Karnataka High Court

The Bangalore Development Authority vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2025

                                                -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB
                                                            W.A. No.23/2023


                   HC-KAR



                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
                                              PRESENT
                            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
                                               AND
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                                 WRIT APPEAL NO.23/2023 (BDA)
                  BETWEEN:

                  THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                  T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
                  KUMARA PARK WEST
                  BANGALORE-560 020
                  REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
                                                                  ...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by RUPA V        (BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADV.,)
Location: High
Court of         AND:
karnataka
                  1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                       REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
                       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
                       URBAN DEVELOPMENT
                       VIKASA SOUDHA
                       BENGALURU-560 001.

                  2.   SRI. MUNIRAJU
                       S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY
                       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
                       R/AT NO.19/12, SUBBARAJU ROAD
                       MARUTHISEVA NAGAR
                       BANGALORE-560 033.
                                                               ...RESPONDENTS
                  (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1
                            R2 SERVED)

                        THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
                  COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
                  14.06.2022 PASSED IN WP No.18955/2021 PASSED BY THE
                                -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB
                                              W.A. No.23/2023


HC-KAR



LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AND
DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

      THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
           and
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL


                           JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High

Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 14.06.2022 passed

by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18955/2021.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are

that the respondent No.2 filed a writ petition seeking prayer to

issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the appellant-BDA to

consider his representation dated 01.10.2020 and accept the

amount along with interest, if any and register the site allotted

in his favour. The respondent No.2 was allotted site No.158

measuring 20 x 30 feet at Jnanabharathi Layout (Valagerahalli

II Stage) and issued an allotment letter dated 01.12.2006. The

respondent No.2 claims to have made payment on 08.07.2010.

The respondent No.1 submitted representations dated

NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB

HC-KAR

29.05.2010, 12.07.2010 and 01.10.2020 requesting the

appellant to accept the sital value with interest. The learned

Single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing the appellant

to consider the representations and collect the interest, if any,

by executing the necessary sale deed within a period of twelve

weeks.

3. Sri.B.Vachan, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY Vs. T. SEETHARAMAPPA (DEAD) THR. LRs1,

considering the earlier decision allowed the appeal filed by the

Bengaluru Development Authority by setting aside the orders of

this Court wherein a direction was issued to accept the sital

value belatedly with interest. Hence, he seeks to allow the

appeal.

4. Though the notice is served on the respondent

No.2, there is no representation.

SLP Nos.13871-872/2021 dt. 14.05.2025

NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB

HC-KAR

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on

record. We have given our anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The respondent No.2 filed a writ petition seeking

prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the

appellant-BDA to consider the representation dated 01.10.2020

and accept the amount along with interest, if any, and register

the site allotted in his favour. The respondent No.2 was

allotted site No.158 measuring 20 x 30 feet at Jnanabharati

Layout (Valagerahalli II stage) and was issued an allotment

letter dated 01.12.2006. The respondent No.2 claims to have

made payment on 08.07.2010. The respondent No.2 submitted

representations dated 29.05.2010, 12.07.2010 and 01.10.2020

requesting the appellant to accept the sital value with interest.

The learned Single Judge allowed the petition by directing the

appellant to consider the representations and collect the

interest, if any, by executing the necessary sale deed within a

period of twelve weeks. It is not in dispute that the appellant

has allotted the site in favour of the respondent No.2 on

NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB

HC-KAR

01.12.2006 as is evident from Annexure-C. As per the

prevailing allotment rules, the respondent No.2 was required to

make the payment within a period of 3 years. However, he

submitted representations and made payment on 08.07.2010

as is evident from Annexure-D which is beyond the period

stipulated under Rule 13 of the Bangalore Development

Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of T. SEETHARAMAPPA, referred

supra has held as under:

"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 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

NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB

HC-KAR

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."

7. Keeping in mind the enunciation of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that

the order of the learned Single Judge requires to be interfered.

The appellant-BDA is directed to return the amount, if any,

received from the respondent No.2 immediately, along with

NC: 2025:KHC:39988-DB

HC-KAR

interest at the rate of 7% p.a. from the date of receipt of the

amount till the payment is made.

8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to

pass the following: