M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is the owner of site bearing no. 2035 measuring 160' x 8v situate in 'b' Division, Chennapatna Town, Bangalore district. He made an application to the first-respondent-Town Municipal council, Chennapatna on 23rd September 1983 for grant of licence and for sanction of plan to construct a building/premises on the vacant site owned by him as aforementioned. He was informed by a letter dated 10-7-1985 that the site owned by him required for construction of a School building and the Municipal Council had taken a decision to acquire the same. There after on 31-5-1985 the Municipal council passed a Resolution by which it was decided that the said land (site) in question should be acquired and the building licence sought by the petitioner be refused. Some of the Councillors opposed that Resolution. This is evidenced by Annexure-C to the Writ Petition. On 2-1-1986, the Chief Officer of the town Municipal Council informed the petitioners once again that his application for grant of licence to erect a building on the site in question had been kept in obeyance in view of the recommendation of the Town Municipal Council to acquire the property in question for purpose of erecting a building for a School. ( 2 ) FURTHER by a letter dated 23-7-1987, the Chief Officer of the Town municipal Council informed the petitioner that his application for grant of licence to construct a building had been refused and the said land was proposed to be acquired for the purpose of construction of a school building. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court, inter-alia, contending that the resolution of the Municipal Council which is at Annexure-C must be quashed and the Town Municipal Council directed by a writ of mandamus to accord sanction to him for construction of the building in accordance with his application made in that behalf. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 1 - The Town municipal Council, Chennapatna, has been served with the notice of the writ petition as far back as February 1988, but they are not represented in this case even as on today. The second-respondent-State of Karnataka has also been served with the notice, but it is unrepresented. In that position, this Court on 6-6-1988 directed by Sri Somayyaji, learned government Pleader, to take notice for respondent - State. The second-respondent-State of Karnataka has also been served with the notice, but it is unrepresented. In that position, this Court on 6-6-1988 directed by Sri Somayyaji, learned government Pleader, to take notice for respondent - State. ( 4 ) TODAY, the Government Pleader, who is present in Court submits that he has no instructions to submit whether the site in question has been acquired or whether it has proceeded to initiate acquisition proceedings under the Land acquisition Act, for the purpose of the education Department. In the circumstances stated this order is made ex-parte. ( 5 ) APPARENTLY, the facts alleged in the petition cannot be disputed because the endorsements found at Annexures-C, d and F to the petition clearly indicate that the petitioner has made an application for grant of a licence to erect a building on the site in question, but the Municipality is not willing to sanction the same because the site in question is suitable for locating a School-Building for which purpose they have recommended initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. ( 6 ) THERE is no way, by which this court may ascertain whether acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the land Acquisition Act when neither the first-respondent Town Municipal Council, chennapatna, nor the 2nd respondent- respondent-State of Karnataka has responded to the notice. The Court must proceed on the assumption that there is no notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. If that is so, merely because the Town Municipal council has chosen to locate a School building on the site in question without initiating proceedings under the Land acquisition Act, it cannot deny the right of the owner to put up a construction on the site in question by refusing to grant him a licence the reasons furnished to him are not the grounds on which licence to construct a building may be refused under the building Bye-laws of the Karnataka Municipalities. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus as prayed for at para (b) of the writ petition. A direction shall issue to the first-respondent the Town Municipal Council, chennapatna, Bangalore, Dist. to grant a licence to the petitioner to construct a building on the site in question. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus as prayed for at para (b) of the writ petition. A direction shall issue to the first-respondent the Town Municipal Council, chennapatna, Bangalore, Dist. to grant a licence to the petitioner to construct a building on the site in question. The other prayers are not granted as the municipality did pass a resolution stating that the land is required to construct a building for a School and necessary steps in this behalf may be taken in that behalf. It is part of activities of the Municipal council. There is no legal bar to pass such a resolution. Therefore, it is not necessary to quash the same. Subject to the above this writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated. Rule will issue and be made absolute. In view of the mandamus issued, it is unnecessary to take notice of the amendment now sought. I. A. No, I, therefore, stands disposed of by the final order made in the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .