- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31899 WP No. 24489 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24489 OF 2022 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. VARALAKSHMI D/O VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.11153, SARAKKI 2ND STAGE, J.P. NAGAR BANGALORE-560078 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUSHEELA S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER) T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020. 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY-2 BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 16.02.2021, BEARING NO.B.D.A/UKA-2/2020-21 AND LETTER DATED 04.12.2021, BEARING NO.B.D.A/UKA-2/2020-21 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURES-A AND B DEMANDING AN INTEREST OF RS.58,12,872/- AND ETC. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31899 WP No. 24489 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash an endorsement bearing No.BDA/UKA- 2/2020-21 dated 16.02.2021 and endorsement bearing No.BDA/UKA-2/2020-21 dated 04.12.2021, issued by respondent No.2 demanding interest of Rs.58,12,872/-. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to execute a sale deed in her favour in respect of 'B' schedule property. 2. (i) The petitioner claims to have purchased a Site No.1153, Saraki II Stage, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru, in terms of a sale deed dated 07.05.1987. There was a marginal vacant land on the southern side of the above property. The petitioner claims that she obtained a plan in respect of Site No.1153 and constructed a building not only over Site No.1153 but also over the marginal land. She thereafter, made a representation to respondent No.1 in the year 2012 for allotment of marginal land. The respondent No.1 agreed to convey the same and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31899 WP No. 24489 of 2022 demanded a sum of Rs.73,52,601/-. The petitioner being aggrieved by the cost of the marginal land demanded, filed W.P.Nos.13952/2015 and 28540/2015, which were disposed off in terms of an order dated 05.01.2016 and the price of the margin land was reduced to Rs.36,86,108/-. The order in W.P.Nos.13952/2015 and 28540/2015 was challenged belatedly in W.A.No.61/2017. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal in terms of a judgment dated 19.02.2020 and directed the petitioner to pay in all a sum of Rs.73,52,601/-. (ii) The petitioner claims that before W.P.Nos.13952/2015 and 28540/2015 were filed, a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was already paid on 27.11.2014. The petitioner claims that after disposal of the W.A.No.61/2017, she deposited balance sum of Rs.48,52,601/- on 13.03.2020. The petitioner then challenged the order of the Division Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Civil) No.13297/2022, which was dismissed in terms of an order dated 05.08.2022. (iii) Later, the respondent No.2 raised a demand claiming 18% interest amounting to Rs.58,12,872/-. Being - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31899 WP No. 24489 of 2022 aggrieved by the interest demanded by the respondent No.2, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was initially allowed and therefore, the petitioner was not liable to pay interest. She contends that the liability of the petitioner to pay the balance arose only after the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.No.61/2017 and hence, the interest if any payable has to be reckoned from the date of the aforesaid judgment passed by the Division Bench. She also contends that there was a delay of 319 days in filing the appeal before the Division Bench of this Court and that the petitioner is not liable to pay interest for the delayed period. She also contends that the rate of interest demanded by respondent No.2 at the rate of 18% per annum is exorbitant and excessive and hence, prays that the impugned demand be set at nought. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner has been in possession of the marginal land from the year 1987, but the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.73,52,601/- on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31899 WP No. 24489 of 2022 05.05.2014. He therefore, submits that the petitioner was bound to pay the said sum as on 05.05.2014 and since the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court, the liability to pay interest was not obliterated. He therefore, contends that the petitioner is liable to pay interest for the delay in making the payment. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- through a remittance challan dated 27.11.2014. The petitioner challenged the price determined by the respondents for allotment of the marginal land before this Court in W.P.Nos.13952/2015 and 28540/2015 and met success initially as the writ petitions were allowed in part and she was permitted to pay a sum of Rs.36,86,108/-. This was challenged belatedly by the respondents before the Division Bench in W.A.No.61/2017. It appears that the petitioner had paid the balance sum of Rs.48,52,601/- on 13.03.2020 and thereafter, challenged the judgment passed by the Division - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31899 WP No. 24489 of 2022 Bench before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, unsuccessfully. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner having occupied the marginal land from the year 1987, was bound to pay a sum of Rs.73,52,601/- within 60 days from 05.05.2014. Since the petitioner has litigated the issue before the Courts, the liability of the petitioner to pay the interest was not obliterated. Hence, the petitioner is liable to pay interest. 7. However, having regard to the fact that respondent No.2 has demanded interest at the rate of 18% per annum which is not justified, this Court considers it appropriate to modify the interest demanded from 18% per annum to 12% per annum. At the same time, the petitioner is not liable to pay interest for 319 days which was the delay in challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench in W.A.No.61/2017. 8. In view of the above, this petition is allowed in part. The impugned endorsement bearing No.BDA/UKA- 2/2020-21 dated 16.02.2021 and endorsement bearing No.BDA/UKA-2/2020-21 dated 04.12.2021, issued by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31899 WP No. 24489 of 2022 respondent No.2 demanding interest of Rs.58,12,872/- are quashed. 9. The respondent No.2 is directed to issue a fresh demand within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, calculating the interest from 05.07.2014 on Rs.73,52,601/- till 27.11.2014 at the rate of 12% per annum and on Rs.48,52,601/- from 28.11.2014 till 13.03.2020 at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondent No.2 shall deduct interest for a period of 319 days, which was the delay in filing W.A.No.61/2017. If a demand is raised by the respondent No.2, the same shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of demand. On such payment, the respondent No.2 shall execute a sale deed conveying the marginal land in favour of the petitioner within two months from the date of payment. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52