KRISHNA S.DIXIT, J.

1. Petitioner, a senior citizen is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court complaining against a callous and grossly culpable act of the respondent BDA in un-authorizedly and high handedly appropriating his land ad measuring 63162 Sq. Ft. in site No.19 of Jettagararahalli Village, Hemmigepura Grama, Kengeri Hobli, Banashankari 6th Stage, Bengaluru, without any acquisition process.

2. The respondent BDA after service of notice, has entered appearance and filed a Statement of Objections has specifically admitted at Para No.5 thereof that it has "utilized petitioner's land ad measuring 63000 Sq. Ft. for the formation of roads, parks and sites without acquiring the said lands" for the purpose of Banashankari 6th Stage Layout. In the Statement of Objections at para No.7 the respondent BDA states that it would give 50% of the developed land i.e., 17296 Sq. Ft. to the petitioner in terms of Government Order dated 09.10.2018 in the same layout subject to availability or in the alternative, in some other layout.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that utilization of citizen's land by the respondent BDA, a statutory authority sans acquisition according to law is nothing but robbery of the citizen and despite repeated request, not paying the compensation is grossly violative of petitioner's constitutional Right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The violation is aggravated because of enormous delay of about 16 years in not giving the recompense to the citizen that too without any justification whatsoever and therefore, a direction be issued to the respondent BDA to restore the land and further, to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rupees Five Crore for illegal utilization of the petition land for decades without paying one single rupee till date. He also brought to the notice of Court certain assurances given by the BDA by passing the Resolutions for giving 50% of the utilized land to the petitioner.

4. The learned Panel Counsel for the respondent BDA having made vociferous arguments opposing the claim of the petitioner for some time, later submitted that the BDA would give to the petitioner 50% of the developed land which works out to 63000 Sq. Ft. preferably in the same layout on availability, and in the alternative, in some other layout of petitioner's choice, in terms of Policy Decision of the Government of Karnataka dated 09.10.2018 at Annexure-R1 and BDA Office Order dated 10.10.2018 at Annexure-R2. However, he opposed grant of any other relief to the petitioner contending that the land is used for public purpose.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Panel Counsel for the respondent BDA. I have perused the Writ Petition Papers and also the Statement of Objections.

6. The fact that petitioner's land in all, ad measuring 63162 Sq. Ft. in prime area of Bengaluru City has been utilized by the respondent BDA for the formation of Banashankari 6th Stage Layout way back in the year 2002 without resorting to lawful acquisition process is admitted by the respondent BDA; there is no dispute that the BDA vide Resolution dated 07.02.2002 (Subject No. 53/02) had a greed to give 50% of the sital area; BDA vide Endorsement dated 10.04.2006 had identified as many as eight sites in all ad measuring 31613.50 Sq. Ft.

7. The petitioner vide representations dated 07.06.2012, 22.04.2013, 14.06.2013 & 26.12.2014 at Annexures F, G, H & J respectively has been repeatedly requesting the BDA to grant him the sites in terms of the 2002 Resolution mentioned above and in the alternative to pay him the compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act, 2013. He has also grieved in the subsequent representations as well against the criminal brooking of delay.

8. The respondent BDA vide Resolution dated 11.09.2015 (Subject No. 104/15) had reiterated its sta