Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs Sri H V Kariyanna on 4 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB
WA No. 1424 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1424 OF 2024 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020.
2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-II
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 020
THE APPELLANT No.2 IS THE AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT NO 1.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by PRABHAKAR (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE)
SWETHA
KRISHNAN
Location: High
AND:
Court of
Karnataka
1. SRI H.V. KARIYANNA
S/O VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT No.121, 5TH MAIN
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
KARTHRIGUPPE
BENGALURU - 560 085.
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB
WA No. 1424 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.51635/2017
(BDA) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE
WRIT PETITION & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellants-Bengaluru Development Authority [BDA]
have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 07.02.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.51635/2017 (BDA). The said petition was filed by the
respondent impugning a cancellation order dated 20.08.2004,
whereby the plot allotted to the respondent was cancelled for
non-payment of fee. The respondent belongs to an economically
weaker section and he was allotted a site measuring 54 square
meters, being site No.953, Block-II, Anjanapura, in terms of the
allotment letter dated 07.07.2001. The respondent had already paid
NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB
HC-KAR
an amount of `4,800/- and was required to pay the balance amount
of `33,600/- within a period of thirty days from the date of the
allotment letter. Admittedly, the respondent failed to pay the said
amount within the said period and therefore the appellants
cancelled the allotment of the site on 20.08.2004. However,
thereafter, the respondent paid the entire balance amount on
01.10.2004.
2. The appellant also issued two circulars dated 18.10.2007
and 18.11.2010 extending the time for allottees to make the
balance payments. However, it is the appellants' contention that
since the allotment of site had already been cancelled, the said
circulars would not inure to the benefit of the respondent. It is also
contended that after cancellation of the site, the same would have
been allotted to another person.
3. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single
Judge had set aside the order dated 20.08.2004, cancelling the
allotment but had also directed that, if the site had been allotted to
any other person, the appellants shall return the entire amount
along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB
HC-KAR
4. The application seeking condonation of delay indicates that
the appellants were advised by the Law Officer that there were no
grounds to challenge the impugned order. However, thereafter,
certain orders were passed relating to other persons, who had
raised similar challenge. Those petitions were also disposed of by
quashing the cancellation orders impugned in those petitions. It is
stated that the appellants had preferred appeals against some of
the orders passed, which were also dismissed by the Division
Bench of this Court. The appellants, thereafter, preferred a special
leave petition against several such petitions which was allowed and
the orders setting aside the cancellation of sites was struck down.
Further, the Supreme Court had directed that the amounts
deposited by the allottees be refunded with interest at the rate of
7% per annum (Order dated 14.05.2025 in SLP Nos.13871-13872/
2021 arising out of W.A.No.3890/2019 and W.A.No.2770/2019).
After receiving the said order, the appellants had decided to file an
appeal against the impugned order, which had attained finality.
5. The application seeking condonation of delay affirms that the
appellants had also sent the files of the present matter to the
advocates in Delhi for filing a special leave petition, but it was
NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB
HC-KAR
found that the appellants had not preferred any appeal against the
impugned order and the application for condonation of delay does
not contain any specific details.
6. As to the course of events set out in the application to show
sufficient cause for the delay is concerned, the application merely
states that the certified copy was placed before the Law Officer on
03.05.2019 and he was of the opinion that there were no good
grounds to file an appeal against impugned order. The same was
sent to the Commissioner of the BDA for his decision and on
29.05.2019, he had sent back the file for issuance of the order and
thereafter, the file was sent to the Deputy Secretary Section on
30.05.2019 for ascertaining the status of the site. However,
thereafter, there are no specific dates as to the movement of the
file or event the date of the decision to appeal the said order. The
application merely states that there were several other matters in
which the appellants had filed appeals and the officers of the BDA
were under the impression that the appeal had been filed in the
present matter as well. Subsequently, the officers of the BDA
realized that the remedy of appeal had not been exhausted.
NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB
HC-KAR
7. We are unable to accept that the appellants have set out any
sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay of 1305
days in filing the present appeal, which is more than three and a
half years. The application seeking condonation of delay is
accordingly dismissed.
8. Consequently, the appeal and the pending application is also
disposed of.
9. Needless to state that the appellants are required to repay
the amount paid by the respondent with interest.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KPS
