- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30291 WP No. 26199 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 26199 OF 2022 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI MUNIYELLAPPA S/O LATE SADAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT: NO.E 64, 19TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, 5TH PHASE, GOPAL REDDY LAYOUT SARAKKI LAKE BENGALURU-560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNDARESH H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING , BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR PARK WEST BENGALURU-560 020. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-II BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. B.S. KARTHIKEYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30291 WP No. 26199 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.BDA/DS-2/JP/2020-21 DATED 23.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE R3 AS PER ANNEXURE C AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/GPÁ-2/JP/2020-21 dated 23.12.2020 issued by the respondent No.3, by which allotment of a site in favour of his mother was cancelled for non-payment of the allotment price. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider his representation dated 18.11.2020 for allotment of a site by considering the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15471/2020 dated 23.12.2020. 2. (i) The petitioner claims that site bearing No.371 measuring 40 X 60 feet at J.P. Nagar, 9th Stage, 3rd Block was allotted to his wife under the Scheduled Caste Category. As per the terms of allotment, the petitioner was required to deposit the balance sital value of Rs.3,37,600/- within the time - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30291 WP No. 26199 of 2022 mentioned in the letter of allotment. He contends that the respondent No.2 cancelled the allotment for non-payment of the sital value in time. He contends that the allotment price could not be paid due to his ill-health and financial difficulties and therefore, his wife made a representation before the respondent No.2 for seeking more sital deposit amount. (ii) It is also contended that the wife of the petitioner died on 07.06.2018 and after her death, the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 with a representation dated 18.11.2020 to allot the site, as he was ready to deposit the amount with interest. He claims that despite his representation, the respondent No.3 issued an endorsement dated 23.12.2020 stating that the plot allotted to the petitioner's wife was cancelled on 05.07.2002 itself and there is no provision to reconsider. The petitioner contends that in identical cases the respondents reconsidered its order canceling the allotment of sites and restored the sites in favour of the allottees by accepting interest at 21% per annum for the delay and depositing the amount and executed a sale deed. The petitioner contends that he too is entitled for to be treated alike. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30291 WP No. 26199 of 2022 petitioner has referred to various orders passed by this Court in the same vein. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allotment of the petitioner's wife was cancelled for non-payment of the allotment price and though the petitioner had filed a representation seeking permission to deposit the price, the respondents had issued the impugned endorsement refusing to entertain the request of the petitioner on the ground that the allotment was cancelled long back. He submits that the petitioner is now ready to pay the allotment price along with interest as decided in a series of writ petitions before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the petitioner's wife was required to deposit the sital value within 90 days as prescribed under the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984. He submits that the allotment was made on 31.05.2000 and he submits that since the same was not done, the allotment was cancelled on 05.07.2002 itself. He contends that the petitioner's wife did not deposit the amount and did not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30291 WP No. 26199 of 2022 approach the respondents until she died on 07.06.2018. It is only after her death that the petitioner has filed the representation dated 18.11.2020 requesting permission to deposit the sital value with interest. He submits that the writ petition is also belated and there is no reason mentioned for filing a belated claim. He contends that the question raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (C) No.13871-872/2021, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering similar circumstances, had held that its earlier judgment in The Bangalore Development Authority vs. Gundappa R. in Civil Appeal No.2884/2022, where it was 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30291 WP No. 26199 of 2022 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." 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court therefore to maintain consistency, held that the orders passed by the High Court permitting the allotment price to be paid with interest was not in accordance with law and hence set aside the orders passed by the High Court and dismissed the writ petitions. He therefore submits that the petition is not entitled to any relief. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the allotment in question was on 31.05.2000 and the same stood cancelled on 05.07.2002. The allottee did not raise any challenge till she died on 07.06.2018. Long thereafter, the petitioner has filed the representation dated 18.11.2020 seeking for permission to deposit the allotment price along with interest. The writ petition is therefore highly belated and no reason is mentioned as to why the petition could not be filed in time. Be that as it may, since - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30291 WP No. 26199 of 2022 the allotment price is not paid within the time stipulated and long years have elapsed, no useful purpose would be served in setting at nought the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. In that view of the matter, the petition fails and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7