- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8892 OF 2025 (BDA-) BETWEEN: SRI. UDAYA BASRUR S/O HERIYA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO. 54, 7TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN SRI. GURU RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATHYANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 020, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 2. FINANCE MEMBER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAYAKA PANDIT, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO. BDA/FM/HIM/SMVL-16/2-24-25 DTD. 12.02.2025 AS PER ANNX-A IN SO FAR AS THE LEVYING OF INTEREST IS CONCERNED ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT BDA AS IRRATIONAL AND AS A CONSEQUENCE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a demand notice dated 12.02.2025, insofar as it imposes interest upon the delayed payment and also seeks a mandamus directing the respondent - BDA to refund the excess amount of interest collected to the tune of Rs.71,17,876/-. 2. Heard Shri Sathyanarayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Vinayaka S. Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3. The facts adumbrated are as follows: The BDA issues a notification on 30.01.2018 concerning site No.16, 4th Block, Sri M.V. Layout for e-auction. The auction - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 was conducted between 06.02.2018 to 20.02.2018. The result of the auction is the emergence of the petitioner, as the successful bidder. The sum was declared to be Rs.1,52,98,800/- and called upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount within 45 days. It transpires that the petitioner made a part payment only on 28.11.2018 and not the complete payment, as was required in law. 4. The petitioner then represents to the authority seeking extension of time or waiver of interest, as the case would be. The representation comes to be rejected on 04.02.2020, which follows a cancellation order on 30.05.2020. 4.1 The petitioner calls the said order of cancellation in question before this Court in WP.No.2663/2021. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in terms of its order dated 22.08.2022, sets aside the order of cancellation and directs the respondent - BDA to consider the matter in the light of the observations made in the course of the order. The observations in the course of the order was to collect the outstanding amount along with applicable interest and pass necessary - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 orders, in accordance with law, within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 4.2 The BDA does not comply with the order, but chooses to challenge it before the division bench in WA.No.1081/2022, the writ appeal also comes to be dismissed on 09.12.2024, affirming the findings of the learned single Judge. 4.3 The respondent - BDA then sought to comply with the order, but issues a demand notice demanding interest from 2018 till 2025, the date on which the demand notice was issued. The petitioner then makes the payment of interest and challenges the same before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the period of pendency of the petitions, both before the learned single Judge and the division bench, is calculated as interest and imposed upon the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that for the folly of the petitioner, for not paying the amount for two long years from 2018 to 2020, he is ready to pay interest, but not for the subsequent period, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 as the allotment had been cancelled and the cancellation is set aside by this Court. 6. Shri Vinayaka S. Pandit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - BDA submits that no fault can be found with the imposition of interest for the period throughout. At best, the petitioner may get relief at the period when the writ appeal was pending, as the BDA had chosen to file a writ appeal. He would submit that the petition be dismissed only with the aforesaid observation and is not entitled to any relief beyond what is submitted. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue, as observed, lies in a narrow compass. The petitioner is an auction purchaser. The auction is conducted by the BDA on 30.01.2018. The petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.1,52,98,800/- within 45 days from 12.03.2018. The petitioner did not pay, but had represented to the respondent - - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 BDA for waiver of interest. The petitioner neither paid the interest, nor the amount, except payment of Rs.53,000/-. This led the BDA to reject the representation and pass an order of cancellation of allotment. The cancellation of allotment was challenged before this Court in WP.No.2663/2021. A co- ordinate bench in terms of its order dated 22.08.2022 allowed the petition by the following observations: "6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the subject schedule Site bearing No.16 of Sir M.Vishweshwaraiah, 4th Block Layout, allotted in favour of the petitioner in E-auction, and same was confirmed by the respondent-BDA, as per the confirmation letter dated 12.03.2018 vide Annexure-D. The relevant Rules for the payment to be made by the successful bidder is as per Rules 6(3) and (4) of Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner sites, Intermediate sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984. I have carefully examined Rule-3 stipulated in the aforementioned Rules which provides for auction of corner sites, intermediate sites, commercial sites and other actionable sites and Rule-4, provides for reservation of the corner sites, intermediate sites, commercial sites and other actionable sites. Looking into the language employed in the above Rules and averments made in the writ petition, would indicate that though the respondent-BDA has confirmed the allotment of Site No.16 to the petitioner herein in E-auction, however, there is discrepancy in the schedule mentioned in the said site and same was rectified by the respondent -BDA, on 07.09.2018 as Annexure-E. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner has made out a case for setting aside the cancellation order dated 30.05.2020 as per Annexure-A as the petitioner has provided sufficient reasons for not making balance payment to the respondent-BDA within the stipulated period as per the Rules stated above. Therefore, I am of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 the view that in the event if the petitioner herein deposit the entire amount with relevant interest, within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the respondent-BDA shall consider the same and execute the registered Sale Deed in respect of the site allotted to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules of respondent-BDA. In the result, the impugned order of cancellation dated 30.05.2020 produced at Annexure- A is set aside and matter shall be re-considered by the respondent-BDA as per the observations made herein above. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed." The respondent - BDA was directed to consider execution of a sale deed in respect of the allotment of the petitioner in accordance with the rules, with applicable interest within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Therefore, the order of cancellation stood set aside as if it was never in existence. 9. The BDA would choose, to toss the order, of the learned single Judge before the division bench in WA.No.1081/2022, which comes to be dismissed on 09.12.2024. Therefore, the date on which the petitioner prefers the writ petition i.e., 11.12.2020, till the date on which the division bench dismisses the appeal i.e., 09.12.2024, in the considered view of this court, cannot form the part of interest that is now imposed, on the delayed payment. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 10. It would have been altogether a different circumstance if the petitioner had not succeeded before the learned single Judge. The petitioner does succeed before the learned single Judge. It is the BDA, which challenges it before the division bench and after two years of its challenge, the division bench rejects. Therefore, the pendency of the proceedings before this Court from 11.12.2020 till 09.12.2024 cannot be a part of the interest now sought to be imposed as the parties to the lis were before this Court for the aforesaid four long years. It is trite that actus curiae neminem gravabit – the act of court shall prejudice no person. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P.SRTC VS. IMTIAZ HUSSAIN reported in (2006) 1 SCC 380, at para 8, the Apex Court holds that the aforesaid maxim is founded upon justice and good sense. It reads as follows: “8. The basis of the provision under Section 152 of the Code is founded on the maxim “actus curiae neminem gravabit” i.e. an act of court shall prejudice no man. The maxim “is founded upon justice and good sense; and affords a safe and certain guide for the administration of the law”, said Cresswell, J. in Freeman v. Tranah, [12 CB 406 : 138 ER 964] (ER p. 967). An unintentional mistake of the court which may prejudice the cause of any party must and alone could be rectified. In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 Orissa, [(1966) 3 SCR 99 : AIR 1966 SC 1047] it was observed that the arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation, a clerical mistake is a mistake in writing or typing whereas an error arising out of or occurring from accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake on the part of the court liable to be corrected. To illustrate this point it was said that in a case where the order contains something which is not mentioned in the decree, it would be a case of unintentional omission or mistake as the mistake or omission is attributable to the court which may say something or omit to say something which it did not intend to say or omit. No new arguments or rearguments on merits can be entertained to facilitate such rectification of mistakes. The provision cannot be invoked to modify, alter or add to the terms of the original order or decree so as to, in effect, pass an effective judicial order after the judgment in the case.” (Emphasis supplied) The afore-quoted judgment is followed by the Apex Court in the recent judgment rendered in the case of GAYATRI BALASAMY VS. ISG NOVASOFT TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 986. Therefore, the pendency of the subject petition cannot lead to prejudice the petitioner in payment of interest for the aforesaid four years. 11. In that light, the ordered impugned i.e., the demand notice requires certain tweaking to be done, which would be the petitioner is held liable to pay interest from the date on which he had to make the payment till 11.12.2020 and not any period beyond it, till the date of making the payment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he would have no objection to pay interest up to 11.12.2020. 13. In that light and for the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed-in-part. ii) The demand notice dated 12.02.2025 is set aside, insofar as it includes the period between 11.12.2020 and 09.12.2024. iii) The petitioner is held liable for payment of interest on delayed payment only for the period between the last date of payment i.e., demanded till 11.12.2020. The demand notice is modified accordingly. iv) The BDA is directed to comply with the orders passed by the single Judge, in accordance with the aforesaid modification, within an outer limit of - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27731 WP No. 8892 of 2025 eight weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of the order. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK