JUDGMENT :

There is delay of 585 days in filing the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the delay has occurred due to bona-fide and unintentional reasons. In that regard he drew our attention to IA No.1/2018 filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. He submitted that the appellant- Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) has a good case on merits and therefore, delay may be condoned and the matter may be heard on merits.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondents/writ petitioners had filed Writ Petition Nos.37184-200/2016, seeking a writ of mandamus against the appellants herein to execute sale deeds in respect of the petition schedule property which had been allotted in favour of the petitioners as per Annexures-A to A15 vide allotment orders dated 09.02.2016, 11.02.0216 and 15.03.2016. In all, 15 sites, totally measuring around 39,289 square feet were allotted by the appellant/BDA in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners. The said allotment was made in lieu of utilization of respondents’ land to an extent of 36 guntas in Sy.No.84/1 of Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said land belonged to the first respondent herein and was utilized by the appellant/BDA for the purpose of formation of Gnanabharathi Layout. There is no dispute that the said land had been utilized by the appellant/BDA without there being any acquisition thereof. The BDA, in lieu of utilisation of the said land, allotted 15 sites of different dimensions to the respondents, but no execution of the registered Sale Deeds was made in their favour. Therefore, they approached this Court seeking a direction in that regard.

3. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the appellant herein cancelled the allotment made in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners vide, a decision taken at a meeting held on 2.6.2016. As a result, the writ petitioners amended their petitions and challenged cancellation of the allotment of sites. Learned Single Judge, on hearing the respective parties found that, there was no dispute that 36 guntas of land belonging to the petitioners had been utilized by the BDA, without acquiring the same. The said land belongs to the petitioners, but was utilized illegally without resorting to the process of acquisition and no compensation had also been paid for the same. In the circumstances, there was an order for allotment of 15 sites in view of the utilization of the land belonging to the writ petitioners/respondents herein.

4. Learned Single Judge also found that BDA had utilized the land in the year 1996 but had not paid any compensation to the petitioners and in such circumstances it had two options, either, execute the sale deed in respect of the sites allotted in their favour or to acquire the said land and pay compensation in accordance with ‘The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013’ (for short ‘2013 Act’). Therefore, directions were issued quashing the order of cancellation of the allotment, to execute the sale deeds in favour of the respondents-allottees or, in the alternative, to acquire 36 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.84/1 of Valagerahalli Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and pay compensation as per the prevalent market value as on the date of issuance of the preliminary notification under the provisions of ‘2013 Act’ within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. Being aggrieved, the BDA has preferred this appeal.

5. We have heard Sri.Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for respondent No.3 on the merits of the matter also. We have perused the material on record.

Respondents No.1 and 2 are served and unrepresented.

6. In the first instance, we have considered the application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 585 days and the reasons assigned therein. For immediate reference we e