IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.No.23765/2017 (BDA) BETWEEN SMT.CHANDRAKALA W/O SHIVAYOGI SURPUR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.9, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST MAIN, SRI BALAJI RESIDENCY 80 FEET ROAD, NEAR CHURCH STOP KST, BANGALORE-560060. ... PETITIONER (By Sri SUNIL KUMAR H., ADV.) AND THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BANGALORE-560001. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri G.M.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO REFUND THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,82,177/- [FOUR LAKHS EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRES AND SEVENTY SEVEN ONLY] COLLECTED AS INTEREST FROM THE PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD OF 12.9.2000 TO 16.7.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Petitioner in this writ petition is seeking a writ of mandamus against respondent – BDA to refund a sum of Rs.4,82,177/- collected as interest for the period from 12.09.2000 to 16.07.2014.
2. Petitioner was allotted site No.293 measuring 30’ X 40’ in Jnanabharathi Layout, Block II, Nagadevanahalli, Bengaluru, as per allotment letter dated 12.09.2000. This allotment was cancelled on 25.03.2004 for non-payment of installment. Petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.31959/2013 challenging the cancellation of allotment. This Court disposed of the said writ petition observing that non- payment of installment was on account of non-service of show- cause notice on the petitioner as she had changed her address. This Court found that had the notice been issued to the address where petitioner was residing, she would have had an opportunity to take steps to pay the installment, hence, the order canceling allotment was vitiated.
3. It is relevant to notice here that site No.293 was allotted, in the meanwhile, to another person. Therefore, this Court, having noticed the said fact and also the action taken by BDA and the Government in similar cases, where concession was provided in the matter of payment of interest, directed the petitioner to approach the BDA with necessary documents making a request for allotment of alternate site. BDA was directed to consider the request of petitioner for allotment of alternate site on payment of balance amount with interest as provided in the resolution dated 23.07.2007.
4. Accordingly, petitioner approached the BDA. BDA considered the application submitted by petitioner and allotted alternate site on 07.03.2015 as per Annexure-F. The BDA has collected interest calculated on the sital value and registered the alternate site in the name of the petitioner.
5. Now, petitioner has come up with this writ petition seeking refund of the amount contending inter alia that collection of interest from 12.09.2000 to 16.07.2014 was bad in law.
6. There is no justification for this contention on the part of the petitioner because BDA has acted as per the order passed in W.P.No.31959/2013. The said order having attained finality, action taken by the BDA pursuant to the said order cannot be challenged yet again before this Court. Hence, the writ petition being misconceived is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE PKS