JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Oka, J.

This is one of the several cases we have come across where the Bangalore Development Authority (for short “BDA”) constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, ‘BDA Act’) has illegally taken over possession of a private property belonging to the respondent without acquiring the same in accordance with law.

2. It will be necessary to make a brief reference to the factual controversy in the writ petition. The land subject matter of the writ petition filed by the respondent is site bearing No.19 which is more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the petition (hereafter referred to as ‘the schedule land’). The case made out in the writ petition filed by the respondent is simple. It is pleaded that BDA (the appellant herein) approached the respondent for taking over the said site for the purpose of formation of roads. The respondent agreed on the condition that there would be a valid acquisition proceedings and an area equivalent to 50% of the area of the land acquired will be given to him as a developed site.

3. On 7th February, 2002, BDA passed a resolution and resolved to allot 50% of the area in BSK VI Stage Layout to the respondent. The respondent pointed out that no acquisition proceedings were initiated and the matter was in limbo for quite some time. But BDA addressed a letter to the respondent offering an area of 31,613.15 sq. feet which is equivalent to 50% of the schedule land which was already utilized by BDA without acquisition.

4. Nothing happened thereafter till 6th October, 2008 when an endorsement was issued by BDA. The endorsement was for purportedly correcting an error in allocating/showing the site allotted to the respondent as an alternate site. Correspondence between the parties went on. Finally, on 26th October, 2014, the respondent addressed a letter to BDA requesting it to hand over 50% of the land as committed by BDA, or in the alternative, to acquire the entire schedule land. Though on 11th September, 2015, BDA passed another resolution reiterating its earlier resolution of allotting 50% of the area of the schedule land, the resolution was not implemented. Ultimately on 27th March, 2018, BDA passed a resolution wherein it was stated that instead of offering the agreed developed area of 31,500 sq. feet, only an area of 17,296 sq. feet will be allotted to the respondent.

5. Finally, the respondent, by a letter dated 21st August, 2018, pointed out to BDA that an area of 31,600 sq. feet was demarcated by BDA in the year 2006. On 15th December, 2018, the respondent filed the writ petition, firstly seeking a writ of mandamus directing BDA to hand over vacant possession of the schedule land or in the alternative, for a writ of mandamus directing BDA to acquire the schedule land by taking recourse to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the said Act of 2013”).

6. A statement of objections was filed by BDA to the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the statement of objections, it was not disputed that the respondent was the owner of the schedule land. Reliance is placed on a Government Order dated 9th October, 2018 and it was contended that it is on the basis of the said Government Order that instead of allotting 50% of the developed land, an area measuring 17,296 sq. feet was offered by BDA to the respondent on account of utilizing the total land measuring 63,000 sq. feet.

7. By the impugned order dated 1st March, 2019, the learned Single Judge held that taking over possession of the schedule land without acquiring the same offends the legal right of the respondent under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge observed that without resorting to acquisition proceedings, BDA has misappropriated the private property of the respondent. The learned Single Judge further observed that although the said Act does not fall within the of