- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13753-DB WA No. 362 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL No. 362 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (RUDA), KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ABIVRUDI BHAVANA, RAMANAGARA -571 511. RAMNAGAR DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR T. L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI.APPAJI GOWDA, S/O.LATE HULLURE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT No.5AS, 1ST CROSS, 2ND PHASE, 4TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, MYSURU-570 085. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NAVEEN CHANDRASHEKAR, AGA FOR R2) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13753-DB WA No. 362 of 2025 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE ON W.P No. 45700/2019 (LB-RES). THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard learned advocate Mr. T.L. Kiran Kumar for the appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar for respondent No.2. 2. Respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No. 45700 of 2019 has preferred this appeal challenging the order dated 19.02.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to accept the balance consideration and confirm the auction sale. 3. The relevant facts of this appeal are that the appellant invited bids through a public auction, as per the publication dated 22.09.2012, for the sale of corner and commercial sites at RG/Arkavathi Layout, Jigenahalli, Magadi Road, Ramanagara. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13753-DB WA No. 362 of 2025 4. Respondent No.1/petitioner participated in the public auction for Site No. 582 and was declared the highest bidder, having bid a sum of Rs.26.00 lakhs. As per the Rules, the successful bidder was required to pay 25% of the bid amount immediately and the balance within 45 days, without interest. The Rules further permitted payment beyond 45 days, subject to interest at 18% per annum, up to 90 days. An additional period of 30 days beyond 90 days was allowed, with interest at 21% per annum. The outer time limit for payment was 10.02.2013. However, Respondent No.1 deposited the balance amount on 10.04.2013. The appellant- authority accepted the amount but did not take any further steps. After a lapse of six years, the appellant issued a notice dated 16.02.2019, stating that the auction sale could not be confirmed as the amount was not paid within the stipulated timeframe under the Rules. This issue became the subject matter of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, observed that the authority was not justified in retaining the amount for six years and that its subsequent refusal to confirm the sale was unjustifiable. The learned Single Judge directed confirmation of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13753-DB WA No. 362 of 2025 sale, subject to the payment of interest at 21% per annum until the final payment 6. Learned advocate Mr. T.L. Kiran Kumar, appearing for the appellant, submits that adherence to the time schedule prescribed under the Rules is mandatory. Non-compliance with the stipulated timeline would disqualify the bidder from seeking confirmation of the auction sale, and the authorities are not empowered to confirm the sale beyond the prescribed period. Learned counsel further submits that the amount was accepted due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant authority. The appellant is willing to refund the amount paid by Respondent No.1 along with applicable interest. 6.1 Learned advocate for the appellant relied on the judgment of this Court in M. Ramesh v. The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Bangalore & Another (ILR 2005 Kar. 18) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Bangalore Development Authority vs. Gundappa R. (Civil Appeal No. 2884 of 2022) to contend that the deposit by the auction purchaser within the timeline prescribed under the Rules is mandatory and that any deviation therefrom is impermissible. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13753-DB WA No. 362 of 2025 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate Mr. Naveen Chandrashekar appeared on behalf of respondent No.2. 8. Having considered the submissions of learned Advocates for the parties, it is evident that respondent No.1/petitioner participated in the auction conducted by the appellant on 29.09.2012 in respect of Site No. 582 and was declared the highest bidder, having bid a sum of Rs.26.00 lakhs. Respondent No.1 deposited 25% of the bid amount as required under the Rules. As per the Rules, Respondent No.1 was permitted to pay the remaining amount within 45 days, or on or before 90 days with interest at 18% per annum. Beyond 90 days, an additional period of 30 days was allowed, subject to interest at 21% per annum. According to the appellant, the outer time limit for payment with applicable interest expired on 10.02.2013, whereas Respondent No.1 deposited the amount on 10.04.2013. The fact of such deposit is not in dispute. However, despite accepting the amount on 10.04.2013, the appellant- authority failed to take any further steps in accordance with the Rules. It was only after a lapse of six years, on 06.02.2019, that the appellant issued a notice stating that the sale confirmation could - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13753-DB WA No. 362 of 2025 not be granted due to the failure to pay the entire bid amount within the stipulated timeframe. 9. The appellant's contention that the Rules do not permit acceptance of the bid amount after the stipulated time and subsequent confirmation of the auction sale is untenable. According to the appellant, the timeline expired on 10.02.2013, whereas the payment was made on 10.04.2013. If the appellant’s action, initiated after a lapse of six years, was bona fide, there was nothing preventing the authority from taking appropriate steps in the year 2013 itself. 10. Even if the contentions urged by the appellant under the Rules are to be accepted by the Court, a balance of interests must be struck between the appellant and Respondent No.1. The Rules provide for charging interest at 21% per annum on delayed payments, thereby safeguarding the appellant’s interest. However, the return of the bid amount after 13 years would cause serious prejudice to the interest of Respondent No.1. 11. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Development Authority (supra) is not applicable to the present case. The facts in that case pertain to the non-payment of the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13753-DB WA No. 362 of 2025 allotment price after the site was allotted and the entitlement of the allottee to an alternate site. The circumstances in the present case are entirely different. Similarly, the judgment of this Court in M. Ramesh (supra) is of limited assistance to the appellant. In that case, this Court examined the competence of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to forfeit the 25% deposit when the remaining amount was not paid by the allottee/auction purchaser. However, the issue of forfeiture has not been raised in the present case. Hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present matter. 12. The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the Court would ordinarily not entertain cases where the auction purchaser has deposited the amount beyond the stipulated timelines. However, in the present case, the learned Single Judge exercised jurisdiction in view of the peculiar circumstances, particularly the fact that the amount paid by Respondent No.1 was retained by the appellant for more than six years. Having derived the benefit of the amount for such a prolonged period, it is not open to the appellant to refuse confirmation of the sale on technical grounds. In other words, the appellant cannot be permitted to take advantage of its - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13753-DB WA No. 362 of 2025 own inaction. Furthermore, no explanation has been offered by the appellant as to why the auction process initiated in 2012 was not concluded in 2013 itself. The interest of the appellant has also been duly safeguarded by the learned Single Judge by directing the payment of interest at 21% per annum on the delayed deposit of the auction sale consideration. 13. The approach adopted by the learned Single Judge has effectively balanced the equities between the appellant and Respondent No.1. In this regard, the order of the learned Single Judge is well-founded, reasoned, and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. 14. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of main appeal, pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18