- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH 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. 659 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK EAST BENGALURU - 560 020. 2. THE SECRETARY BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK EAST BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-III BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMAR PARK EAST BENGALURU - 560 020. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI VACHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI GUJJARAPPA S/O. GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 R/AT NO.844, 5TH CROSS ROAD PIPELINE, L.N. COLONY YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU - 560 022. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VASANTH KUMAR H.T., ADVOCATE A/W SUPRITHA K.H., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14/08/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO.15269/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS 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 [BDA], have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.15269/2024 [impugned order] captioned 'Sri. Gujjarappa v. The Commissioner, BDA & Others : NC: 2024:KHC: 33231'. The said writ petition was filed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 respondent, assailing an endorsement dated 28.05.2024 issued by the BDA allotting a site bearing No.368/5 measuring 9 x 12 meters in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout, VII Block and calling upon the respondent to pay the sital value of Rs.51,84,500/- in respect of the allotted site. 2. According to the respondent, the value of the site was required to be determined at the price prevailing as on the date of his application for allotment of an alternate site. The said application was made on 07.12.2002 and there was an inordinate delay on the part of the BDA in considering the respondent's request. In view of the above, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and ordered as under: "ORDER (a) The impugned endorsement dated 28.05.2024 issued by the Deputy Secretary-3, BDA, Bengaluru is hereby set aside and respondent- BDA is directed to determine the sital value in respect of the site allotted to the petitioner as it was prevailing as on 28.04.2016 and collect the same and complete the required formalities in favour of the petitioner. (b) The respondent-BDA shall determine the sital value within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 the certified copy of this order and the petitioner shall pay the said consideration within two weeks thereafter. (c) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of." 3. At the outset, it is noted that the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 220 (two-hundred and twenty) days. The appellant has also filed an application – I.A.No.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. The appellant states that a certified copy of the order had been sent to Law Section for seeking legal opinion and after detailed discussions with the concerned authority, it was opined that it was a fit case for filing the appeal. Thereafter, the opinion of the Law Section was placed before the Commissioner for his approval and after detailed discussion and deliberation, the approval was granted. The appellant claims that the delay is on account of this process. 4. It is material to note that no specific dates have been provided as to when the impugned order was sent to the Law Section; as to when the discussions were held; as to when did the Law Section render its opinion; as to when the opinion was placed before the Commissioner; as to when the discussions and deliberation took place; as to when the proposal to file an appeal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 was approved by the Commissioner; and as to when was the appeal prepared and filed. 5. It is well-settled that the delay for each day is required to be explained. The general explanation as provided by the appellant, cannot be countenanced. 6. In an appeal involving similar issues [W.A.No.470/2020] filed by the BDA, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. The court had referred to various decisions including the decision in Post Master General & Others v. Living Media India Ltd. & another : [(2012) 3 SCC 563]; State of Madhya Pradesh & others v. Bherulal : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.9217/2020 decided on 15.10.2020; and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & others v. Uday N. Murudkar : Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.9228/2020 decided on 15.10.2020, and had rejected the application for condonation of delay. The present application sets forth a similar explanation and must meet the same fate. 7. Having stated the above, we may also briefly examine the merits of the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 8. The respondent had purchased a revenue site, which was subsequently registered by a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1995. A preliminary notification for acquisition of the said site was issued by the BDA on 24.01.2002 and a final notification was issued on 31.10.2002. Since the revenue land purchased by the respondent was acquired, he filed an application dated 07.12.2002 for allotment of an alternate site. In the meanwhile, various writ petitions were filed challenging the notifications issued for the acquisition of the lands, which also included the petitioner's land. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this court by a judgment in Junjamma and Others v. BDA : ILR 2005 KAR 608, which was delivered on 30.09.2004. This Court upheld the acquisition. However, it held that all owners whose sites in question were acquired, were entitled to a site measuring 30 feet x 40 feet in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout or any other nearby layouts in Bangalore. Some of the relevant directions issued by the court, are set out below: "(b) These petitioners shall register themselves as applicants for allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority [Allotment of sites] Rules, 1984, within a period of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 two months from today (extendable by another one month by BDA, if sufficient cause is shown). Petitioners will have to pay only the registration fee. They need not pay initial deposit as their sites have been acquired and they are not entitled to receive compensation in regard to the sites under this arrangement. (c) The petitioners shall file applications for allotment of sites -to BDA within three months from today, in the prescribed form stating that they are applicants who were the petitioners in these Writ Petitions. Petitioners shall file their documents with BDA along with the application to verify the same. (d) BDA will treat them as applicants entitled to priority in allotment and allot each of them a site measuring 30'x40' in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout or in any other nearby layouts in Bangalore at the prevailing allotment prices subject to petitioners satisfying the twin requirements for allotment under the BDA (allotment of sites) Rules, 1984, that they must be the residents of Bangalore (ten years domicile) and should not be owning any residential property in Bangalore. (e) If there are no rival claimants for compensation in regard to the plots claimed by petitioners, and if the ownership of the petitioners in regard to their respective sites which have been acquired is not disputed, BDA shall calculate the compensation payable to the petitioners and give credit to the same by adjusting the same towards the allotment price for the site to be allotted and call upon the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 petitioners to pay the balance. Petitioners shall be given six months time for making payment [to enable petitioners to know the amount of compensation which they will be entitled and to ascertain how much balance they should pay]." 9. In terms of the directions issued by this Court, the sites were required to be allotted at the prevailing allotment price, subject to the applicants satisfying the twin requirements. 10. The respondent's request for allotment of an alternate site continued to be pending with the BDA. Therefore, the respondent was constrained to file a writ petition being, W.P.No.13583/2023 (BDA) seeking direction for allotment of an alternate site. The said petition was disposed of on 31.08.2023, directing the BDA to offer alternate site to the respondent, since it was confirmed that the respondent’s land had, in fact been acquired and the respondent’s claim was covered by the decision in Junjamma and Others v. BDA (supra). 11. Thereafter, the BDA had issued an allotment letter dated 03.04.2024 allotting the site bearing No.368/5 measuring 9 x 12 meters in Sir M. Visweswaraiah Layout, IV Block. However, BDA - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 demanded a sital value of Rs.51,84,500/-, which was valued at the price prevailing on the date of the allotment and not at the price which was prevailing when the application for such allotment was made. 12. It is material to note that the allotment was for the purpose of rehabilitating persons whose lands had been acquired and the compensation payable to them was required to be adjusted against the allotment price. Given the circumstances the expression "prevailing allotment price" as used in the directions issued in Junjamma and Others v. BDA (supra), is necessarily to be concluded as the market value prevailing at the time of the application. 13. In W.P.No.470/2020, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had considered a similar issue and had held as under: "10. We have also considered the matter on merits and we find that the appellant-BDA has taken fourteen (14) years to consider the representation made by the respondent herein seeking allotment of an alternate site. Learned counsel for the appellant sought to interpret the expression 'prevailing market value' - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 relating to date of allotment, which could be after six years, 10 years or even after 02 decades. In the instant case, it is after 14 years. He contended that the date of allotment shall be the date to assess the prevailing market value of the site. We do not think the said approach be correct for the BDA cannot consider the representation made in accordance with the judgment of this Court in Junjamma's case (supra), as and when it desires to do so and thereby allowing a decade or beyond to pass, and thereafter go on demanding the inflated market value of the site. 11. Any representation made pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Junjamma's case, ought to have been considered within a reasonable period and on ascertaining the prevailing market value, allotment ought to have been made. But, in the instant case, allotment has been after 14 years, after making such representation. Hence, we find that the learned Single Judge was right in interfering in the matter. We do not find any merit in the appeal, appeal is dismissed even on merits." 14. The aforesaid decision W.P.No.470/2020 clearly covers the controversy involved in the present appeal both on the question of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35333-DB WA No. 659 of 2025 limitation as well as on merits. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as on merits. 15. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26