ORDER :

Shankar Ganapathi Pandit, J.

1. Petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to grant an alternate site in lieu of 3.5 guntas of land utilized by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'the BDA') in Sy. No. 171/4 of Kothanur village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

2. Heard Sri. B.R. Viswanath, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA.

3. Petitioner claims that he is the absolute owner of converted land bearing Sy. No. 171/4 of Kothanur village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is stated that the land was converted for non-agricultural residential purpose vide Official Memorandum dated 17.01.2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru. It is the case of the petitioner that without notice and without any acquisition proceedings, the respondent-BDA formed road utilizing 3.5 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner in Sy. No. 171/4. No compensation was awarded to the petitioner nor any alternate land was granted for utilizing the above said land for the purpose of formation of road. At the time of utilization of the petitioner's land by the respondent-BDA, the petitioner was assured that he would be adequately compensated or he would be allotted alternate developed land. As the respondent-BDA failed to compensate the petitioner, he made a representation at Annexure-F dated 11.04.2016 to the respondent-Commissioner.

4. The respondent-BDA contests the writ petition by filing objections. In the objection statement, BDA admits the utilization of land in Sy. No. 171/4 of Kothanur Village. It is also admitted that the representation of the petitioner is under consideration and the respondent-Authority would take appropriate steps for allotment of alternate land to the petitioner. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA that the petitioner would be entitled for compensation for the land utilized by the respondent-BDA or to seek for developed land in lieu of compensation. He would also submit that the contention of the petitioner that he would be entitled for 100% developed land equivalent to the land utilized by the respondent-BDA has no basis.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner would be entitled for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider Annexure-F representation dated 11.04.2016 and pass appropriate orders. It is not in dispute that the respondent-BDA has utilized the land of the petitioner in Sy. No. 171/4 of Kothanur village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk for formation of road. It is also not in dispute in view of the statement made by the respondent-BDA that the representation of the petitioner is under active consideration. Even though the representation is of the year 2016, till this date no decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner would be entitled for compensation from the respondent-BDA for the land utilized by them for formation of road. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent-BDA has utilized 3.5 guntas of land in Sy. No. 171/4 of Kothanur village.

6. It is to be noticed that this Court had an occasion to consider identical fact situation in W.P. No. 45695/2011 which was disposed of on 26.07.2012 with the following directions:

"(i) The petitioner shall submit a detailed representation to the BDA within two weeks from today with the necessary supporting documents for the purpose of showing the market value of the land in 2008

(ii) There appears to be some dispute regarding the extent of the petitioner's land utilized for the BDA's purpose. The petitioner shall produce the necessary documents in support of his claiming that his land, used up by the BDA, actually measures 3 acres.

(iii) On considering them and on heari