- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.22622 OF 2022 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O MUNIHOMBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.14, ANANTHAPURA, N.S. HALLI POST, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUNDARESH H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMETN AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR APARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-II, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA FOR R-1; SRI B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.BDA/DA-2/BSK/5/620/2020-21 DATED 22.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-N AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 22.03.2021 issued by respondent No.3-Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), whereby the petitioner's request for allotment of an alternative site was rejected on the ground of inordinate delay in compliance with Rule 13(1) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (‘Rules, 1984’ for short). Brief facts: 2. The petitioner was allotted a residential site measuring 20x30 feet under the Schedule Caste category on 11.04.2000. According to the petitioner, the allotment - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 letter was not duly communicated to him. It is contended that the BDA issued a paper publication dated 24.10.2000 calling upon certain allottees to collect allotment letters, which allegedly did not come to the petitioner's notice. The petitioner claims to have submitted representation seeking communication of the allotment letter and express readiness to pay the sital value. Alleging non-consideration of his request, the petitioner earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.25168/2016, which was disposed of with a direction to consider his representation. Pursuant thereto, the impugned endorsement came to be issued rejecting his claim on the ground that the petitioner approached the authority after nearly 16 years from the date of allotment and had failed to comply with Rule 13(1) of the Rules, 1984. Contention of the petitioner: 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allotment letter dated 11.04.2000 was never - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 served on the petitioner and therefore the obligation to pay the balance sital value within the prescribed time under Rule 13(1) of Rules, 1984 never arose. It was submitted that non-communication of the allotment notice disentitled the respondents from invoking delay against the petitioner and that the impugned endorsement is arbitrary and unsustainable. Contention of the respondents: 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3-BDA contended that the petitioner was fully aware of the allotment as evident from his own correspondence, despite such legal knowledge, failed to deposit the sital value within the time stipulated under Rule 13(1) of the Rules, 1984. It is further contended that mere passage of time cannot revive a lapsed allotment and that there is no statutory obligation on BDA to allot an alternative site in cases of non-payment within the prescribed period. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 5. Learned counsel places reliance upon the following judgments: i. The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority Vs. T. Seetharamappa (dead) Through LRs.1 (T. Seetharamappa). ii. The Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Gundappa R.2 (R. Gundappa) iii. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bangalore Development Authority Vs. State of Karnataka and Muniraju3 (Muniraju) 6. Learned counsel for the BDA submits that in those decisions relied upon, the allottees had at least deposited sital amount but belatedly. Despite that the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court has held that when the deposit is made beyond period stipulated 1 C.A.No.6809-6810/2025 D.D. 14.05.2025 2 C.A.No.2884/2022 3 W.A.No.23/2023 D.D 10.10.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 under Rule 13 of the Rules, 1984, the same cannot be accepted even if interest is imposed on the petitioner and in the present case, it is a worse situation where the petitioner has not even tendered the sital value and has approached the authority after a lapse of nearly 16 years, which is rightly endorsed in the endorsement. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material on record. 8. Undisputedly, there was an allotment in favour of petitioner on 11.04.2000 vide Annexure-D, the petitioner addressed a letter to the BDA, which reads thus: “F PɼÀUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ £Á£ÀÄ ©.r.J. UÉ ¤ÃªÉ±À£ÀPÁÌV Cfð ¸À°è¹zÁV¤AzÀ®Æ F «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. DzÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£À ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ vÁªÀÅ £ÉÆÃAzÀt CAZÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÝ «¼Á¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀAaPÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄwÛÃj. DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆøïÖªÉÄ£ï §AzÁUÀ E®è¢zÀÝ PÁgÀt CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀPÉÌ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 vÁªÀÅ ¢£ÀAPÀB 2-11-2000 gÀAzÀÄ ¢£À ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀn¹gÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ C£ÀAvÀ zsÀ£ÀåªÁzÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w½¸ÀÄvÁÛ, ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÉÌ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀ ¹éÃPÀÈw ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥Àæw, £ÉÆÃAzÀt PÁqïð ¥Àæw, ªÁ¶ðPÀ ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£À, eÁw ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ EvÁå¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß CAzÀgÉ ¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃn £ÀPÀ®Ä vÁªÀÅ EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹, ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀÅ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀAaPÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ, CzÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ «vÀj¸À¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw¹PÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ.” 9. The letter addressed by the petitioner to the BDA clearly indicates that he had knowledge of the allotment as well as the paper publication issued by the authority. Despite such knowledge, the petitioner failed to deposit the balance sital value within the period stipulated under Rule 13 (1) of the Rules, 1984 or even within the extended period permissible thereunder. 10. Rule 13(1) of the Rules, 1984 mandates as under: “13. Conditions of allotment and sale of site.–The allotment of a site under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 (1) The allottee shall, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of notice of allotment pay to the Authority, the balance sital value deducting the initial deposit. If the balance sital value is not paid within a period of sixty days, the Authority may on application of the allottee, extend the time for payment for a further period not exceeding one hundred twenty days as a final chance and the allottee shall pay an additional interest at the rate of eighteen per cent on the balance sital value for the first thirty days of the extended period and at the rate of twenty-one per cent for the next ninety days of the extended period. If the amount is not paid within such extended period also, the registration fee shall be liable to be forfeited and the allotment may be cancelled without prior intimation: Xxx” 11. Rule 13(1) mandates strict compliance with the payment schedule and failure to do so results in forfeiture of rights arising out of allotment. 12. The Apex Court in the case of T. Seetharamappa has held at paragraph No.9 as under: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 “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 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 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 the said site and also to claim any alternative site.” (Emphasis Supplied) 13. The Apex Court in the case of T. Seetharamappa and R. Gundappa has categorically held that the belated payment or non-payment of the sital value extinguishes the right of the allottee and that there is no corresponding obligation on the authority to allot an alternative site. The Division Bench judgment in Muniraju reiterates the same principle. 14. In the present case, the petitioner stands on a weaker footing, having neither deposited the sital value nor approached the authority within a reasonable time. The delay of nearly 16 years is unexplained and clearly attracts the doctrine of delay and latches. Entertaining such stale claims would unsettle settled possession and defeat the statutory scheme. 15. In view of the clear mandate of Rule 13 of the Rules, 1984 and the authoritative pronouncement of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49172 WP No. 22622 of 2022 Apex Court in the case of T. Seetharamappa, R. Gundappa and this Court in Muniraju’s cases, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16