If the agreement is not executed
within 45 days after the Authority has called
upon the allottee to execute such agreement, the
registration fee paid by the allottee may be
forfeited the allotment of the site cancelled and
the amount paid by the allottee, after deducting
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
such expenditure as might have been incurred by
the Authority, refunded to him."
(Emphasis supplied)
8. In view of the aforesaid Rule, the appellant-BDA
is required to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement in
Form No.3 in favour of the allottee on payment of the
differential sital value. Insofar as the interest on the
differential sital value is concerned, though the learned
counsel for the appellant-BDA has referred to Rule 13(1)
and submits that the allottee is required to pay the
interest on the sital value, if payment is made belatedly.
The said Rule has no application to the case on hand. In
the instant case, the appellant-BDA allotted site in favour
of the respondent No.2 initially in the year 2007 and due
to its fault, alternate site was allotted on 25.02.2020. The
differential sital value was intimated to the respondent
No.2 on 04.06.2020 and immediately thereafter, he has
filed the writ petition assailing the said endorsement and
demand. We also cannot lose sight of the fact that the
respondent No.2 has sent a demand draft dated
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
12.09.2023 for the differential sital value to the appellant-
BDA. However, the same was returned by the appellant-
BDA for the reasons best known to them. The issue with
regard to demand of additional sital value and interest
payable for the delayed payment is not adjudicated in the
present appeal in view of the specific stand / undertaking
of the respondent No.2-allottee that he would make good
of the same. Hence, the appellant-BDA cannot seek for
interest for the entire period. We are of the considered
view that the interest of justice would be met if the
respondent No.2 is directed to pay the interest at the rate
of 8.5% p.a. from 17.04.2021 i.e., the date on which the
appellant-BDA has preferred the appeal, till this date. We
are directing to pay the interest as per the rate of interest
charged by the Nationalised, Scheduled, Commercial
Banks and Financial Institutions on the housing loans for
the relevant period. On such payment, the appellant-BDA
is directed to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement in
favour of the respondent No.2 by putting him in physical
possession. The contempt petition in CCC No.492/2021
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
filed by the respondent No.2 would not survive for
consideration.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The order of the learned Single Judge dated
18.12.2020 passed in W.P.No.11182/2020 is modified by
directing the respondent No.2-allottee to pay
Rs.21,27,477/-along with interest at the rate of 8.5% p.a.
from 17.04.2021 till this date, to the appellant-BDA. The
payment shall be made within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iii. The appellant-BDA is directed to execute the
registered lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the
respondent No.2 in respect of site No.18 of extended RMV
II Stage layout (Sy.No.28 of Bhoopasandra Village),
Bengaluru, within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of balance sital value and interest.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:4425-DB
iv. It is needless to state that all expenses towards
registration, stamp duty etc. in respect of the sale deed to
be executed by the appellant-BDA in favour of the
respondent No.2 would be borne solely by the respondent
No.2.
v. CCC No.492/2021 is dropped.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
