Alternate-site allotment price must be fixed at the rate prevailing on the application date.

The petitioner owned a revenue site acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) for the formation of Sir M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout.

Following the decision in Junjamma v. Bangalore Development Authority, she applied for an alternate site on 11 December 2002 and was registered for allotment on 16 December 2002.

In 2016, the Additional Land Acquisition Officer ordered that an alternate site be allotted to her.

After further proceedings, the BDA allotted her a site in April 2026 and, by an intimation dated 4 June 2026, demanded ₹49,68,500 as the allotment price.

She challenged that demand, seeking determination of the price by reference to the rate applicable when she applied in 2002.

1. Whether the BDA could demand the allotment price applicable when it eventually allotted the alternate site, rather than the rate applicable when the petitioner applied for it in 2002.

2. Whether the demand of ₹49,68,500 in the BDA’s intimation dated 4 June 2026 should be quashed.

Under the directions in Junjamma v. Bangalore Development Authority, revenue site holders who had purchased sites before the preliminary notification were eligible for alternate sites.

In considering the applicable price, the Court relied on the Division Bench decisions in W.A. No. 470/2020 and W.A. No. 659/2025, which it treated as establishing that the “prevailing allotment price” is the price prevailing when the applicant applied for an alternate site.

The Court also noted the contrary coordinate Bench decision in W.P. No. 22467/2024, but did not follow it in light of those Division Bench decisions.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution were invoked as the basis for the writ petition.

The petitioner had applied and registered for an alternate site in December 2002, but the BDA did not allot the site until April 2026.

Applying the Division Bench decisions, the Court held that the relevant date for determining the allotment price was the date of the petitioner’s application, not the later date of allotment.

It reasoned that the petitioner should not bear the consequences of the BDA’s delay of more than 24 years by being charged a later price.

It directed the BDA to redetermine the allotment price by reference to the price fixed in 2002 and communicate the determination 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 receiving it.