- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1865 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AN AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE FINANCE MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 003 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI AJAYKUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MIR NAVEED AHMED AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O. MIR KALEEMULLA R/O. NO. 1107, KALMADDI BIDI POST KOLAR - 563 101, KOLAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.11759/2024 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW 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. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the application ‒ I.A No.1/2025 – the same is allowed and the delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellants [BDA] have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11759/2024 (BDA), whereby the said writ petition was allowed. The respondent had preferred the said petition impugning an endorsement dated 16.02.2024 calling upon the respondent to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.2,15,89,112/-, the same also included interest at the rate of 18% for a period of 90 days on the 75% of the total consideration and interest at the rate - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 of 21% for 8539 days on the said amount. The break-up of the amount demanded is reproduced below: Description Amount (````) Total Plot Value 48,32,100.00 Amount Already Paid (25%) 12,08,100.00 Balance Amount (75%) 36,24,000.00 Interest at 18% for 90 days on 75% of the value 1,60,846.00 Interest at 21% for 8,539 days on 75% of the value 1,78,04,166.00 Total Interest 1,79,65,012.00 Total Outstanding Amount (`) `) `) `) 2,15,89,112.00 3. The relief sought by the writ petitioner was confined to setting aside the demand of interest on the balance 75% of the consideration payable for the auctioned site. The learned Single Judge found that the respondent was always ready and willing to pay the amount due and, therefore, BDA could not charge any interest on the said amount. 4. It is the BDA's case that the respondent is liable to pay interest by virtue of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 [the Rules]. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the said contention. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 Prefatory facts 5. The writ petitioner had participated in a public auction which was conducted on 08.05.2000 and had bid a sum of Rs.48,32,100/- for purchasing a plot of land being Site No.4114 situated at Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru, which was put up for auction. The writ petitioner's bid was found to be the highest. The same was, accordingly, accepted. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction, the writ petitioner also deposited 25% of the auction price and was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.36,24,000/- within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of intimation letter confirming the sale. 6. However, in the meantime, writ petitions were filed by the third parties challenging the said auction, being W.P Nos.16141- 16143/2000, and certain interim orders were passed in the said writ petitions. Therefore, BDA was not in a position to alienate the subject property [Site No.4114 situated at Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru]. It is the BDA's case that although it decided to confirm the auction on 30.05.2000, the confirmation letter could not be issued on account of the aforementioned interim orders. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, BDA sent a communication dated 05.06.2000 calling upon the writ petitioner to give its consent to wait till the High Court vacated the stay order or otherwise seek refund of the amount deposited. The said communication is relevant and is set out below: "To. Sri. Mir Naveed Ahmed. No. 1107, Kalmiddi Street, Fort, Kolar. Sir, Sib: Regarding Confirmation of Auction Sale of Commercial/Residential Site No. 4114 of BSK II Stage (Sy. No.50/5 and 60/4 of Yadiyur Village) auction held on 8-5- 2000. Ref: Proceedings of the Auction Sale Confirmation Committee dt. 30-5-2000. While appreciating your participation in the above auction, I am directed to inform you that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in its Interim order dated 4.5.2000 has stayed the confirmation of the auction sale pending disposal of the Writ Petition in respect of the above site. Accordingly, the Auction Confirmation Committee vide its meeting dated 30-5- 2000 has decided to inform the highgest bidders about the Interim Order with the option to seek a refund in case the highest bidders are not willing to wait till the disposal of the Writ petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 You are therefore requested to kindly give your consent to wait until the Hon'ble High Court vacates the stay; if otherwise, lyou may intimate the Authority to refund the amount deposited by you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Finance Member, BDA, Bangalore." 8. The writ petitioner elected to await vacation of interim orders and conveyed his consent by letter dated 17.06.2000. The said communication is reproduced below: "To. The Commissioner, BDA, Bangalore. Dear Sir, Sub: Confirmation of auction sale of Site No.4114 in BSK 2nd Stage. Ref: Auction held on 8.5.2000 - BDA/FM 83/2000-01 Dated 5.6.2000. I hereby convey my consent to wait until the Hon'ble High Court vacates the Stay. This is for your kind information and needful action. Thanking you, Yours Sincerely, Sd/- (Mir Naveed Ahmed) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 From: Mir Naveed Ahmed, No. 1107, Kalmiddi Street, Fort, Kolar." 9. No further communications were issued by BDA. The writ petitions being W.P Nos.16141-16413/2000 were dismissed by this court on 18.08.2003. However, the petitioners in the said case preferred an appeal, being Writ Appeal No.7199/2003, which too was dismissed on 20.08.2010. 10. It is stated that the land owners whose lands were acquired for sanctioning the layout in question had also instituted suits which were pending. In the aforesaid circumstances, BDA did not take any further steps pursuant to the auction. It neither refunded the sum of 25% of the consideration deposited by the writ petitioner nor called upon the respondent to pay the balance amount. 11. The writ petitioner continued to pursue BDA and made a representation on 14.05.2019 requesting BDA to execute the sale deed in his favour. However, the said representation was not considered. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 12. In the circumstances, the writ petitioner was constrained to institute a writ petition, being W.P No.19470/2023, which was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 13.10.2023 directing BDA to consider the writ petitioner's representation. Pursuant to the said direction, BDA issued the impugned endorsement, inter alia, stating that due to the ongoing legal disputes, including OS No.7943/2003, OS No.2719/2018, OS No.2513/2000 and Writ Petition No.16141-143/2000, the amount paid by the writ petitioner was not refunded and the "payment of the remaining amount was deferred until resolution of the disputes". It is further stated that the learned Additional Sessions Court had passed an order dated 09.03.2016 in OS No.2513/2000 directing that the subject property in question be taken back into the BDA's possession under the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974. Consequent to the said order, the subject site was re-allocated to the writ petitioner and BDA called upon the writ petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,15,89,112/-, which included an aggregate interest of Rs.1,79,65,012/- (Rs.1,60,846/- + Rs.1,78,04,166/-). - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 13. As noted, at the outset, the dispute centres around BDA's claim for interest. Concededly, there is no provision for charging interest other than Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules and the BDA relies on the said Rule for claiming the interest on the balance payment of 75% of the auction price. 14. Sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules are relevant and are set out below: "(3) The auction purchaser whose bid is accepted shall deposit twenty-five per cent of the amount of his bid at once on the spot and pay the balance within forty five days from the date of receipt of intimation letter as in Form I communicating the confirmation of sale, in default of which the deposit of twenty five per cent made by such auction purchaser shall be liable to be forfeited to the Authority and the Authority shall be entitled to resell the site and in such an event of resale, the defaulting auction purchaser shall be liable to make good any loss suffered by the Authority on account of such resale. (4) The Commissioner may grant extension of time not exceeding two hundred and ten days for depositing the balance of the bid amount, subject to the condition that during such extended period, the auction purchaser shall also pay the balance of bid amount with an interest thereon at eighteen per cent per annum upto ninety days and at twenty-one percent per annum thereafter upto two hundred and ten days with a penalty of rupees hundred in each case. Failing such payment, the authority shall be entitled to forfeit the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 deposit made by the auction purchaser and resell the site at the risk and cost of the auction purchaser.” 15. In terms of Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the Rules, an auction purchaser whose bid was accepted is required to deposit 25% of the amount at once on the spot. The writ petitioner had complied with the said condition. The auction purchaser is required to pay the remaining amount within a period of forty five days from the date of intimation letter (in Form I) communicating confirmation of sale. Admittedly, the said communication was never sent by BDA. Therefore, the obligation to the writ petitioner to pay the balance amount did not arise. As noted above, the BDA had asked the writ petitioner to either seek a refund or elect to wait till the outcome of the litigation. The writ petitioner communicated his consent to wait till the disputes are settled. 16. The contention that BDA is entitled to charge interest in terms of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules is also clearly erroneous as the writ petitioner had not sought any extension of time for making the balance payment. 17. There is no dispute that the writ petitioner was ready and willing to pay 75% of the amount at the material time. Therefore, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41481-DB WA No. 1865 of 2024 BDA is not entitled to claim any interest under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules for two reasons. First, that the communication confirming the sale had not been issued by BDA. Therefore, the period of forty five days within which the writ petitioner was to make the payment had not commenced. Second, that the petitioner had not sought any extension of time for depositing the balance of the bid amount and there was no occasion for the Commissioner, BDA to grant any extension of time under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Rules. 18. In view of the above, we find no fault with the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 19. The pending interlocutory application stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19