Facts
The petitioner was the successful bidder for Site No. 4120 at a Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) auction held on 8 May 2000 and deposited 25% of the bid amount.
Source reference: p. 2–6The BDA did not confirm the sale because of interim orders in proceedings challenging the auction and related litigation concerning the land.
Source reference: p. 2–6Although those writ proceedings were dismissed and the petitioner repeatedly sought confirmation, the sale remained unconfirmed.
Source reference: p. 2–6The BDA opposed the petition, including on grounds of delay and laches, and offered that the petitioner could seek a refund or wait for the litigation to conclude.
Source reference: p. 2–6At the hearing, the BDA relied on a separate auction-purchaser case in which the Supreme Court had directed payment of the balance price with 21% annual interest; the petitioner stated that it was willing to pay interest at that rate.
Source reference: p. 7–8Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an order requiring the BDA to complete the auction sale notwithstanding the delay in seeking relief and the prior litigation affecting confirmation.
Source reference: p. 4–62. Whether completion of the sale could be conditioned on payment of the balance auction price with interest at 21% per annum.
Source reference: p. 7–8Law Applied
The Court applied no identified statutory provision or general precedent in its reasoning.
Source reference: no citationIt relied on the Supreme Court’s order dated 16 April 2026 in S.L.P. (C) No. 16/2026 concerning another BDA auction purchaser, which directed payment of the balance auction price with interest at 21% per annum and completion of the sale by execution of transfer deeds.
Source reference: p. 7The Court also relied on the petitioner’s express willingness to pay interest at that rate.
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The BDA had withheld confirmation because of pending litigation, and the petitioner had deposited only the initial 25% of the bid amount.
Source reference: p. 3–6In light of the Supreme Court’s direction in the comparable auction matter and the petitioner’s willingness to pay interest on the outstanding balance, the Court directed payment of the balance price with 21% annual interest from the date it became payable until payment.
Source reference: p. 7–8The Court did not separately determine the BDA’s objection based on delay and laches.
Source reference: no citationHolding
The petition was disposed of with directions that the petitioner pay the balance auction price, together with interest at 21% per annum from the date the balance became payable until payment, within three months of receiving the order.
Within one month after payment, the BDA must execute the appropriate conveyance deeds transferring title to Site No. 4120 to the petitioner.
Source reference: p. 8Original Court PDF
FARAH BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITEDvsTHE COMMISSIONER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
