- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51120-DB WA No. 410 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. B. A. SUNIL BABU S/O LATE SRI APPE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A NO. 32/2, III CROSS CASHIER LAYOUT TAVAREKERE BENGALURU 560 029 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B VACHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 560 001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51120-DB WA No. 410 of 2024 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REGISITRATION AND STAMPS KANDAYA BHAVAN 8TH FLOOR, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R1 & R3 SRI. S.N. ASWATHANARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAMANJENEYA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.01.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 22682/2022 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW WP No. 22682/2022 AS PRAYED FOR THEREIN AND 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. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 23.01.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.22682/2022 [LB- RES]. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51120-DB WA No. 410 of 2024 2. The appellant has filed the said writ petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent No.2 [Karnataka Housing Board - KHB] to refund an amount of Rs.35,02,752/-, which according to the appellant had been collected in excess of the amount due. The appellant also claims refund of proportionate stamp duty and registration charge paid in respect of the said excess amount. 3. The relevant facts are that the appellant had applied for allotment of a residential site and had paid the registration amount. The appellant's name was included in the draw of lots for allotment of the site and the appellant was placed at Sl.No.8 on the waiting list. The allotments came to be made in the year 2012, however, the appellant was not offered a site as he was lower in the order of seniority. It is pertinent to note that an allotment was made to one Smt. D.C.Thayamma. However, the same was cancelled on 14.06.2012. Thus, according to the appellant, the said site became available for allotment and ought to have been immediately allotted to the appellant. However, the allotment letter was issued to the appellant on 27.07.2021. In terms of the allotment letter, the appellant was called upon to pay a sum of `47,91,952/- for property - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51120-DB WA No. 410 of 2024 site described as HIG-I-Site 576 in Channarayapatna - Hassan layout [subject site]. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant requested that the price of the subject site be reduced as the same was fixed at the current value instead of the value as was prevailing on 14.06.2012. The learned counsel submits that the said request was not acceded to. In the given circumstances, the appellant proceeded to pay the amount as demanded in terms of the allotment letter and also paid the stamp duty for conveyance of the subject site. After the appellant had paid the entire price and the stamp duty, the KHB executed a Sale Deed in respect of the subject site in favour of the appellant on 15.11.2021. 5. Thereafter, the appellant sought for recovery of an amount of `35,02,752/- from KHB as, according to the appellant, that amount was paid in excess of the price prevailing in the year 2012. The appellant also sought proportionate refund of the excess stamp duty and registration fees of `2,10,166/-, which is commensurate with the excess price paid for the site in question. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51120-DB WA No. 410 of 2024 6. The learned Single Judge, did not find merit in the said petition and dismissed the same by the impugned order. The learned Single Judge also observed that a site was not available at the material time. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the said assumption is erroneous as the subject site was in fact available with the KHB in the year 2012. 8. Notwithstanding the above, we find no merit in the present appeal. Undisputedly, the allotment of the subject site was made to the appellant in terms of an allotment letter dated 27.07.2021. Therefore, there is no question of charging the price, which was prevailing in the year 2012. The consideration for the plot was also paid by the appellant on receipt of the allotment advice. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of any appreciation in the value of the site in question from the year 2012. 9. More importantly, it would not be apposite to accede to the prayer made by the appellant at this stage. This is because the appellant had accepted the allotment letter and paid the consideration amount as stipulated. The said amount was paid - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51120-DB WA No. 410 of 2024 without any protest or reservation of any right. On the basis of the payment of the said consideration, the KHB had executed the Sale Deed and conveyed the site in question to the appellant. The transaction thus stood completed. The same cannot be reopened on the basis as contented by the appellant. 10. In view of the above, we concur with the conclusions of the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition. 11. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly, dismissed. 12. Pending IAs., stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10