IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.13171 OF 2024 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

SMT. V. REVATHI W/O LATE T. VENU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12 K.S. LANE, ULSOOR PET CROSS, BENGALURU-560 002.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI SURESH S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, Digitally signed by KUMARA PARK WEST, MAHALAKSHMI B M BENGALURU-560 020.

Location: HIGH COURT OF

2. THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-3, KARNATAKA BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560 020.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KARTHIKEYAN B.S., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO. BDA/AS-3/NPKG/B3-SA-567/2022-23 DATED 13/12/2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 CANCELLING THE ALLOTMENT OF SITE BEARING NO. B3-SA-567 IN NADAPRABHU KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT MEASURING 20 X 30 FEET (EWS) UNDER BACKWARD CATEGORY – 2A MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER HEREIN VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’

GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the order dated

13.12.2022 passed by respondent No.2-Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), canceling the allotment of site bearing No.B3-SA-567 in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout, measuring 20x30 feet (EWS) allotted under backward category-2A and further direction to the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure-M) and complete all the formalities including execution of lease-sum-sale agreement and delivery of possession.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents-BDA.

Brief facts:

3. The petitioner had applied for allotment of a site measuring 6 x 9 meters (20 x 30 feet) under backward category–2A. Pursuant thereto, the BDA allotted the subject site in her favour 21.12.2016, upon payment of the initial deposit of `65,500/- and an allotment letter was issued accordingly. As per Rule 13(1) of the Bengaluru Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (‘Rules, 1984’ for short), the petitioner was required to pay the balance sital value within a period of three years from the date of allotment. Admittedly, the said period expired on 21.12.2019.

4. The petitioner paid the balance sital value in installments only on 02.09.2020, 11.09.2020 and finally on 30.09.2020 i.e., beyond the prescribed period. Consequently, the impugned order canceling the allotment came to be passed.

Contention of the petitioner:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay occurred on account of the extraordinary circumstances, as the petitioner’s husband succumbed to COVID-19, leaving her in financial distress. It is contended that once the respondents issued show cause notice demanding payment, the petitioner bonafide believed that the allotment would be regularized and accordingly deposited the entire amount.

Contention of the respondents:

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development Authority Vs. T. Seetharamappa (dead) Through LRs. (T. Seetharamappa), submitted that belated payment beyond the period stipulated under Rule 13(1) of the Rules, 1984 cannot be accepted, even with interest. It is further contended that the period for payment had expired

1 C.A.No.6809-6810/2025 D.D. 14.05.2025

prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and therefore no benefit can be claimed on that ground.

Consideration and Findings:

7. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the material on record.

8. The facts relating to allotment, the date of expiry of the three years period, and the belated payment of the balance sital value are undisputed.

9