1. 1 acre 5 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No.68 of Banasavadi village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, belonging to the petitioner has been illegally and unauthorizedly utilized by the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) for the purpose of formation of outer ring road of Banasavadi. Petitioner and his brothers have been representing to the BDA requesting them to allot equivalent alternate land, but the respondent has not responded to the request. Annexure-A is the copy of the representation dated 20.07.2007. Petitioner followed it up by other representations.

2. BDA has acknowledged the fact that 1 acre 5 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner was utilized for formation of outer ring road without any acquisition. Indeed, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, vide his note dated 20.06.2015, after conducting joint spot inspection clearly noticed the factum of utilization of the land by the BDA and recommended the case of petitioner for allotment of alternate land/sites. This is evident from Annexures-B & B1 – note sheet and the proceedings maintained by the BDA.

3. Indeed, based on the recommendation of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the matter was considered and in similar cases decision has been taken by the BDA to grant 50% to 100% equivalent land/sites in favour of land loosers. In para 136 of the note/proceedings of the BDA, reference is made to the decision taken on 04.07.2006 in the meeting of the authority in Subject No.2/2006 for allotment of 75% of land utilized. This is found at Annexure-C. The same was not given effect to subsequently. Though this decision was taken on 21.07.2015, petitioner was not allotted the alternate land. But as regards similarly situated persons, BDA had allotted 100% alternate land. Some such instances have been narrated by the petitioner in paragraphs 5 to 8. However, as regards petitioner, though there was recommendation and indeed approval for allotment of 100% alternate land, respondents have not taken any steps in that connection. Indeed, petitioner wants to rely on the opinion of the Law Officer of the BDA dated 27.02.2016 in support of his contention that a decision had been taken to allot 100% developed land. In the above circumstances, aggrieved by the inaction of the BDA in not allotting the alternate land, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. On 07.07.2017, after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the BDA, this Court passed the following order :

“Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, it is clear that the land belonging to petitioner has been utilised by the BDA during the year 1997 for formation of outer ring road without acquiring the same and without paying any compensation. There cannot be any greater illegality by a statutory authority than depriving a citizen of his land without adopting due process of law and without paying any compensation. Confronted with this, learned counsel appearing for the BDA submits that the BDA would come up with a proposal to compensate the petitioner by granting him alternate land or paying compensation.

Since the land has been utilised way back in the year 1997, the BDA ought to have settled the matter being a statutory body in the manner known to law. Instead, it has made the petitioner to wait for all these years and to come before this Court. In similar matter, this Court has directed the Commissioner to be present in case appropriate details of proposed allotment of alternate site is not made by filing a memo. However, as this matter is coming up for the first time before this Court, three days time as sought by the respondent is granted to place before the Court proposal regarding allotment of any other alternate land, its details including the location or payment of just compensation, if any to be offered.

Re-list on 12.07.2017.”

5. On 12.07.2017, the Commissioner, BDA, was present before the Court. He assured the Court that necessary action on priority would be taken to redr