- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35633-DB WA No. 560 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT APPEAL NO. 560 OF 2021 (BDA) BETWEEN: THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI.MURUGESH V CHARATI., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.KAUSALYA.B.N, W/O.CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.148, GIDADAKONENAHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU-560 091. …RESPONDENT (V/O DTD 16.01.2024, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (I) SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35633-DB WA No. 560 of 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.48709/2016(BDA) AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION. (II) GRANT ANY SUCH OTHER RELIEFS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) The instant Writ Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 13.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.48709/2016 (BDA). 2. The Writ Petition was filed for quashing the cancellation order dated 09.05.2004 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority1 terminating the allotment of site No.181 situated at J.P. Nagar, VIII Phase, 1st Block, Bengaluru with further direction to the BDA to allot alternative site in lieu of No.181 in case, the said site was already allotted to other persons. The learned Judge relying upon the judgment of a Bench of this Court in the 1 BDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35633-DB WA No. 560 of 2021 case of Sri. Jayakumar Shetty Vs. Bangalore Development Authority in W.P.No.13658/2015 dated 07.04.2016, disposed of the Writ Petition in terms of the order passed in Sri. Jayakumar Shetty (supra). In that judgment of Jayakumar Shetty (supra) the Court had directed that the balance amount in respect of the allotted side, if it is deposited along with interest at 21% from the date of default till the date of deposit of the balance amount, the BDA shall allot the same site if it is available or an alternative site of a similar dimension in the same locality and convey the same. 3. Learned counsel for BDA has, however, submitted for perusal of this Court an order dated 14.05.2025 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal of 2025 which arose out of SLP (C) No.13871-13872/2021 (the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority Vs. T. Seetharamappa (dead) through LRs) also connected with another Civil Appeal SLP (C) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35633-DB WA No. 560 of 2021 20723/2022 amongst other Civil Appeals. The copy of the order is taken on record. 4. When the matter was listed on 04.03.2024, the following order was passed. "Learned counsel Sri.Murugesh V Charati for appellant is present before the Court physically and press into service for consideration of I.A.No. 1/2022, filed under Order 41 Rule 5 r/w Section 151 of CPC even though this application has to be decided along with main appeal. But, the learned counsel for the appellant press into service I.A.No.2/2022 and facilitated the order rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court relating to the similar issues involved in the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.49/2022 and the same has been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).20723/2022, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court upon hearing the counsel issued notice and passed an order that 'there shall be stay of operation and implementation of the impugned judgment' rendered by this Court. Whereas, under this appeal challenging the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.48709/2016 (BDA) dated 13.10.2020. The application is appended with an affidavit of Deputy Secretary-2, BDA and this application consisting in all Para Nos.1 to 7. In Para No.6, it indicates that 'if an interim order of stay is not granted in this matter, the very purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated and the BDA will suffer great hardship and irreparable loss and injury'. Whereas, learned Single Judge without considering the materials facts has allowed the writ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35633-DB WA No. 560 of 2021 petition and has directed BDA to execute the sale deed by accepting 21% of the interest for the delay period of payment. Therefore, keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant relating to I.A.No.2/2022, it is deem it appropriate to state that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on the writ side in W.P.No.48709/2016 (BDA) dated 13.10.2020 is hereby stayed. Accordingly, I.A.No.2/2022 is allowed. List this matter thereafter in the usual course. In the meanwhile learned counsel for the appellant is directed to secure the report from the Hon'ble Apex Court as where the similar issues in Petition (s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).20723/2022 which is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court." (emphasis supplied) 5. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner being also in respect of SLP (C) 20723/2022, is being looked into. 6. By the aforesaid order dated 14.05.2025, while allowing the appeals of the BDA, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35633-DB WA No. 560 of 2021 Bench of the High Court were set aside. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is quoted below: 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 the said site and also to claim any alternative site. [Emphasis Supplied] 10. Though learned counsel for the respondents has earnestly attempted to distinguish the cited decision, however, we find that the issue involved in this set of appeals is broadly similar to the one resolved by this Court in the cited decision. Independently thereof also, we see no valid justification for the respondents not to pay even the nominal allotment price and/or to sit at home silently for over six years and then approach the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35633-DB WA No. 560 of 2021 High Court for obvious reasons of hike in market value. 11. That being so, we are inclined to maintain consistency. The instant appeals are, accordingly, allowed; the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division Bench of the High Court are set aside. 12. The amount, if any, deposited by the respondents is ordered to be refunded to them within a period of two months, along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of deposit till actual payment thereof. 7. No one has appeared for the respondent even though due service by publication was effected. 8. This Writ Appeal is therefore allowed in terms of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court dated 14.05.2025. The order of the learned Judge dated 13.10.2020 passed in W.P.No.48709/2016 (BDA) is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVK; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8