- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12236-DB WA No. 194 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2023 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. S. SUMATHI, D/O. K. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, 5TH CROSS, AZADNAGAR, CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE-18. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. DILLI RAJAN N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE FINANCIAL MEMBER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SACHIN .B.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WA AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.01.2023 IN WP No- 36431/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. Digitally signed by PRAJWAL A Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12236-DB WA No. 194 of 2023 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO) The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 03.01.2023 passed in WP No.36431/2014 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition by stating in Page No.19 as under: “In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the Respondents to refund to the Petitioner the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.4,00,000/-(Four Lakh rupees) only, within eight weeks with interest at the rate of 8% reckoned from the date of the faulty Endorsement dated 03.07.2014 at Annexure-G which is liable to be ignored. If delay in refunding is brooked, interest rate would be 12% and not 8% and further that the consequential excess amount may be recovered from the erring officials of the BDA. Costs made easy.” - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12236-DB WA No. 194 of 2023 2. The submission of Mr.Vivek Subha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that the petitioner had made the following prayers, which have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. “Under the above said fact and circumstances the Petitioner above named prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant the following relief’s: a. To issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 03/07/2014 bearing NO.BDA/AA SA/E-HARAJU/NB-1 Stg/3rd Blk/123/2014-15 issued by the respondent No.2 vide ANNEXURE-G. b. To issue Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing/setting aside notification and all further proceedings in pursuance of the notification dated 11/07/2014, bearing No.BDA/AA SA/E- HARAJU/T-2/2014-15 so far as it relates to serial No.47, site No.123 of Nagarabhavi, 1st stage, 3rd block is concern, vide ANNEXURE-H. c. To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to provide an reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to mobilize the funds and to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12236-DB WA No. 194 of 2023 proceed for the purchasing the site as per her bid. Or in the alternative and without prejudice to the above prayers d. To issue Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to repay the EMD deposit amount of Rs.4,00,000/-(Rs.Four Lakhs Only) which she deposited on 21/03/2014 along with interest. e. To issue any other order/s that this Hon’ble court deems fit under the facts and circumstance of the case.” 3. We are unable to accept the said plea of Mr.Reddy for the simple reason that, the only prayer pressed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, as can be seen from Paragraph No.2 of the impugned order was for the refund of the amount deposited at the time of e-auction. The said paragraph reads as under: “2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that his client has participated in the subject e- auction vide Notification dated 03.02.2014 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A wherein the dimension of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12236-DB WA No. 194 of 2023 site in question was specifically stated to be only 95.16 square meters, whereas the site on the ground admeasures much more than that. Counsel further argues that had her client known of larger dimension, she would not have staked her claim in the auction at all and therefore, she has withdrawn her bid and sought for the refund of Earnest Money Deposit. This request having been denied, a direction is to be issued to the BDA for refunding the said amount with interest, argues he.” (emphasis supplied) 4. In fact, we find that, the above plea before the learned Single Judge was in accordance with the representation made by the appellant at the first instance to the Commissioner, BDA, on 26.02.2014, wherein she has stated that, she would like to withdraw from bidding, due to the higher dimension and for refund of the initial EMD amount of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only). 5. If that be so, since the petition having been pressed for the said prayer and the learned Single Judge having granted it, the plea that the other prayers in the writ petition, have not - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12236-DB WA No. 194 of 2023 been considered by the leaned Single Judge, cannot be accepted. 6. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the given facts. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. Pending I.A.Nos.1/2024 and 1/2025 do not survive for consideration and stands disposed of. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14