Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner vs Sri Gujjarappa on 9 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
WA No. 659 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH 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. 659 OF 2025 (BDA)
BETWEEN:
1. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK EAST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
2. THE SECRETARY
BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARA PARK EAST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
Digitally
signed by 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-III
SUMATHY BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KANNAN
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
Location:
High Court KUMAR PARK EAST
of Karnataka BENGALURU - 560 020.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI VACHAN B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GUJJARAPPA
S/O. GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
WA No. 659 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/AT NO.844, 5TH CROSS ROAD
PIPELINE, L.N. COLONY
YESHWANTHPURA
BENGALURU - 560 022.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE A/W
SUPRITHA K.H., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14/08/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P. NO.15269/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS 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 [BDA], have filed the present appeal
impugning an order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15269/2024 [impugned order]
captioned 'Sri. Gujjarappa v. The Commissioner, BDA & Others :
NC: 2024:KHC: 33231'. The said writ petition was filed by the
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
HC-KAR
respondent, assailing an endorsement dated 28.05.2024 issued by
the BDA allotting a site bearing No.368/5 measuring 9 x 12 meters
in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout, VII Block and calling upon the
respondent to pay the sital value of Rs.51,84,500/- in respect of the
allotted site.
2. According to the respondent, the value of the site was
required to be determined at the price prevailing as on the date of
his application for allotment of an alternate site. The said
application was made on 07.12.2002 and there was an inordinate
delay on the part of the BDA in considering the respondent's
request. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge had
allowed the writ petition and ordered as under:
"ORDER
(a) The impugned endorsement dated 28.05.2024
issued by the Deputy Secretary-3, BDA, Bengaluru is hereby
set aside and respondent- BDA is directed to determine the
sital value in respect of the site allotted to the petitioner as it
was prevailing as on 28.04.2016 and collect the same and
complete the required formalities in favour of the petitioner.
(b) The respondent-BDA shall determine the sital
value within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
HC-KAR
the certified copy of this order and the petitioner shall pay the
said consideration within two weeks thereafter.
(c) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of."
3. At the outset, it is noted that the present appeal has been
filed after a delay of 220 (two-hundred and twenty) days. The
appellant has also filed an application - I.A.No.1/2025 seeking
condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The appellant
states that a certified copy of the order had been sent to Law
Section for seeking legal opinion and after detailed discussions
with the concerned authority, it was opined that it was a fit case for
filing the appeal. Thereafter, the opinion of the Law Section was
placed before the Commissioner for his approval and after detailed
discussion and deliberation, the approval was granted. The
appellant claims that the delay is on account of this process.
4. It is material to note that no specific dates have been
provided as to when the impugned order was sent to the Law
Section; as to when the discussions were held; as to when did the
Law Section render its opinion; as to when the opinion was placed
before the Commissioner; as to when the discussions and
deliberation took place; as to when the proposal to file an appeal
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
HC-KAR
was approved by the Commissioner; and as to when was the
appeal prepared and filed.
5. It is well-settled that the delay for each day is required to be
explained. The general explanation as provided by the appellant,
cannot be countenanced.
6. In an appeal involving similar issues [W.A.No.470/2020] filed
by the BDA, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the
appeal on the ground of limitation. The court had referred to
various decisions including the decision in Post Master General &
Others v. Living Media India Ltd. & another : [(2012) 3 SCC
563]; State of Madhya Pradesh & others v. Bherulal : Special
Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.9217/2020 decided on
15.10.2020; and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai &
others v. Uday N. Murudkar : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Diary No.9228/2020 decided on 15.10.2020, and had rejected the
application for condonation of delay. The present application sets
forth a similar explanation and must meet the same fate.
7. Having stated the above, we may also briefly examine the
merits of the appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
HC-KAR
8. The respondent had purchased a revenue site, which was
subsequently registered by a registered sale deed dated
10.02.1995. A preliminary notification for acquisition of the said
site was issued by the BDA on 24.01.2002 and a final notification
was issued on 31.10.2002. Since the revenue land purchased by
the respondent was acquired, he filed an application dated
07.12.2002 for allotment of an alternate site. In the meanwhile,
various writ petitions were filed challenging the notifications issued
for the acquisition of the lands, which also included the petitioner's
land. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this court by a
judgment in Junjamma and Others v. BDA : ILR 2005 KAR 608,
which was delivered on 30.09.2004. This Court upheld the
acquisition. However, it held that all owners whose sites in
question were acquired, were entitled to a site measuring 30 feet x
40 feet in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout or any other nearby layouts
in Bangalore. Some of the relevant directions issued by the court,
are set out below:
"(b) These petitioners shall register themselves as
applicants for allotment under the Bangalore Development
Authority [Allotment of sites] Rules, 1984, within a period of
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
HC-KAR
two months from today (extendable by another one month by
BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to
pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial
deposit as their sites have been acquired and they are not
entitled to receive compensation in regard to the sites under
this arrangement.
(c) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment
of sites -to BDA within three months from today, in the
prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the
petitioners in these Writ Petitions. Petitioners shall file their
documents with BDA along with the application to verify the
same.
(d) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority
in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30'x40'
in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout or in any other nearby
layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices
subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for
allotment under the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules, 1984,
that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten years
domicile) and should not be owning any residential property
in Bangalore.
(e) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in
regard to the plots claimed by petitioners, and if the
ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective sites
which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall
calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and
give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the
allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
HC-KAR
petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six
months time for making payment [to enable petitioners to
know the amount of compensation which they will be entitled
and to ascertain how much balance they should pay]."
9. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, the sites were
required to be allotted at the prevailing allotment price, subject to
the applicants satisfying the twin requirements.
10. The respondent's request for allotment of an alternate site
continued to be pending with the BDA. Therefore, the respondent
was constrained to file a writ petition being, W.P.No.13583/2023
(BDA) seeking direction for allotment of an alternate site. The said
petition was disposed of on 31.08.2023, directing the BDA to offer
alternate site to the respondent, since it was confirmed that the
respondent's land had, in fact been acquired and the respondent's
claim was covered by the decision in Junjamma and Others v. BDA
(supra).
11. Thereafter, the BDA had issued an allotment letter dated
03.04.2024 allotting the site bearing No.368/5 measuring 9 x 12
meters in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout, IV Block. However, BDA
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
HC-KAR
demanded a sital value of Rs.51,84,500/-, which was valued at the
price prevailing on the date of the allotment and not at the price
which was prevailing when the application for such allotment was
made.
12. It is material to note that the allotment was for the purpose of
rehabilitating persons whose lands had been acquired and the
compensation payable to them was required to be adjusted against
the allotment price. Given the circumstances the expression
"prevailing allotment price" as used in the directions issued in
Junjamma and Others v. BDA (supra), is necessarily to be
concluded as the market value prevailing at the time of the
application.
13. In W.P.No.470/2020, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had
considered a similar issue and had held as under:
"10. We have also considered the matter on
merits and we find that the appellant-BDA has taken
fourteen (14) years to consider the representation made
by the respondent herein seeking allotment of an
alternate site. Learned counsel for the appellant sought
to interpret the expression 'prevailing market value'
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
HC-KAR
relating to date of allotment, which could be after six
years, 10 years or even after 02 decades. In the instant
case, it is after 14 years. He contended that the date of
allotment shall be the date to assess the prevailing
market value of the site. We do not think the said
approach be correct for the BDA cannot consider the
representation made in accordance with the judgment of
this Court in Junjamma's case (supra), as and when it
desires to do so and thereby allowing a decade or
beyond to pass, and thereafter go on demanding the
inflated market value of the site.
11. Any representation made pursuant to the
judgment of this Court in Junjamma's case, ought to
have been considered within a
reasonable period and on ascertaining the prevailing
market value, allotment ought to have been made. But,
in the instant case, allotment has been after 14 years,
after making such representation. Hence, we find that
the learned Single Judge was right in interfering in the
matter. We do not find any merit in the appeal, appeal is
dismissed even on merits."
14. The aforesaid decision W.P.No.470/2020 clearly covers the
controversy involved in the present appeal both on the question of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB
HC-KAR
limitation as well as on merits. Accordingly, the present appeal is
dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
15. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KS
