01Facts
The petitioners were allottees of sites in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout and had paid initial deposits and, in some cases, part of the allotment price.
pp. 12–15They withheld the balance, contending that the BDA had not completed the layout’s infrastructure and amenities.
pp. 12–15The BDA demanded payment with interest under Rule 13 of the Bengaluru Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984.
pp. 12–15The petitioners sought extensions of time, waiver of interest and, in some petitions, reduction of the allotment price or invalidation of Rules 9, 12 and 13.
pp. 12–15The acquisition for the layout had been quashed by a Single Judge in 2014, but that decision was reversed by a Division Bench on 22 February 2024, upholding the acquisition.
pp. 17–1802Issues
i.1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to an extension of time to pay the balance allotment price for the period during which the acquisition was set aside and the layout remained undeveloped.
pp. 17–19ii.2. Whether interest was payable on the balance allotment price and, if so, from what date and at what rate.
pp. 19–20iii.3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to the other reliefs sought, including reduction of the allotment price and the challenges to Rules 9, 12 and 13.
pp. 12–15 · 2003Law Applied
Section 31 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976, prevents the BDA from selling or otherwise disposing of sites until the improvements specified in Section 30 have been substantially provided for.
p. 18Rule 13 of the Bengaluru Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, provides for interest where payment is delayed beyond the prescribed or extended period; the Court noted a rate of 18% per annum under the Rule.
p. 19The Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 1783/2014 and connected appeals, dated 22 February 2024, upheld the acquisition for the layout, enabling the BDA to proceed with development after that date.
pp. 17–18Provisions in the judgment · 2
Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 Section 31Section 30
04Reasoning
Because the acquisition had been quashed until the Division Bench reversed that decision on 22 February 2024, the BDA could not proceed with the acquisition and development during that period.
pp. 18–20In light of Section 31, the Court held that the allottees could not be held responsible for delaying payment while the legal status of their allotments remained uncertain.
pp. 18–20Once the acquisition was upheld, however, the petitioners became liable to pay the balance price within a reasonable time.
pp. 18–20As they had not done so, the Court directed interest from 22 February 2024, but reduced the applicable rate from the Rule 13 rate of 18% to 15% per annum.
pp. 18–2005Holding
The petitions were allowed in part.
p. 20The petitioners were directed to pay the balance allotment price with interest at 15% per annum from 22 February 2024 until payment, within three months of receiving the order.
p. 20Upon payment, the BDA must execute the conveyance deeds for the allotted sites.
p. 20If the petitioners fail to pay within that period, their allotments stand cancelled, and the BDA may take steps to re-allot the sites within the following three months.
p. 20Original Court PDF
SRI A S VISHNU BHARATHvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
