- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30298 WP No. 5606 of 2017 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. 5606 OF 2017 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. CITIZENS EDUCATION SOCIETY (REG) V BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DR. K.P. GOPALA KRISHNA 2. NATIONAL ACADEMY FOR LEARNING 4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS RD 3RD SAGE, BASAVESHWAR NAGAR BENGALURU-560 079 REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH G.N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SANKEY RD., NEAR 5TH MAIN RD., KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY-1 BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY RD., NEAR 5TH MAIN RD., KUMARAPARK WEST, GUTTAHALLI BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30298 WP No. 5606 of 2017 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.BEM AA PRA/U KA-1/C A/457/2016-17 DATED 28.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AS ILLEGAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged an order bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/GPÁ-1/¹J/457/2016-17 dated 28.01.2017 passed by respondent No.2, cancelling the allotment of a civic amenity site. 2. (i) The petitioner No.1-society contends that it was allotted a civic amenity site in the year 1977, measuring east to west 230+238/2 feet and north to south 185.5+264.5/2 feet situate on West of Chord road, Bengaluru, initially for a period of 30 years commencing from 18.08.1977 at a fixed lease amount of Rs.3,11,220/- payable in annual installments at the rate of Rs.10,374/- per annum. After the expiry of the lease in the year 2007, the petitioner No.1 sought renewal of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30298 WP No. 5606 of 2017 lease in the year 2013. The respondent No.1 agreed to renew the lease and accordingly renewed it on 30.10.2013 for a further period of 30 years. The petitioner No.1 claims that it approached the respondent No.1-authority contending that there is a mistake in the schedule mentioned in the renewed lease agreement dated 30.10.2013 and the same was rectified by the respondent No.1 on 16.12.2013. Later, the respondent No.1 issued a notice to the petitioner No.1 on 15.06.2016 contending that the lease amount was fixed only in respect of 3,627.81 sq.ft. and the authority did not fix the lease amount for the remaining extent of 52,650 sq.feet. Therefore, the petitioner No.1 was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.14,58,83,960/-, which included a sum of Rs.5,60,44,515/- towards the lease amount and a sum of Rs.14,674/- towards additional lease amount and Rs.8,98,24,771/- towards interest. (ii) The petitioner No.1 contends that when the lease agreement was executed on 18.08.1977, the annual rent was fixed at a sum of Rs.10,374/- and after the expiry of 30 years, the lease was to be renewed on a nominal rent of Rs.2/- per annum or for such other amount as may be fixed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30298 WP No. 5606 of 2017 authority in terms of a separate deed. It is contended that after the lease was renewed in the year 2013, the petitioner No.1 paid the agreed lease amount of Rs.8,43,595/- in one lump sum. Therefore, the petitioner No.1 replied to the respondent that it is not liable to pay the amounts demanded by the respondents. The petitioner No.1 contends that without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner No.1, the respondent passed an order under Rule (10)(12) of the Bengaluru Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989, withdrawing the allotment of the site and unilaterally cancelling the lease deed. The petitioners are therefore before this Court challenging the impugned order passed by respondent No.1. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the aforesaid contentions and submitted that when the petitioners had already paid a sum of Rs.8,43,595/- as mentioned in the lease agreement executed in the year 2013, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that the petitioners are liable to pay a sum of Rs.14,58,83,960/-. Therefore, he contends that the impugned order passed by the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30298 WP No. 5606 of 2017 respondent No.1, cancelling the allotment of the civic amenity site and cancelling the lease deed is liable to be interfered with. He further contends that the impugned order is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and on that ground also, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 4. (i) The petition is opposed by the respondents, who contend that the respondent No.1 had allotted a portion of civic amenity site No.1 in favour of the petitioner No.1 measuring east to west 230+238/2 and north to south 185.5+264.5/2, while the remaining portion was allotted to M/s.Vani Education Society in the year 1977. It is contended that after the lease was renewed in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.1 directed its engineers to conduct an inspection. After inspection, it was noticed that the petitioner No.1 had encroached into the civic amenity site allotted to M/s. Vani Education Society, to an extent of 2561.31 sq.mtrs. and had constructed a four-storeyed building without the permission of the respondent No.1 and in violation of the sanctioned plan. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30298 WP No. 5606 of 2017 (ii) It is also alleged that the petitioner No.1 has encroached into an adjacent land which was not allotted to it, to an extent of 1066.50 sq.ft. It is contended that as per the report of the engineer dated 14.02.2008, petitioner No.1 had exceeded the area permitted for utilisation and hence, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner No.1 to pay the lease amount as determined along with interest for the delayed period. (iii) It is alleged that the petitioner admitted the utilisation of additional land measuring 3627.81 square feet and the construction of a four-storeyed building where it was running a school and college. It is contended that respondent No.1 deputed its engineers to inspect the property and calculate the lease amount payable. Accordingly, the accounts section of the respondent No.1 calculated the lease amount payable by the petitioner No.1 at a sum of Rs.5,60,59,189/- and the interest for delayed payment, at Rs.8,98,24,771. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.14,58,83,960/-. Accordingly, the respondents seek to justify the demand made under the impugned endorsement. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30298 WP No. 5606 of 2017 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner No.1 having encroached into the adjacent portion of civic amenity site No.1 and other adjoining land, is liable to pay the prevailing lease charges applicable for allotment of civic amenity sites. He contends that the lease amounts are uniform in respect of all allotments of civic amenity sites in the city of Bengaluru and hence the petitioners cannot raise any grievance. 6. A rejoinder is filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the statement of objections, where it is contended that the impugned endorsement does not contain the reasons mentioned in the statement of objections. It is contended that the respondents cannot supplement reasons in their statement of objections to justify the impugned endorsement. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner - (1978) 1 SCC 405. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30298 WP No. 5606 of 2017 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 8. A perusal of the impugned endorsement, by which the allotment of the civic amenity site was cancelled, shows that the petitioner No.1 had failed to pay a sum of Rs.14,58,83,960/- within 90 days. However, the impugned endorsement does not indicate the basis on which the respondents made such a claim. It is not known whether the civic amenity site allotted to the petitioner No.1 was measured in the presence of the petitioners. It is also not known as to what were the rates of lease charged by respondent No.1 during the period 2007 to 2013, when the petitioner sought renewal of the lease. The impugned endorsement is as bald as it could be and therefore, on this short ground alone, it is liable to be set at nought. 9. Consequently, the petitioner No.1 is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.01.2017 issued by respondent No.2 cancelling the allotment of civic amenity site to the petitioner No.1 for non-payment of lease amount is quashed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30298 WP No. 5606 of 2017 10. It is open for the respondent No.1 to properly notify the petitioner No.1 as to the basis for making such a demand. The petitioners are entitled to file their objections to the demand so made and the respondent No.1 shall hear the petitioners and thereafter pass an order determining the lease amounts payable in respect of the alleged encroached portion. 11. This shall be complied within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38