Karnataka High Court
Kemparaju S B vs The Bangalore Development Authority on 17 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
WP No. 5282 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 5282 OF 2022 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. KEMPARAJU S.B,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O BASAVAIAH K,
NO. 84, SULIKERE, SULIKERE POST,
KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 060.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR H.T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARAPARK WEST,
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 020.
by NAGAVENI
Location: High2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY III,
Court of BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
Karnataka T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARPARK WEST,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. AJAYKUMAR M, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT / NOTICE DATED 11.01.2022 IN
VIDE ANNEXURE-G ISSUED BY R2 AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
WP No. 5282 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, an ex-serviceman is before this Court
calling in question an endorsement dated 11.01.2022 by which
the representation of the petitioner dated 24.11.2020 comes to
be rejected for allotment of a site.
2. Heard Shri Vasanth Kumar H.T., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Shri Ajay Kumar M., learned
counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
The petitioner was allotted a site bearing No.2316 in Sir
M. Vishweshwara layout, 8th block, Bengaluru on 06.02.2004.
The petitioner avers that he was appointed in the Indian Army,
as a fitter on 17.05.2003 and he served the Indian Army and
comes back on retirement on 28.02.2019. In the interregnum,
certain developments take place. In terms of the allotment
letter or the rules of allotment, the petitioner had to fulfil the
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
conditions of allotment as ordained in the conditions appended
to the letter of allotment. Rs.7,100/- was paid by the petitioner
along with the application for such allotment and at the time of
allotment. Later, he appears to have forgotten about the site
that he had been allotted by the BDA and the amount that he
had to be paid. The BDA then issues a show cause notice on
19.07.2005. The notice reads as follows:
" ಮ ೆ ಾ ಾರ ಂದ ಮುಂದುವ ೆದ ಸ ಎಂ. ೆ ೕ±ÀégÀAiÀÄåನಗರ
8 ೇ ¨Áè ಬ ಾವ ೆಯ ! ಆ#$ಕ&ಾ' (ಂದು)ದ ವಗ$ದ*AiÀÄ°è 6 * 9 +ೕಟ
ಅಳ/ೆಂಯ &ೇಶನ ಸಂ1ೆ2 2316ನ ಹಂ4 ೆ 5ಾ* ಾಂಕ 6-2-2004 ರಂದು
ಹಂ4 ೆ ಪತ ವ£ÀÄß ೕಡ9ಾ':ೆ. ಈ ಬ ೆ< ಮುಂ ನ ಕ ಮ ಾ=' ಪ>?ೕ ಸ9ಾ',
ೕವ@ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆ ೆ ಅಹ$ ಾಗAೇ ಾದ ! ಾ ಾರದ ಹಂ4 ೆUÉ
AiÀÄ5ಾವ)ಗಳಂ/ೆ 59 ವಷ$ 10 CಂಗಳD 03 ನಗಗ) ೆ ಗ ಪ*EzÀÄÝ Fೊ/ೆ ೆ
3 ಪ ಂತAiÀÄತHಗಳ£ÀUÀ£ÀÄß 5ಾಡAೇ ಾ'ರುತI:ೆ.
ಆದ ೆ, ಹಂ4 ೆಯರ ಸಮAiÀÄದ ! ಮJ ವAiÀĸÀÄì ೕವ@ ಅK$ಯ ! ನªÀÄÆ ರುವಂ/ೆ
ೇವಲ 22 ವಷ$ಗMಾ'ದುN, ೕವ@ ಹಂ4 ೆ ೆ ಅಹ$ ಾ'ರುವ@ ಲ!. ಅದುದ>ಂದ
ಾ ಾರದ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆಂತು AiÀÄ5ಾವ)ಗಳ ಅನ AiÀÄ ಮ ೆ ಹಂ4 ೆOಾ'
ರುವ ಸದ> &ೇಶನವನು ಮJ Pೆಸ> ಂದ ಏ ೆ ರದುಂಪ*ಸAಾರದು ಎಂಬುದ ೆ=
ಈ ಪತ ತಲುRದ 15 ನಗMೆS ಳ ಾ' ಮJ °Tತ ¸ÀªÀieÁ¬Äó¶AiÀÄನುH ಸ !ಸ
ತಕ=ದು. ತRUದ ! ಮJ ಸಮFಾVW ಏ£ÀÆ ಇರುವ@ ಲ!&ೆಂದು ಪ>ಗYE, ಮ ೆ
Oಾವ@:ೇ ಮು£ÀÆìZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ೕಡ:ೇ ಮ ೆ ಹಂ4 ೆAiÀiÁ'ರುವ &ೇಶನವ£ÀÄß
ರzÀÄÝ ಪ*E ಾ ಾರದ ವಶ ೆ= /ೆ ೆದು ೊಳZ9ಾಗುವ@ದು."
Ostensibly, since the petitioner was not available, he did
not reply to the said notice. Non-reply of the said notice and
non-payment in terms of the conditions of allotment leads to
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
cancellation of allotment on 17.02.2006. The order of
cancellation of allotment reads as follows:
" &ೇಶನ ರzÀÝC ಆ:ೇಶ
ಷAiÀÄ: ಸ ಎಂ. ೆ ೕಶ ರAiÀÄå 8 ೇ Aಾ! (ಮುಂದುವ ೆದ) ಬ ಾವ ೆAiÀÄ &ೇಶನ
ಸಂ1ೆ2 231ನಪU ರzÀÄÝಪ*ಸುವ §UÉÎ.
ಉ9ೆ!ೕಖ: ಈ ಕ]ೇ>ಯು ಾರ ಾ&ೇ^ತ ಪತ ಸಂ1ೆ2. Aೆಂಅ¥Áæ: GPÁ-3:2316:05-
06, ¢£ÁAPÀ 19-07-2005.
ಮ ೆ ಾ ಾರ ಂದ ªÀÄÄAದುವ ೆದ ಸ ಎಂ. ಎಂ. ೆ ೕ±ÀégÀAiÀÄåನಗರ
8 ೇ ¨Áè ಬ ಾವ ೆಯ ! ಆ#$ಕ&ಾ' (ಂದು)ದ ವಗ$ದ*AiÀÄ°è 6 * 9 +ೕಟ
ಅಳ/ೆಂಯ &ೇಶನ ಸಂ1ೆ2 2316ನ ಹಂ4 ೆ 5ಾ* ಾಂಕ 6-2-2004 ರಂದು
ಹಂ4 ೆ ಪತ ವ£ÀÄß ೕಡ9ಾ':ೆ. ಈ ಬ ೆ< ಮುಂ ನ ಕ ಮ ಾ=' ಪ>?ೕ ಸ9ಾ',
ೕವ@ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆ ೆ ಅಹ$ ಾಗAೇ ಾದ ! ಾ ಾರದ ಹಂ4 ೆUÉ
CºÀðgÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ºÀAaPÉ AiÀÄ5ಾವ)ಗಳ ಅನ ಯದ 59 ವಷ$ 10
CಂಗಳD 03 ನಗ) ೆ ಗ ಪ*EzÀÄÝ, Fೊ/ೆ ೆ 3 ¥ÀæAiÀÄತHಗಳ£ÀÄß
5ಾಡAೇ ಾ'ರುತI:ೆ. ಆದ ೆ ೕವ@ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆAiÀÄ ಸಮAiÀÄದ ! ªÀÄ ೆ ೇವಲ
22 ವಷ$ಗMಾ'ರುವ@ದ>ಂದ ೕವ@ ಹಂ4 ೆ ೆ ಅನಹ$ ಾ'ರುವ ಾರಣ, ಮ ೆ
ಹಂ4 ೆOಾ'ರುವ ಸದ> &ೇಶನವ£ÀÄß ಮJ Pೆಸ> ಂದ ಏPÉ ರzÀÄÝಪ*ಸAಾರದು
ಎಂಬುದ ೆ= ಪತ ತಲುRದ 15 ನಗMೆS ಳ ಾ' ಮJ Tತ ¸ÀªÀieÁ¬Äó¶AiÀÄನುH
ಸ !ಸುವಂ/ೆ ಸೂ4ಸ9ಾ'ದುN, ಆದ ೆ ೕವ@ ಈ ಬ ೆ< Oಾವ@:ೇ ಪ C^ AiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ೕಡ:ೇ ಫಲ ಾ'ರುವ@ದ>ಂದ, ೕವ@ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆ ೆ ಅನಹ$ ಾ'ರುವ@ದ
>ಂದ, ಮ ೆ ಹಂ4 ೆOಾ'ರುವ ಸದ> &ೇಶನವನುH ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಮJ
Pೆಸ> ಂದ ರzÀÄÝಪ*E ಾ ಾರದ ವಶ ೆ= /ೆ ೆದು ೊಳZ9ಾ':ೆ."
16 years pass by, the petitioner then retires from the
Indian Army on 28.02.2019. Returns back home, realizes that
he had been allotted a site by the BDA in the aforesaid layout
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
in the year 2004. Then approaches this Court on the score that
is identically placed to all those persons who had been directed
allotment of site on receipt of 21% of penalty.
4. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of the petitioner
allows the petition by the following order:
"8. In the result, I pass the following:
i. The petition is allowed in terms of the decisions of
this Court in W.P.No.13658/2015 dated
07.04.2016 (Sri. Jayakumar Shetty Vs. The
Commissioner W.P.No.19093/2012 BDA),,
dated 06.06.2013 (Kempamma Vs.
Commissioner, BDA), W.P.No.38258/2013
dated 21.11.2013 (Mohan Kumar Vs. BDA)
and W.P.No.5150/2019 dated 21.10.2019
(Manjunath R. Vs. BDA).
ii. The impugned order at Annexure-G dated
17.02.2006 is hereby quashed.
iii. The petitioner is hereby directed to pay the entire
sital value together with interest at 21% p.a.
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order.
iv. Upon such payment, BDA shall take necessary
steps to allot an alternative site in favour of the
petitioner, in accordance with law. within three
months from the date of such payment."
The Co-ordinate Bench allows the petition in terms of the
order passed by the four Co-ordinate Benches, which were
taken in appeal by the BDA before the Division Bench in Writ
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
Appeal No.518/2016 and connected cases. The Division Bench
dismisses the appeal filed by the BDA by the following order:
"133. For the reasons stated above, the first point
raised for consideration in the present intra Court
Appeals has to be answered in the negative holding that
BDA has not made out any case to interfere with the
impugned orders passed by the learned single Judge
directing BDA to allot alternative site after receipt of
remaining sital value with 21% interest in terms of
circular issued by the BDA. Accordingly the second point
is answered in the affirmative holding respondents/
allottees are entitled to the relief sought for in the writ
petitions as contemplated under Articles 14 and 21 of
Constitution of India, in view of the specific scheme
introduced by the State Government and resolution
passed by the BDA as one time settlement.
134. On meticulous reading of the pleadings,
documents, this Court is of the considered opinion that
BDA/appellants have not made out any ground to
interfere with the impugned orders of the learned single
Judge in exercise of appellate powers under Section 4 of
the High Court Act, as the scope of the Intra Court
Appeal is very limited.
135. In view of the above we pass following:
VI. ORDER/RESULT
(i) The Intra Court Appeals filed by
Bengaluru Development Authority are
hereby dismissed.
(ii) The orders passed by the learned
single Judge allowing the writ petitions
in terms of the decisions in the cases
of Jayakumar Shetty, Kempamma,
Mohan Kumar, Manjunath R, in
W.P.No.13568/2015, W.P.No.38258/13
W.P.No.19093/2012, and
W.P.No.5150/2019, respectively,
directing the Bengaluru Development
Authority to take necessary steps to
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
allot the subject sites or alternative
sites in favour of the respondents/writ
petitioners, within a period of three
months from the date of payment of
the remaining sital value with 21%
interest, are hereby confirmed.
(iii) The time for compliance of the order of
the learned single Judge is three
months from the date of such payment
respondents/writ petitioners. made by
the respondents/writ petitioners.
Ordered accordingly.
The petitioner is before the Court claiming the same
benefit, as is directed by the learned Single Judge and as
affirmed by the Division Bench.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submits that those orders were carried in special leave before
the Apex Court and the Apex Court has upturned the order
passed by the Division Bench and all other connected cases in
terms of its judgment dated 14.05.2025. The order of the Apex
Court is as follows:
"1. Leave granted.
2. The lead matter in this batch of appeals is directed
against common impugned judgment dated 17.02.2021,
passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru, in Writ Appeal No. 3890/2019
and Writ Appeal No. 2770/2019, thereby upholding the
judgment of the learned Single Judge, in terms whereof
the Appellant (BDA) was directed to decide the
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
representations of the allottees in accordance with law.
Insofar as the connected appeals are concerned, they
arise out of the common impugned judgment dated
23.09.2022 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru disposing of a batch of writ
appeals whereby allotment of sites were ordered to be
restored in favour of the individual allottees. There are
certain other connected appeals which though arise out
of different impugned judgments passed by the High
Court but pertain to the same controversy.
3. Broadly, in all these cases sites were allotted by the
Appellant to the Respondents at various places in
Bengaluru. These allotments were made at different
times but largely in and around the year 2000. While the
facts pertaining to each allotment such as the site and
payment of value by the Respondents are different, the
dispute in all these cases pertains to the cancellation of
allotment by BDA on account of non-payment of balance
sital value. For the sake of convenience, we are
adverting to the facts of the lead matter only, however,
the decision shall be applicable on all the connected
matters, alike.
4. The BDA allotted different sites admeasuring 40x60 ft.
to the private respondents in Anjanapura layout on
07.07.2001 or so. The allotments were made as a
welfare measure in favour of the members of the
Scheduled Castes community at a highly concessional
rate. Some of the terms and conditions of the allotment
were as follows:
"1. In the prescribed affidavit format enclosed herewith
on Rs.15.00 stamp paper to be olemnised (sic), and the
additional information form is to be filled, and within 15
days of receipt of this allotment letter is to be submitted.
Failed to do so the site allotted to you is deemed to have
refused and the site allotment without, issue of notice
will be cancelled and the registration fee will be forfeited.
2. The site total value out of Rs.343450/- after the initial
deposit is deducted the remaining amount of
Rs.326250/- within 30 days of receipt of the allotment
letter is to be paid to the authority. And if the balance
amount is not paid, the allotment of site without any
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
prior intimation will be cancelled and the registration fee
will be forfeited.
3. In case if the prescribed balance amount cannot be
paid within 30 days, you can submit an application and
can obtain 60 days time for payment with 18% interest
and obtain the extended time intimation in writing with
in the extended time if the balance amount is not paid.
The allotted site without any prior notice the allotment
will be cancelled and the earlier paid registration fee will
be forfeited. (this condition is not applicable for altenate
site allotment).
4. The amount payable should be paid in the form of
Demand Draft or through remittance of cash in BDA
Premises Canara Bank Extension Counter or Indian
Overseas Bank KP West Branch, and in this regard
intimation to be made to the BDA.
5. After remittance of the above said site amount, the
absolute sale deed form will be given. The allotee of the
site should get registration of the absolute sale deed.
At the time of the handing over of the site which is
mentioned in this allotment letter is subjected to
verification. For each sq.metre is Rs.1590/- and the total
cost of the site is Rs.343450/-
Site Measurement Value of the Within 30
number of site approx. site and as days to be
and layout sq.ft./sq.mtr. initial deposit paid balance
name paid amount amount
881 12x18 Meters 17200/- 326250
Block VG Slum charges 1000
Anjanpura
327250
[Emphasis Supplied]
5. There is no dispute that in terms of the allotment
conditions, the allottees were required to submit an
affidavit within 15 days of the Allotment Letter accepting
the allotment and, thereafter, deposit the earnest money
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
in the stipulated period. The balance amount was to be
paid within 60 days of the allotment.
6. Admittedly, the respondent-allottees failed to deposit
the first installment as well as the subsequent
installments. There being a persistent default in
payment, they were served with Show-Cause Notices
dated 12.12.2001 for cancellation of the allotted sites.
No amount was deposited even after issuance of the
Show-Cause Notices. Consequently, the allotments were
cancelled vide Cancellation Order dated 23.04.2002.
7. Some of the respondents made representations after
more than six years, to be precise on 08.08.2008, for
recalling the cancellation orders on the ground that the
allotment price could not be deposited due to financial
constraints. Since BDA did not accept their belated
payments, the respondents approached the High Court
through various Writ Petitions. A learned Single Judge
allowed those writ Petitions vide judgment dated
07.12.2018 observing that the delay in approaching the
Court would not be fatal as no third-party interest was
created and that BDA could be well compensated with
interest at the rate of 21% per annum. The aggrieved
BDA filed intra-court appeals which have been turned
down by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the
impugned judgment dated 17.02.2021.
8. While issuing notice in the Special Leave Petitions or
01.10.2021, operation of the impugned order of the High
Court was stayed by this Court. Consequently, neither
the allotments has restored in favour of the respondents
nor the allotment price has been taken from them.
9. At the same time, learned counsel for the BDA relied
upon the Order dated 11.04.2022, passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2884 of
2022 (The Bangalore Development Authority vs.
Gundappa R.), where in identical circumstances, this
Court has held as follows:
"11. Rule 13(1) of the Rules mandates the allottee to
deposit sital value deducting the initial deposit. The
appellant could extend time for payment for a further
period not exceeding sixty days as a final chance along
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
with additional interest. Since the writ petitioner failed to
deposit the amount within the stipulated period,
therefore, there is no corresponding obligation on the
appellant to allot an alternative site to the writ petitioner.
If the writ petitioner was being transferred from place to
place, it was his duty to keep the appellant informed
about his change of address on which he could be
communicated. The appellant had no duty to find out the
address of the writ petitioner. The sole duty to
communicate the address, his place of posting etc. was
on the writ petitioner alone. In the absence of any proof
of change of address, the writ petitioner has lost his right
of allotment of the said site and also to claim any
alternative site.
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. Though learned counsel for the respondents has
earnestly attempted to distinguish the cited decision,
however, we find that the issue involved in this set of
appeals is broadly similar to the one resolved by this
Court in the cited decision. Independently thereof also,
we see no valid justification for the respondents not to
pay even the nominal allotment price and/or to sit at
home silently for over six years and then approach the
High Court for obvious reasons of hike in market value.
11. That being so, we are inclined to maintain
consistency. The instant appeals are, accordingly,
allowed; the impugned judgments of the learned Single
Judge and that of the Division Bench of the High Court
are set aside.
12. The amount, if any, deposited by the respondents is
ordered to be refunded to them within a period of two
months, along with interest at the rate of 7% per
annum, from the date of deposit till actual payment
thereof.
13. As a sequel to the above, the pending interlocutory
application, if any, also stands disposed of."
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
The Apex Court clearly observes that persons, who have
been allotted sites and have failed to pay the amount or sat at
home silently for over six years and then approach the High
Court for obvious reasons of hike in the market value should
not be entertained and all those directions issued by the
learned Single Judges and the Division Bench is set at naught.
6. The further direction is that whoever has deposited
the amount, their amount would be refunded by the BDA with
interest at 7% per annum from the date of deposit till the
actual payment thereof.
7. In that light, the judgments with regard to the
allotment being handed over to the allottees, who have not
been diligent is steered clear by the Apex Court. The petitioner
is one of those allottees, who pursuant to the allotment had
forgotten about his allotment, not for a year or two, but close
to 16 years from the date of allotment. After 16 years comes
and files a petition seeking the same benefit that was granted
to all other allottees, the benefit that is granted to all other
allottees in terms of what is found in the Judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench today is no longer in subsistence, as the Apex
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
Court has set all the orders aside and has directed refund of the
amount from the hands of the BDA to those respective
allottees.
8. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court would
cover the issue at hand on all its fours. The petitioner seeks to
distinguish the same on the score that in terms of the allotment
in Rule 13 of the Bengaluru Development Authority (Allotment
of Sites) Rules, 1984. Particular reference to allotment 13(1),
he would contend that the cancellation of allotment could not
have happened prior to the expiry of three years. While that
may be correct, the learned counsel at the same breath would
contend that he was not aware of the order of cancellation.
There is not a titter of paper produced by the petitioner to
demonstrate that he was in communication with the BDA that
he is willing to pay the amount. It is for the first time he files a
petition before this Court as quoted hereinabove, 16 years after
the allotment. The issue standing fully answered by the
judgment of the Apex Court, the petition would necessarily fail
and is accordingly to be rejected.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:20680
HC-KAR
9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at
this juncture submits that he is an ex-serviceman and is
entitled to a site being an ex-serviceman. If he is so entitled to
under the relevant rules it is open for him to submit a
representation in terms of that quota. The petition insofar as
his claim is for the allotment of 2004 site.
10. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court,
finding no merit, the petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
JY
CT: BHK
