Supreme Court – Daily Orders
The Commissioner Bengaluru … vs T. Seetharamappa (Dead) Thr. Lrs on 14 May, 2025
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C)Nos.13871-13872 of 2021)
THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY … APPELLANT
Versus
T. SEETHARAMAPPA (DEAD) THR. LRs … RESPONDENTS
WITH
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 20723/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21411/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21597/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21473/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21617/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21285/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21408/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21394/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21447/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21550/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21236/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21253/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21409/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21441/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21287/2022
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 21274/2022
C.A. No…………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 3248/2023
C.A. No…………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 6155/2023
C.A. No…………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 7481/2023
C.A. No…………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 7482/2023
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 15821/2023
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 15822/2023
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 14433/2023
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 18596/2023
C.A. No………./2025 @ SLP(C) No. 23579/2023
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The lead matter in this batch of appeals is directed against
Signature Not Verified
the common impugned judgment dated 17.02.2021, passed by a Division
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.06.03
16:23:45 IST
Reason:
Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in Writ Appeal
No. 3890/2019 and Writ Appeal No. 2770/2019, thereby upholding the
2
judgment of the learned Single Judge, in terms whereof the
Appellant (BDA) was directed to decide the representations of the
allottees in accordance with law. Insofar as the connected appeals
are concerned, they arise out of the common impugned judgment dated
23.09.2022 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of
Karnataka at Bengaluru disposing of a batch of writ appeals whereby
allotment of sites were ordered to be restored in favour of the
individual allottees. There are certain other connected appeals
which though arise out of different impugned judgments passed by
the High Court but pertain to the same controversy.
3. Broadly, in all these cases sites were allotted by the
Appellant to the Respondents at various places in Bengaluru. These
allotments were made at different times but largely in and around
the year 2000. While the facts pertaining to each allotment such as
the site and payment of value by the Respondents are different, the
dispute in all these cases pertains to the cancellation of
allotment by BDA on account of non-payment of balance sital value.
For the sake of convenience, we are adverting to the facts of the
lead matter only, however, the decision shall be applicable on all
the connected matters, alike.
4. The BDA allotted different sites admeasuring 40x60 ft. to the
private respondents in Anjanapura layout on 07.07.2001 or so. The
allotments were made as a welfare measure in favour of the members
of the Scheduled Castes community at a highly concessional rate.
Some of the terms and conditions of the allotment were as follows:
“1. In the prescribed affidavit format enclosed herewith
on Rs.15.00 stamp paper to be olemnised (sic), and the
additional information form is to be filled, and within 15
3
days of receipt of this allotment letter is to be
submitted. Failed to do so the site allotted to you is
deemed to have refused and the site allotment without,
issue of notice will be cancelled and the registration fee
will be forfeited.
2. The site total value out of Rs.343450/- after the
initial deposit is deducted the remaining amount of
Rs.326250/- within 30 days of receipt of the allotment
letter is to be paid to the authority. And if the balance
amount is not paid, the allotment of site without any
prior intimation will be cancelled and the registration
fee will be forfeited.
3. In case if the prescribed balance amount cannot be paid
within 30 days, you can submit an application and can
obtain 60 days time for payment with l8% interest and
obtain the extended time intimation in writing with in the
extended time if the balance amount is not paid. The
allotted site without any prior notice the allotment will
be cancelled and the earlier paid registration fee will be
forfeited.(this condition is not applicable for altenate
site allotment).
4. The amount payable should be paid iin the form of
Demand Draft or through remittance of cash in BDA Premises
Canara Bank Extension Counter or Indian Overseas Bank KP
West Branch, and in this regard intimation to be made to
the BDA.
5. After remittance of the above said site amount, the
absolute sale deed form will be given. The allotee of the
site should get registration of the absolute sale deed.
At the time of the handing over of the site which is mentioned
in this allotment letter is subjected to verification. For
each sq.metre is Rs.1590/- and the total cost of the site is
Rs.343450/-
Site number Measurement of Value of the Within 30
and layout site approx. site and as days to be
name sq.ft./sq.mtr. initial deposit paid balance
paid amount amount
881 12x18 17200/- 326250
Block VG Meters Slum charges 1000
Anjanpura 327250
[Emphasis Supplied]
5. There is no dispute that in terms of the allotment conditions,
the allottees were required to submit an affidavit within 15 days
of the Allotment Letter accepting the allotment and, thereafter,
4
deposit the earnest money in the stipulated period. The balance
amount was to be paid within 60 days of the allotment.
6. Admittedly, the respondent-allottees failed to deposit the
first installment as well as the subsequent installments. There
being a persistent default in payment, they were served with Show-
Cause Notices dated 12.12.2001 for cancellation of the allotted
sites. No amount was deposited even after issuance of the Show-
Cause Notices. Consequently, the allotments were cancelled vide
Cancellation Order dated 23.04.2002.
7. Some of the respondents made representations after more than
six years, to be precise on 08.08.2008, for recalling the
cancellation orders on the ground that the allotment price could
not be deposited due to financial constraints. Since BDA did not
accept their belated payments, the respondents approached the High
Court through various Writ Petitions. A learned Single Judge
allowed those Writ Petitions vide judgment dated 07.12.2018
observing that the delay in approaching the Court would not be
fatal as no third-party interest was created and that BDA could be
well compensated with interest at the rate of 21% per annum. The
aggrieved BDA filed intra-court appeals which have been turned down
by a Division Bench of the High Court vide the impugned judgment
dated 17.02.2021.
8. While issuing notice in the Special Leave Petitions on
01.10.2021, operation of the impugned order of the High Court was
stayed by this Court. Consequently, neither the allotments has
restored in favour of the respondents nor the allotment price has
been taken from them.
5
9. At the same time, learned counsel for the BDA relied upon the
Order dated 11.04.2022, passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court
in Civil Appeal No. 2884 of 2022 (The Bangalore Development
Authority vs. Gundappa R.), where in identical circumstances, this
Court has held as follows:
“11. Rule 13(1) of the Rules mandates the allottee
to deposit sital value deducting the initial
deposit. The appellant could extend time for payment
for a further period not exceeding sixty days as a
final chance along with additional interest. Since
the writ petitioner failed to deposit the amount
within the stipulated period, therefore, there is no
corresponding obligation on the appellant to allot
an alternative site to the writ petitioner. If the
writ petitioner was being transferred from place to
place, it was his duty to keep the appellant
informed about his change of address on which he
could be communicated. The appellant had no duty to
find out the address of the writ petitioner. The
sole duty to communicate the address, his place of
posting etc. was on the writ petitioner alone. In
the absence of any proof of change of address, the
writ petitioner has lost his right of allotment of
the said site and also to claim any alternative
site.
[Emphasis Supplied]
10. Though learned counsel for the respondents has earnestly
attempted to distinguish the cited decision, however, we find that
the issue involved in this set of appeals is broadly similar to the
one resolved by this Court in the cited decision. Independently
thereof also, we see no valid justification for the respondents not
to pay even the nominal allotment price and/or to sit at home
silently for over six years and then approach the High Court for
obvious reasons of hike in market value.
11. That being so, we are inclined to maintain consistency. The
instant appeals are, accordingly, allowed; the impugned judgments
6
of the learned Single Judge and that of the Division Bench of the
High Court are set aside.
12. The amount, if any, deposited by the respondents is ordered to
be refunded to them within a period of two months, along with
interest at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of deposit till
actual payment thereof.
13. As a sequel to the above, the pending interlocutory
application, if any, also stands disposed of.
.........................J.
(SURYA KANT)
................…….........J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 14, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 13871-13872/2021
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-02-2021
in WA No. 3890/2019 17-02-2021 in WA No. 2770/2019 passed by the
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru]
THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
T. SEETHARAMAPPA (DEAD) THR. LRs. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 237805/2024 - APPLICATION UNDER ORDER V RULE 20 CPC FOR
EFFECTING SERVICE THROUGH PUBLICATION)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 20723/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21411/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21597/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21473/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21617/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21285/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21408/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21394/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21447/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21550/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21236/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21253/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21409/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21441/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21287/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 21274/2022 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 3248/2023 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 6155/2023 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 7481/2023 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 7482/2023 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 15821/2023 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 15822/2023 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 14433/2023 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 18596/2023 (IV-A)
SLP(C) No. 23579/2023 (IV-A)
Date : 14-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
8
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. K. Kulkarni, Adv.
Mr. M Gireesh Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR
Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv.
Mr. Varun Kanwal, Adv.
Mr. Tarun, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. B Ragunath, Adv.
Mrs. NC Kavitha, Adv.
Mr. Sriram P., AOR
Mr. S N Bhat, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Anuradha Mutatkar, AOR
Mr. D P Chaturvedi, Adv.
Mr. Tarun Kumar Thakur, Adv.
Mr. Abhay Choudhary M, Adv.
Mrs. Parvati Bhat, Adv.
Mr. Anand Sanjay M.Nuli, Sr.Adv.
Ms. Akhilawali, Adv.
Mr. Dharm Singh, Adv.
Mr. Nanda Kumar K.B., Adv.
For M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR
Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR
Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv.
Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Adv.
Mr. Anubhav Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Aarushi Patil, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The delay in setting aside abatement is condoned.
The application for setting aside abatement as well as
the application for substitution are allowed.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
As a sequel to the above, the pending interlocutory
application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.)
ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
[ad_1]
Source link