- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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, BENGALURU - 560 020. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY III, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, 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., Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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: "ಮೆ ಾ ಾರಂದ ಮುಂದುವೆದ ಸ ಎಂ.ೇ±ÀégÀAiÀÄåನಗರ 8ೇ ¨Áè ಬಾವೆಯ ! ಆ#$ಕ&ಾ' (ಂದು)ದ ವಗ$ದ*AiÀÄ°è 6 * 9 +ೕಟ ಅಳ/ೆಂಯ &ೇಶನ ಸಂ1ೆ2 2316ನ ಹಂ4 ೆ 5ಾ* ಾಂಕ 6-2-2004 ರಂದು ಹಂ4 ೆ ಪತವ£ÀÄß ೕಡ9ಾ':ೆ. ಈ ಬೆ< ಮುಂನ ಕಮ ಾ=' ಪ>?ೕ ಸ9ಾ', ೕವ@ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆೆ ಅಹ$ಾಗAೇ ಾದ ! ಾ ಾರದ ಹಂ4 ೆUÉ AiÀÄ5ಾವ)ಗಳಂ/ೆ 59 ವಷ$ 10 CಂಗಳD 03 ನಗಗ)ೆ ಗಪ*EzÀÄÝ Fೊ/ೆೆ 3 ಪಂತAiÀÄತHಗಳ£ÀUÀ£ÀÄß 5ಾಡAೇ ಾ'ರುತI:ೆ. ಆದೆ, ಹಂ4 ೆಯರ ಸಮAiÀÄದ ! ಮJ ವAiÀĸÀÄì ೕವ@ ಅK$ಯ ! ನªÀÄÆರುವಂ/ೆ ೇವಲ 22 ವಷ$ಗMಾ'ದುN, ೕವ@ ಹಂ4 ೆೆ ಅಹ$ಾ'ರುವ@ಲ!. ಅದುದ>ಂದ ಾ ಾರದ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆಂತು AiÀÄ5ಾವ)ಗಳ ಅನAiÀÄ ಮೆ ಹಂ4 ೆOಾ' ರುವ ಸದ> &ೇಶನವನು ಮJ Pೆಸ>ಂದ ಏ ೆ ರದುಂಪ*ಸAಾರದು ಎಂಬುದ ೆ= ಈ ಪತ ತಲುRದ 15 ನಗMೆSಳಾ' ಮJ °Tತ ¸ÀªÀieÁ¬Äó¶AiÀÄನುH ಸ !ಸ ತಕ=ದು. ತRUದ ! ಮJ ಸಮFಾVW ಏ£ÀÆ ಇರುವ@ಲ!&ೆಂದು ಪ>ಗYE, ಮೆ Oಾವ@:ೇ ಮು£ÀÆìZÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ೕಡ:ೇ ಮೆ ಹಂ4 ೆAiÀiÁ'ರುವ &ೇಶನವ£ÀÄß ರzÀÄÝ ಪ*E ಾ ಾರದ ವಶ ೆ= /ೆೆದು ೊಳZ9ಾಗುವ@ದು." Ostensibly, since the petitioner was not available, he did not reply to the said notice. Non-reply of the said notice and non-payment in terms of the conditions of allotment leads to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 cancellation of allotment on 17.02.2006. The order of cancellation of allotment reads as follows: "&ೇಶನ ರzÀÝC ಆ:ೇಶ ಷAiÀÄ: ಸ ಎಂ.ೇಶರAiÀÄå 8ೇ Aಾ!(ಮುಂದುವೆದ) ಬಾವೆAiÀÄ &ೇಶನ ಸಂ1ೆ2 231ನಪU ರzÀÄÝಪ*ಸುವ §UÉÎ. ಉ9ೆ!ೕಖ: ಈ ಕ]ೇ>ಯು ಾರಾ&ೇ^ತ ಪತ ಸಂ1ೆ2. Aೆಂಅ¥Áæ: GPÁ-3:2316:05- 06, ¢£ÁAPÀ 19-07-2005. ಮೆ ಾ ಾರಂದ ªÀÄÄAದುವೆದ ಸ ಎಂ. ಎಂ.ೇ±ÀégÀAiÀÄåನಗರ 8ೇ ¨Áè ಬಾವೆಯ ! ಆ#$ಕ&ಾ' (ಂದು)ದ ವಗ$ದ*AiÀÄ°è 6 * 9 +ೕಟ ಅಳ/ೆಂಯ &ೇಶನ ಸಂ1ೆ2 2316ನ ಹಂ4 ೆ 5ಾ* ಾಂಕ 6-2-2004 ರಂದು ಹಂ4 ೆ ಪತವ£ÀÄß ೕಡ9ಾ':ೆ. ಈ ಬೆ< ಮುಂನ ಕಮ ಾ=' ಪ>?ೕ ಸ9ಾ', ೕವ@ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆೆ ಅಹ$ಾಗAೇ ಾದ ! ಾ ಾರದ ಹಂ4 ೆUÉ CºÀðgÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ºÀAaPÉ AiÀÄ5ಾವ)ಗಳ ಅನಯದ 59 ವಷ$ 10 CಂಗಳD 03 ನಗ)ೆಗಪ*EzÀÄÝ, Fೊ/ೆೆ 3 ¥ÀæAiÀÄತHಗಳ£ÀÄß 5ಾಡAೇ ಾ'ರುತI:ೆ. ಆದೆ ೕವ@ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆAiÀÄ ಸಮAiÀÄದ ! ªÀÄೆ ೇವಲ 22 ವಷ$ಗMಾ'ರುವ@ದ>ಂದ ೕವ@ ಹಂ4 ೆೆ ಅನಹ$ಾ'ರುವ ಾರಣ, ಮೆ ಹಂ4 ೆOಾ'ರುವ ಸದ> &ೇಶನವ£ÀÄß ಮJ Pೆಸ>ಂದ ಏPÉ ರzÀÄÝಪ*ಸAಾರದು ಎಂಬುದ ೆ= ಪತ ತಲುRದ 15 ನಗMೆSಳಾ' ಮJ Tತ ¸ÀªÀieÁ¬Äó¶AiÀÄನುH ಸ !ಸುವಂ/ೆ ಸೂ4ಸ9ಾ'ದುN, ಆದೆ ೕವ@ ಈ ಬೆ< Oಾವ@:ೇ ಪC^AiÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ೕಡ:ೇ ಫಲಾ'ರುವ@ದ>ಂದ, ೕವ@ &ೇಶನ ಹಂ4 ೆೆ ಅನಹ$ಾ'ರುವ@ದ >ಂದ, ಮೆ 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 number and layout name Measurement of site approx. sq.ft./sq.mtr. Value of the site and as initial deposit paid amount Within 30 days to be paid balance amount 326250 1000 881 Block VG Anjanpura 12x18 Meters 17200/- Slum charges 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20680 WP No. 5282 of 2022 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT: BHK