- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8691 WP No. 20690 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 20690 OF 2024 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: S. VENKATESH S/O LATE SANJEEVE AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 14, 2ND CROSS, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, NOW R/AT NO. 67/A, I MAIN, I CROSS, PIPE LINE MAIN ROAD, VIAJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESH D C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 024. 2. THE SPECIAL LAND REQUISITION OFFICER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 024. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT ALTERNATIVE SITE TO THE PETITIONER IN LIEU OF ACQUISITION OF SITE NO.7 WITH Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8691 WP No. 20690 of 2024 EXISTING HOUSE, EXISTED IN SY.NO.67 OF AGRAHARA DASAHARAHALLI, YESHWANTHPUR HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, CONSEQUENT UPON THE ACQUISITION OF THE SAID SITE, BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.01.1978 DATED 18.08.2014 AND 25.03.2015 VIDE ANNX-B, C AND C1 RESPECTIVELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner who claims to be a purchaser of a site No.7 measuring 30 feet X 40 feet forming part of land in Sy.No.67 situated at Agrahara Dasarahalli, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk from the erstwhile owner in terms of the deed of sale dated 03.10.1962 is before this Court seeking issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot an alternate site to the petitioner in lieu of acquisition of his aforesaid site by considering the representations dated 17.01.1978, 18.08.2014 and 25.03.2015 as per Annexures- B, C and C1. 2. Sri. 2. Sri. Jagadeesh D.C, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land in Sy.No.67 in which the aforesaid site formed part of had been acquired by the then - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8691 WP No. 20690 of 2024 City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore, in terms of notification dated 28.10.1971 and that representation in this regard had been made by the father of the petitioner seeking allotment of alternate site in the light of communication dated 14.07.1976 had been issued by the respondent-BDA succeeded to the CITB calling upon the father of the petitioner to furnish the documents. He submits thereafter the father the petitioner passed away and the petitioner made representation on 18.08.2014 and again on 25.03.2015 pursuing the matter further. Since there was no response, he submits the application under Right to Information Act was made on 03.05.2024 seeking details with regard to acquisition, payment of compensation, allotment of alternate site if any. In response thereof, he submits except furnishing copy of a notification acquiring the land the respondent- BDA has not given any information. Hence submit the petitioner is entitled for an alternate site. As such seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. In response, Sri. K.Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent -BDA drawing attention of this Court to the document at Annexure- B enclosed to the writ petition submits that the father of the petitioner during his lifetime had filed an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8691 WP No. 20690 of 2024 application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of the compensation which was determined in terms of the award dated 02.12.1971. He submits once the father the petitioner himself had sought for enhancement of compensation the question of he making an application for alternate site would not arise. He further submits notwithstanding the same and a plea of this nature after lapse of closed to five decades cannot be considered, more so, in the absence of any scheme being available for allotment of sites in respect of acquisition that were made in the year 1970-71. He also submits allotment of scheme/provision for allotment of site came into existence only on and after the year 2002-2003 when acquisitions were made in respect of Sir M Vishweshwaraiah Layout. Thus, he submit in the absence of any scheme being available petitioner cannot as a matter of claim for allotment of alternate site. He however fairly submits if the petitioner is entitled for any compensation he may pursue the same in the manner known to law. 4. Heard and perused the records. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8691 WP No. 20690 of 2024 5. Despite repeated queries by this Court, counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out the provisions or the scheme which were available, if any, enabling the petitioner to claim allotment of alternate site. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the respondent-BDA admittedly acquisition has taken place in the year 1971. The petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2024 which is after laps of more than 53 years. In the absence of petitioner making out any legal/statutory rights for allotment of alternate site in respect to acquisition that have taken place in the year 1971, writ of mandamus cannot be issued for mere asking. Nonetheless though there is an inordinate delay in petitioner approaching this Court, since the petitioner claim that no compensation has been paid, it is open to the petitioner to seek and pursue the remedy for payment of compensation if available and permissible under law. With the above observation petition is disposed of. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10