CCC/10/2026 of SRI PANCHALINGAIAH, Vs SRI MAJOR MANNIVANNAN on 17 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has handed over a cheque to the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, for a sum of `1,00,000/- towards the costs of litigation as directed by the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.19580/2025 (LA-BDA).

2. The operative part of the said order reads as under:

"6. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents - BDA to pass appropriate orders in terms of what is observed hereinabove and on consideration of the representation and pay the petitioner the market value as was directed by the co-ordinate bench in the order quoted supra, within an

HC-KAR

outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

7. In the event, the respondents - BDA would not pay as is directed, the BDA will be liable to payment of costs of `1,00,000/- the petitioner, towards costs of litigation, for driving the petitioner from pillar to post every juncture."

3. It is apparent from the above that the learned Single Judge also directed Bangalore Development Authority [BDA] to pay the market value of the subject property as directed by the Co-ordinate Bench within a period of four weeks. The operative part of the order referred to (order dated 24.04.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.30928/2018 (LA-RES) reads as under: "4. The BDA shall calculate the market value of the land by considering the market value as on 2018, for the purpose of calculating the compensation. In other words, the date of preliminary Notification shall be construed as 06.02.2018 while calculating the compensation, but for the purposes of interest the date on which the petitioner was dispossessed i.e., on 01.01.2011 shall be taken into consideration."

4. The learned counsel appearing for the accused states that the said order has been complied with and the compensation has been determined for the two guntas of land which was occupied by BDA without acquiring the same and the interest on the said

HC-KAR

amount computed from 01.01.2011, being the date on which the complainant was dispossessed from the subject land. She states that the complainant was called upon by a letter dated 15.07.2026 to submit his PAN card and collect the amount. However, he has declined to do so. Consequently, BDA tried to deposit the compensation amount in the City Civil Court by way of a demand draft. However, the same has been returned. The learned counsel states that the same demand draft cannot be handed over to the complainant as it is in the name of the Registrar, City Civil Court. She submits that if the complainant furnishes a copy of the PAN card, necessary steps would be taken to issue a demand draft in his name.

5. The complainant is at liberty to approach BDA with his PAN card and the demand draft would be handed over to him, not later than three days from the date of his furnishing a copy of the PAN card.

6. We clarify that this order would not preclude the complainant from agitating his grievance or any surviving grievance in an

HC-KAR

appropriate proceedings. The amount collected by the complainant would be without prejudice to all his rights and contentions.

7. The complaint is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3