«I.
IN' THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE o3RD DAY OF ':aoii.()
THE HON'BLE MR.JIJS'_I'ICi£~ Momxw _
wnrr PETITION No;Q§7895 01%' '2€V,.§O9 {_BiV)A)
WRIT pE1g;rIoN No- ;3o"73 or-* 2010
BETWEEN:
Shetal Udaykuejfiar _ _ .
W/ 0 Late Utiayéh KuIriafrf;._ :
Aged 37 yea'1's;f:_,' 3 "
Residifig'AafiNo.A*i"' «V
Sai Kcharan' ':';p.3.rfme'n1:_ " ' V __
1 0th '"Cros_s,' Green .Par1{'1;;1y0ut,
Banaswadi, . , '
Banga1oLn=.,-- 'E-60:043. ~~ ..PETITIONER
{:3}; Hoila, Advocate)
115 'i'fie Commissioner
_.~BaD].ga1ore Deveiopment Authority
z T. Chowdaiah Road,
,_Bangalore --- 560 020.
= .2 The Secretary
Bangalore Development Authority
'1'. Chowdaiah Road,
Bangaiore -- 560 020. ..RESPONDENTS
bi
(By Sri. A.M. Vijay, Advocate)
-2-
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED U_N’1″)Ef%_’I\§i§iiiEC£:E
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF’ INDIA PRAYING-‘TOE’ QUASH
ORDER BEARING NOBDA/HA.SA/CQMMISZ4/2008-09
ozmzo 5.7.2009 (ANNEXURE–R3~Aisa) V
THESE PETYHONS COMING Eda”
IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, “–coU::n§.MADi3 THE
FOLLOWING: ._ ” . v_ ” *
onnas,
The Bangaioi-fie’ put up for
sale by ‘anaongst which were
site HRBR II Block on
30. petitioner’s husband by name
the auction and offered
Rs,9o,ss–,67e/V5. Rs.1,62,78,582/– respectively,
the highest bidder, the auction sale was
0 petitioner’s husband having deposited
– representing 25% of the bid offered for
botiithe sites, was unable to remit the balance amount
the time stipulated since he fell ill, on 9.11.2007,
and was admitted to St. John’s Hospital whence
diagnosed with Non–Hodgkins Lymphoma and post
chemotherapy and died on 26.01.2008 due to muitiple
{M
-3-
organ failure Dysfunction Syndrome
The petitioner — widow of the said being”
housewife, incapable of raising’ fund.s.’
of the price bid, made of
amount in deposit by to 11fi0:tV.:l'”(}(fV,-Eof the BDA
the aforesaid facts.A””.–..fm. also stated that
her late husband debts and that
the were hounding her
to repaypgthe’ yet another setback
dueiflgto-. inother on 24.06.2008. The
responde_n’t,V ed’ communication of even date
Anrxexures “R” and “S” cancelled the auction
V a_n’d:’foi’vfeited the amounts in deposit. Hence this
‘- writ petttiori.
if Petition is opposed by filing Statement of
if g:’ob}’ections interaiia contending that the deceased
V:Udaykumar being the successful bidder having
deposited Rs.63,41,200/– representing 25% of the bid
U4
*4-
amount as required by Rule 6(3) of the of
Corner Sites & Commercial Sites) Rtglelside.
required to deposit the balance oi’-f_’_tl’ri:e
days from 21.11.2007 date
acceptance of the faiIed”‘p’to”‘–do soZ”‘Aitli.ough Rule
6(4) of the Rules –..tQ extend time for
deposit of l’a”;further period of 90
days on. at rate of 18% per
anntim, Ifwherrnot irivoited, the BDA put up for
saleilby two sites. According to the
BDA, lwere put up for reauction on
iooeieoeogizoooe, Altogether, fetched Rs.2.10,96,972/– while
_ the petitioner’s husband was
and therefore, a shortfall of
Rs.4~2lE}7,286/– which it is claimed is liable to be made
A X1.’ vgéloii by the petitioner.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, perused the pleadings, the petitioner has made
Eek
-3-
out an exceptional case. Though the stat11tQfryf’~»ru1e
permits BDA to forfeit the deposit for
the balance sale considera.tioI12
purchaser, but in the circ1i’mSt_ariceS;- _:”t.t.ie _
directed to forfeit Rs.42,(i’?,;28%6/ ~f.’bei11g_ft’he”:..$1*10rtfal1 1:}
value pursuant to reauctign-* twe ‘Sites refund
Rs.20,73,914/– (6é’,2rii,2o(j’.-7; dw’:4fi.,V6-?,286) to the
petitioner, of eight weeks.
Petitions: ‘
83%
fiaqe