Authority: High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru

Order Date: 14 August 2024

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: H Shivanna, 63‑year‑old Scheduled Caste resident of Thayaranapallya Village, Maniganahalli (Post) Kudur Hobli, Magadi (TQ), Ramanagara District.
  • Respondent: Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Bangalore.
  • Writ Petition No. 26321 of 2018 filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to extend the period for payment of site value for three years, invoking clause E(i) of the allotment letter dated 07‑12‑2016 (No. BDA.DS‑1/B.8.SD/1411/NPKL/2015‑16).
  • Site allotted on 20‑10‑2016 measured 15 × 24 m; BDA required the balance of the site value to be paid within 60 days of allotment.
  • Petitioner contended that the three‑year concession granted to SC/ST allottees of smaller dimensions (6 × 9 m, 9 × 12 m, 12 × 18 m) should also apply to his larger site.
  • The petition challenged BDA Rule 13(1)(a) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, alleging it unconstitutional for not providing the same concession for larger sites.
  • Rule 13(1)(a) provides: payment within 60 days; if unpaid, a further extension of up to 120 days may be granted on application, with interest of 18% for the first 30 days and 21% for the next 90 days; failure to pay may lead to forfeiture of registration fee and cancellation of allotment. A special provision exists only for SC/ST persons allotted sites of 6 × 9 m, 9 × 12 m or 12 × 18 m.
  • The petitioner had not paid the balance even after approximately eight years; BDA had not taken any enforcement action.

Final Outcome

  • The Court observed that the State may lawfully grant special concessions to SC/ST persons for smaller sites and is not obliged to extend the same benefit to larger sites; no error was found in the State’s discretion.
  • The Court noted that Rule 13(1)(a) has been upheld as constitutionally valid in WA No.2894/2014.
  • Consequently, the writ petition was deemed devoid of merit and was dismissed.
  • All pending interlocutory applications, if any, were disposed of.

Topics: Legal; Real Estate