Alternate-site allotment price must be determined at the rate prevailing when the claimant applied.

The petitioner’s husband owned a revenue site acquired for the formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout.

Following his death, the petitioner applied to the BDA on 31 December 2014 for an alternative site under the policy applicable to eligible revenue-site holders.

The BDA later allotted her Site No. 3338 but, by an endorsement dated 2 August 2025, demanded ₹51,32,660 as the allotment price and required her to pay 1% TDS and submit Forms 26QB and 16B.

The petitioner challenged the demand, relying on decisions that treated the application date as the relevant date for determining the price.

1. Whether the BDA could determine the price of the alternative site by reference to a date later than the petitioner’s application and registration for allotment on 31 December 2014.

2. Whether the demand for ₹51,32,660, together with the TDS and form-submission requirements, could stand.

The Court considered the BDA’s Resolution No. 226/2002 and the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, in the context of allotment of alternative sites to eligible revenue-site holders.

It applied Junjamma and Others v. Bangalore Development Authority, ILR 2005 KAR 608, and the subsequent Division Bench decisions in W.A. No. 470/2020 and W.A. No. 659/2025, which, as described by the Court, support fixing the prevailing allotment price by reference to the applicant’s application date.

The Court also considered the contrary view cited from W.P. No. 22467/2024.

The petitioner had applied and been registered for an alternative site on 31 December 2014.

Applying the Division Bench decisions, the Court held that the relevant price was the price fixed in 2014, when she applied—not the substantially higher amount demanded in 2025.

The BDA’s delay in acting on her request for over twelve years could not justify imposing the later price on her.

Since the impugned endorsement’s price demand and related TDS requirements rested on that demand, those portions were set aside.

The Court quashed the endorsement insofar as it demanded ₹51,32,660 and required payment of 1% TDS and submission of Forms 26QB and 16B.

The BDA was directed to redetermine the allotment price at the rate fixed in 2014 and communicate it to the petitioner within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The petitioner must comply with the resulting communication within three months of its receipt.