The main legal point established in the judgment is that entitlement to incentive sites following land acquisition is contingent upon the existence of specific resolutions or provisions at the time of acquisition, and previous court decisions and resolutions may not be applicable to all cases.

JUDGMENT

E.S. Indiresh, J. - Petitioners herein have challenged the endorsements dated 28th May, 2014 and 10th June, 2010 issued by the respondent No. 2 produced as Annexure-A and B in the present writ petition, inter alia, sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to allot a site under incentive scheme implemented by respondent No. 2, in terms of the order dated 02nd August, 2014 in WP No. 49502 of 2013 and connected cases.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that, petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey No. 13 measuring 5 acres in Nachanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk and the said land has been acquired by respondent No. 2 in the year 1982-83 for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout and pursuant to the same, award was passed on 11th June, 1982. It is further stated in the petition that there was a dispute regarding the ownership of land inter se within the family of the petitioners and as such, the Land Acquisition Officer, referred the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication of the rights of claimants and same was registered as LAC No. 138 of 1983. The said claim petition was concluded on 03rd February, 2005 holding that petitioners were the owners of the schedule land and as such, they are entitled for compensation. It is further stated in the petition that the petitioners have made representation on 24th June, 2008 (Annexure-E) seeking allotment of incentive sites, being land-losers. It is further stated that the said representation was rejected by order dated 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B). It is the contention of the petitioners that in view of the law declared by this court in Writ Petitions No. 15648-650 of 1995 decided on 04th March, 1998, the petitioners are entitled for incentive sites and same has been rejected by the respondent-Authority arbitrarily and accordingly, the petitioners presented this writ petition, challenging the order dated 10th June, 2010 (Annexure-B) and Endorsement dated 28th May, 2014 (Annexure-A) to this writ petition.

3. Respondents entered appearance. The statement of objection has been filed by respondent No. 2 contending that the respondent-Authority have not allotted incentive sites to any of the land owners of Nachanahalli village from whom the land has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Jayaprakash Narayan Layout in the year 1982-83. It is also the defence of the respondent-Authority that, no resolution has been passed by the respondent-Authority resolving to allot site on incentive basis as claimed by the petitioners and accordingly sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I have heard Sri K.R. Lingaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Nityanand, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent No. 1 and Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

5. Sri K.R. Lingaraju, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that rejection of the representation made by the respondent No. 2, declining to grant incentive site to the petitioners is contrary to the law declared by this Court in Writ petitions No. 15648-650 of 1995 and Writ petitions No. 35158-59 of 2009 decided on 19th September, 2009. He further contended that the respondent-authorities cannot discriminate the people while considering the application made by the claimants seeking incentive sites, which is a legal right of the petitioners and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. In this regard, he refers to the resolution of the respondent-Authority dated 01st April, 1987 and another resolution dated 22nd October, 1990, wherein the incentive site was allotted to the land losers and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court in this writ petition.

6. Sri T.P. Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 argued that the resolution referred to by the petitioners were not with regard to the subject land or with regard to any of the acquisition made in respect of forma