IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1865 OF 2024 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AN AUTHORITY ESTABLISHED UNDER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ACT, 1976, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2. THE FINANCE MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Digitally T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD signed by KUMARA PARK WEST AMBIKA H B BENGALURU - 560 003 Location: …APPELLANTS High Court (BY SRI AJAYKUMAR M., ADVOCATE)

of Karnataka AND:

1. SRI MIR NAVEED AHMED AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O. MIR KALEEMULLA R/O. NO. 1107, KALMADDI BIDI POST KOLAR - 563 101, KOLAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.08.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.11759/2024 AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION &

ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. For the reasons stated in the application ‒ I.A No.1/2025 – the same is allowed and the delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The appellants [BDA] have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11759/2024 (BDA), whereby the said writ petition was allowed. The respondent had preferred the said petition impugning an endorsement dated 16.02.2024 calling upon the respondent to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.2,15,89,112/-, the same also included interest at the rate of 18% for a period of 90 days on the 75% of the total consideration and interest at the rate of 21% for 8539 days on the said amount. The break-up of the amount demanded is reproduced below:

3. The relief sought by the writ petitioner was confined to setting aside the demand of interest on the balance 75% of the consideration payable for the auctioned site. The learned Single Judge found that the respondent was always ready and willing to pay the amount due and, therefore, BDA could not charge any interest on the said amount.

4. It is the BDA's case that the respondent is liable to pay interest by virtue of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 6 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 [the Rules]. However, the learned Single Judge rejected the said contention.

Prefatory facts

5. The writ petitioner had participated in a public auction which was conducted on 08.05.2000 and had bid a sum of Rs.48,32,100/- for purchasing a plot of land being Site No.4114 situated at Banashankari 2^nd Stage, Bengaluru, which was put up for auction. The writ petitioner's bid was found to be the highest. The same was, accordingly, accepted. In accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction, the writ petitioner also deposited 25% of the auction price and was required to pay the balance amount of Rs.36,24,000/- within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of intimation letter confirming the sale.

6. However, in the meantime, writ petitions were filed by the third parties challenging the said auction, being W.P Nos.16141- 16143/2000, and certain interim orders were passed in the said writ petitions. Therefore, BDA was not in a position to alienate the subject property [Site No.4114 situated at Banashankari 2^nd Stage, Bengaluru]. It is the BDA's case that although it decided to confirm the auction on 30.05.2000, the confirmation letter could not be issued on account of the aforementioned interim orders.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances, BDA sent a communication dated 05.06.2000 calling upon the writ petitioner to give its consent to