- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB WA No. 1424 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH 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. 1424 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-II BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU - 560 020 THE APPELLANT No.2 IS THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT NO 1. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H.V. KARIYANNA S/O VEERABHADRAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT No.121, 5TH MAIN BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE KARTHRIGUPPE BENGALURU - 560 085. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB WA No. 1424 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.51635/2017 (BDA) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING 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-Bengaluru Development Authority [BDA] have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 07.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.51635/2017 (BDA). The said petition was filed by the respondent impugning a cancellation order dated 20.08.2004, whereby the plot allotted to the respondent was cancelled for non-payment of fee. The respondent belongs to an economically weaker section and he was allotted a site measuring 54 square meters, being site No.953, Block-II, Anjanapura, in terms of the allotment letter dated 07.07.2001. The respondent had already paid - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB WA No. 1424 of 2024 an amount of `4,800/- and was required to pay the balance amount of `33,600/- within a period of thirty days from the date of the allotment letter. Admittedly, the respondent failed to pay the said amount within the said period and therefore the appellants cancelled the allotment of the site on 20.08.2004. However, thereafter, the respondent paid the entire balance amount on 01.10.2004. 2. The appellant also issued two circulars dated 18.10.2007 and 18.11.2010 extending the time for allottees to make the balance payments. However, it is the appellants' contention that since the allotment of site had already been cancelled, the said circulars would not inure to the benefit of the respondent. It is also contended that after cancellation of the site, the same would have been allotted to another person. 3. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order dated 20.08.2004, cancelling the allotment but had also directed that, if the site had been allotted to any other person, the appellants shall return the entire amount along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB WA No. 1424 of 2024 4. The application seeking condonation of delay indicates that the appellants were advised by the Law Officer that there were no grounds to challenge the impugned order. However, thereafter, certain orders were passed relating to other persons, who had raised similar challenge. Those petitions were also disposed of by quashing the cancellation orders impugned in those petitions. It is stated that the appellants had preferred appeals against some of the orders passed, which were also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. The appellants, thereafter, preferred a special leave petition against several such petitions which was allowed and the orders setting aside the cancellation of sites was struck down. Further, the Supreme Court had directed that the amounts deposited by the allottees be refunded with interest at the rate of 7% per annum (Order dated 14.05.2025 in SLP Nos.13871-13872/ 2021 arising out of W.A.No.3890/2019 and W.A.No.2770/2019). After receiving the said order, the appellants had decided to file an appeal against the impugned order, which had attained finality. 5. The application seeking condonation of delay affirms that the appellants had also sent the files of the present matter to the advocates in Delhi for filing a special leave petition, but it was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB WA No. 1424 of 2024 found that the appellants had not preferred any appeal against the impugned order and the application for condonation of delay does not contain any specific details. 6. As to the course of events set out in the application to show sufficient cause for the delay is concerned, the application merely states that the certified copy was placed before the Law Officer on 03.05.2019 and he was of the opinion that there were no good grounds to file an appeal against impugned order. The same was sent to the Commissioner of the BDA for his decision and on 29.05.2019, he had sent back the file for issuance of the order and thereafter, the file was sent to the Deputy Secretary Section on 30.05.2019 for ascertaining the status of the site. However, thereafter, there are no specific dates as to the movement of the file or event the date of the decision to appeal the said order. The application merely states that there were several other matters in which the appellants had filed appeals and the officers of the BDA were under the impression that the appeal had been filed in the present matter as well. Subsequently, the officers of the BDA realized that the remedy of appeal had not been exhausted. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34791-DB WA No. 1424 of 2024 7. We are unable to accept that the appellants have set out any sufficient cause for condonation of an inordinate delay of 1305 days in filing the present appeal, which is more than three and a half years. The application seeking condonation of delay is accordingly dismissed. 8. Consequently, the appeal and the pending application is also disposed of. 9. Needless to state that the appellants are required to repay the amount paid by the respondent with interest. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31