IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.23/2023 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

…APPELLANT Digitally signed by RUPA V (BY SRI. B. VACHAN, ADV.,)

Location: H igh Court of AND:

karnataka

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

2. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.19/12, SUBBARAJU ROAD MARUTHISEVA NAGAR BANGALORE-560 033.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 R2 SERVED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2022 PASSED IN WP No.18955/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 challenging the order dated 14.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.18955/2021.

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the respondent No.2 filed a writ petition seeking prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the appellant-BDA to consider his representation dated 01.10.2020 and accept the amount along with interest, if any and register the site allotted in his favour. The respondent No.2 was allotted site No.158 measuring 20 x 30 feet at Jnanabharathi Layout (Valagerahalli II Stage) and issued an allotment letter dated 01.12.2006. The respondent No.2 claims to have made payment on 08.07.2010. The respondent No.1 submitted representations dated

29.05.2010, 12.07.2010 and 01.10.2020 requesting the appellant to accept the sital value with interest. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by directing the appellant to consider the representations and collect the interest, if any, by executing the necessary sale deed within a period of twelve weeks.

3. Sri.B.Vachan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. T. SEETHARAMAPPA (DEAD) THR. LRs, SLP Nos.13871-872/2021 dt. 14.05.2025 considering the earlier decision allowed the appeal filed by the Bengaluru Development Authority by setting aside the orders of this Court wherein a direction was issued to accept the sital value belatedly with interest. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

4. Though the notice is served on the respondent No.2, there is no representation.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

6. The respondent No.2 filed a writ petition seeking prayer to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to the appellant-BDA to consider the representation dated 01.10.2020 and accept the amount along with interest, if any, and register the site allotted in his favour. The respondent No.2 was allotted site No.158 measuring 20 x 30 feet at Jnanabharati Layout (Valagerahalli II stage) and was issued an allotment letter dated 01.12.2006. The respondent No.2 claims to have made payment on 08.07.2010. The respondent No.2 submitted representations dated 29.05.2010, 12.07.2010 and 01.10.2020 requesting the appellant to accept the sital value with interest. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition by directing the appellant to consider the representations and collect the interest, if any, by executing the necessary sale deed within a period of twelve weeks. It is not in d