Judgment :- Petitioner was the owner of revenue site bearing No.3 measuring 30x40 feet situated in survey No. 170 of Kethamarahally, which was acquired by respondent authority in the year 1976 for formation of residential layout. No compensation was paid to the petitioner. However, the respondent by its official letter dated: 14.7.1976 bearing No. BDA/ADM/PA/197/76-77 vide annexure-A to the writ petition intimated the petitioner that he would be allotted a site at the old allotment rate on filing of an affidavit within one month from the date of receipt of the above letter in lieu of compensations. According to the petitioner, he complied with all necessary formalities as instructed by BDA in the letter Annexure-A. But alternative site was not allotted to him though similarly situated land-owners who have also lost their respective revenue sites in acquisition got alternative sites. According to the petitioner, he made repeated representations for getting alternative site, but inspite of the same, the BDA did not fulfill its promise of allotting alternative site at the old allotment rate. Ultimately, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 354/07 which came to be disposed of on 10th January 2007 directing the respondent to consider the representation expeditiously within an outer limit of 16 weeks from the date of the receipt of the said order. After considering the request of the petitioner, the BDA rejected the representation/application of the petitioner on the ground that the request of the petitioner is belated, in as much as, the same is made after a lapse of 30 years. Hence, this writ petition is filed questioning the endorsement/order of rejection vide Annexure-F dated: 31.08.2007. 2. Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that there is no provision or resolution passed by BDA to allot alternative site after the year 2000; that the petitioner has kept quiet for 30 years and therefore he cannot take advantage of his own fault. 3. though the contention of the respondent that the petitioner has kept quiet for 30 years and therefore he cannot get the benefit of allotment of alternative site in lieu of compensation, appears to be prima-facie attractive, the same cannot be accepted. The respondent being the statutory authority has unambiguously promised the petitioner that he would be allotted a site at the old allotment rate on filling the affidavit. The respondent being the statutory authority has unambiguously promised the petitioner that he would be allotted a site at the old allotment rate on filling the affidavit. Such a promise was made as back as in the year 1976, as could be seen from Annexure-A dated: 14.7.1976. According to the petitioner, the affidavit has been filed within the stipulated period. Inspite of the same, neither the allotment of site is made in favour of the petitioner nor compensation is paid to him. It is the duty of the acquiring authority to pay compensation and thereafter to take possession of the property. It is not in dispute that compensation is not paid to the petitioner. If it is so, the very acquisition of the property of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law. However, In this matter, the BDA chose to acquire the property of the petitioner on the promise of allotting a site at old allotment rate in lieu of compensation. The BDA being the statutory authority will have to fulfill its solemn promise made by it in Annexure-A. The petitioner as a dutiful citizen has surrendered his revenue site based on the promise that he would be allotted a site by BDA. The respondent authority which has undertaken to allot site is estopped from backing out from its promise held out to the petitioner who, acting upon the promise, suffered liability (see Gujarat State Financial Corporation Vs M/s. Lotus Hotels Pvt. Ltd., ( 1983(3) SCC 379 ). It is trite law that when one of the contracting parties is “state” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, it does note cease to enjoy the character or “State” and therefore it is subjected to all the obligations that “State” has under the Constitution. When the State’s acts of omission of commission are tainted with extreme arbitrariness, they are certainly subject to interference by the Constitutional Courts of the Courts of the country. The respondent- BDA has entered into a solemn contract in discharge and performance of its statutory duty and the respondent has acted upon it. Thus , the statutory body cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily also as to cause harm and injury, following from its unreasonable conduct, to the petitioner. The respondent- BDA has entered into a solemn contract in discharge and performance of its statutory duty and the respondent has acted upon it. Thus , the statutory body cannot be allowed to act arbitrarily also as to cause harm and injury, following from its unreasonable conduct, to the petitioner. In such a situation, the Court is not powerless to hold that the respondent is bound to fulfill its promise and it can be enforced by a writ of mandamus directing it to perform its statutory duty. 4. BDA has failed to produce the records before this Court. Virtually thus, the BDA has failed to substantiate its contention that the petitioner has not made any representation. So also the petitioner has not produced any records in his favour, to show that he has made repeated representations. However, having regard to the totality of the facts & circumstances, the petitioner’s submission that he has made representations/applications during the interregnum, deserves to be accepted, particularly having regard to the promise made by the Bangalore Development Authority. 5. It is also worth noticing that the respondent has not fulfilled promise inspite of lapse of 30 years. The action of the respondent is arbitrary, inasmuch as, it has taken possession of the property of a citizen without paying the compensation. The promise made by the respondent allotting alternative site in lieu of compensation also is not fulfilled by BDA. Thus the inaction of the respondent cannot be sustained. Having regard to the totality of the facts & circumstances, equity and good conscience, this Court is of the opinion that the promise made by BDA shall be fulfilled by it lest the citizen will loose faith in administration. The citizen will have to get justice at least belatedly. He should not feel disgusted that he would not get justice that too from the statutory authority which has made solemn promise. In view of the same, the endorsement issued by BDA negative the claim of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the following order is made;- The endorsement dated: 31.8.07 vide Annexure-F issued by BDA rejecting the prayer of the petitioner stands quashed. In view of the same, the endorsement issued by BDA negative the claim of the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the following order is made;- The endorsement dated: 31.8.07 vide Annexure-F issued by BDA rejecting the prayer of the petitioner stands quashed. Respondent BDA is directed to allot site measuring 30x40 ft in any layout of Bangalore City at the current allotment value, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than the outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.