The Bangalore Development Authority cannot demand additional site value from the allottee due to its fault in initially allotting a non-existent site.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

W.A.No.479/2021 is filed by the appellant- BDA under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act , 1961 challenging the order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.11182/2020.

CCC No.492/2021 is filed by the respondent No.2 alleging willful disobedience of the learned Single Judge.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent No.2 was allotted site bearing No.276 at HBR Layout, I Stage, 5^th Block (Sy.No.53, Hennur Village, Bengaluru) by the appellant-Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA'). A lease-cum-sale agreement was also entered into between the parties. The respondent No.2 sought allotment of an alternate site on the ground that the allotted site was not in existence and the appellant-BDA allotted the alternate site bearing No.18 at extended RMV II Stage layout (Sy.No.28 of Bhoopasandra Village, Bengaluru). The appellant-BDA sought additional amount towards the value of the alternate site which was challenged by the respondent No.2 in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by quashing the endorsement dated 04.06.2020 and directed the appellant-BDA to register the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 within two months. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.

3. Sri.Murugesh V.Charati, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-BDA submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant-BDA executed lease-cum-sale agreement and put the respondent No.2 in possession of the site bearing No.276 at HBR Layout in the year 2007 itself. Hence, the question of seeking alternate site is impermissible. It is further submitted that the learned Single Judge further committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 cannot be asked to pay the additional sital value as the alternate site is allotted because of the fault of the appellant-BDA. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the initial allotment made in favour of the respondent No.2 was at HBR layout which was formed in the year 1986-87 and the allotment of the alternate site was at RMV II Stage layout which was formed in the year 1973-74, which was much prior to HBR Layout. Hence, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the difference value of the site and the said demand is as per the BDA Rules. It is contended that the direction of the learned Single Judge to execute the absolute sale deed runs contrary to the BDA Rules as the BDA executes lease-cum-sale deed to the allottees. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Per contra, Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the appellant-BDA allotted site No.276 at HBR layout which was not an existing site. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the material available on record, has come to the conclusion that it is the fault of the appellant-BDA and hence, they cannot insist for additional value of the site. Learned Senior counsel further submits that without standing on the technicalities, the respondent No.2 offered to pay the differential sital value as per the endorsement dated 04.06.2020 and accordingly, sent a demand draft. However, the said demand draft was returned to the respondent No.2 with an endorsement dated 02.05.2024. Learned Senior counsel also submits that now the appellant-BDA is insisting to pay the interest on the differential sital value and the respondent No.2 has agreed to pay reasonable interest on the differential sital value only with a view to avoid further delay in the execution of the sale deed. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 is not admitting that he is liable to pay the difference value and interest on the said amount and the said concession is shown only with an intention to get the sale deed executed at the earliest from the appellant-BDA. He seeks to issue necessary direc