- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29733-DB WA No. 1314 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1314 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. 2. FINANCE MEMBER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560 020. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI AJAYKUMAR M, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. REKHA H, W/O M DEVANAND, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 130/4, ALLAMAPRABHU ROAD, GAVIPURA, BANGALORE-560 019. …RESPONDENT (BY MS. ANINDITA CHAKRABORTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHARATHCHANDRA M.M.J, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29733-DB WA No. 1314 of 2024 THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A)CALL FOR RECORDS; B) ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 04/10/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.19983/2021 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.19983/2021. 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] has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 04.10.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.19983 of 2021 captioned Smt. Rekha H. Vs. The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority and others; NC: 2023: KHC: 35908. 2. The respondent [Petitioner] had filed the aforementioned petition, inter alia, praying that the directions be issued to BDA to register the property - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29733-DB WA No. 1314 of 2024 bearing Site No.451, J.P. Nagar 8th phase, 1st Block, Kottnur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring 55.66 Sq.Mtrs. 3. The BDA had issued a Notification dated 08.10.2013 inviting bids for auction of the subject site. The respondent has participated in the auction and her bid of ₹33,45,166 was found to be the highest. Consequently, the said bid was accepted and on 21.11.2013, BDA issued a confirmation letter calling upon the respondent to make payment of balance consideration of ₹21,01,666/. 4. The respondent failed to deposit the balance consideration within the time as stipulated. However, admittedly, BDA did not cancel the auction and permitted the respondent to pay the balance consideration along with interest. The respondent, accordingly, paid the entire consideration along with the interest. 5. On 08.07.2015, BDA issued a letter calling upon the respondent to purchase the stamp paper to prepare a sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29733-DB WA No. 1314 of 2024 deed and furnish the same within a period of 60 days. There is some dispute with regard to the said communications. However, it is not necessary to examine the same. Admittedly, BDA had received the entire consideration and therefore, was not entitled to deal with the subject site in any manneer. It was required to hand over possession of the same to the respondent. However, admittedly, the same was not done. 6. On 02.03.2018, BDA re-allotted the site to one Smt. Sandhya and executed a lease-cum-sale agreement. Being aggrieved by the same, she filed the Writ Petition [W.P. No.19983 of 2021] praying that directions be issued to the BDA to register the subject site, in her name and cancel the lease-cum-sale agreement dated 02.03.2018 executed in favour of one Smt. Sandhya. In the alternative, the respondent prayed that directions be issued to the BDA to refund the amount paid, along with interest. Additionally, the respondent also prayed for costs quantified at ₹25,000/-. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29733-DB WA No. 1314 of 2024 7. It is material to note that it is the respondent’s case – which was accepted by the learned Single Judge – that she had pursued the BDA for handing over the subject site or in the alternative, to refund the amount paid by the respondent. However, BDA had done neither. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge has directed that the amount paid by the respondent be refunded to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 21% per annum. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants [BDA] has advanced submissions on two fronts. First, he submits that the BDA has already instituted a suit for cancellation of the lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of Smt. Sandhya and therefore, subject to the suit being decreed, the subject site would be provided to the respondent. He also points out that the respondent’s main prayer in the petition was for handing over the subject site and BDA was agreeable for the same. Second, he submits, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29733-DB WA No. 1314 of 2024 in the alternative, that the rate of interest as imposed [21% per annum] is high and ought to be set aside. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In so far as the first contention is concerned, we find no merit in the same. BDA is not in a position to execute the sale deed having already executed documents for transferring interest in the subject property in favour of Smt. Sandhya. Although it is stated that the said documents do not constitute a conveyance. It can hardly be disputed that it does create some interest in favour of the person in whose favour the lease cum sale agreement is executed. 11. It is also important to note his contention that the subject site would be provided to the respondent subject to the outcome of the suit which has been instituted. Thus the offer to hand over the site is also contingent on the outcome of the suit. In the given circumstances, we find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29733-DB WA No. 1314 of 2024 to direct BDA to refund the amount collected from the respondent. 12. Insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned Single Judge has determined the rate of interest on the basis of the interest charged by BDA in respect of delay in payments received by it. Although the rate of interest as stipulated is high but considering that BDA also charges interest at the same rate from persons who defaulted in making payment, the same may be justified. However, the learned counsel submits that the high rate of interest is not charged for an indefinite period as allotments made to the alottees who fail to pay the amount with interest, are cancelled within a short period of time. He submits that, in the present case, a period for which the interest is directed to be paid spans several years. We find some merit in the said contention. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly states on instructions of the respondent that the rate - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29733-DB WA No. 1314 of 2024 of interest as imposed in terms of the impugned order be reduced to any rate that this Court considers reasonable. 14. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to modify the impugned order to the limited extent of reducing the rate of interest from 21% to 12% per annum simple interest. 15. We find no ground to interfere with the costs of ₹25,000/- as directed to be paid to the respondent. We were inclined to add the costs relating to the present appeal as well. However, are persuaded by the learned counsel appearing for the BDA not to enhance the costs. 16. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34