Judgment This writ petition which was disposed of on 5.10.2010 as per order reading as under: “A writ of mandamus for non-consideration of a representation made by the petitioner, whether as owner of an acquired land or otherwise, which is a fact not made good by the petitioner before the court nor based on any statutory provision cannot be issued. Therefore, while this petition for issue of writ of mandamus is declined, it is open to the petitioner to seek such relief by filing necessary representation/application as are open in law and without prejudice to present an appropriate petition before this court. 2. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.” Was directed to be listed for ‘being spoken to’ as before signing the order, I noticed that certain basis facts were missing and as I was not very definite that the learned Advocate who had presented the matter before the court had given the full facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the above writ petition. 2. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed for ‘being spoken to’ as if the petition is decided on mistaken fact, even assuming that the decision is correct, a litigant may nevertheless be left with the feeling that his/her case has not received proper consideration before the court. 3. Therefore, the order dated 5.10.2010 is recalled and the matter is taken up for preliminary hearing. 4. Heard Sri Murali Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Writ petition reliefs only appear to be beseeched with more flaws and incomplete facts than to make out a case for issue of a writ of mandamus as is sought for by the petitioner. 6. A perusal of Annexure-A said to be the true copy of the saguvali chit register extract, RTC for the years 1963-64, 1964-65, likewise Annexure-B for the years 1968-69 to 1972-73, Annexure-C for the years 1988-89 to 1992-93, Annexure-D for the years 1993-94 to 1996-97, Annexure-E for the years 1997-98 to 1999-2000 and for the following years while continuously shows the name of one Munishamappa alias Hotteppa and this does connect the petitioner claiming to be the wife of said Munishamappa who is described in the petition as no more, but the cause title wrongly described the petitioner as son of Munishamappa, would nevertheless show some semblance of interest of the petitioner in the subject land which measures 2 acres in Sy. No.28 of Doddasanne Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk in respect of which the petitioner is complaining she has not received any compensation from the first respondent – State of Karnataka or the second respondent – Special Land Acquisition Officer though subject land was acquired for the purpose of formation of the International Airport Authority and physical possession of the land is said to be taken over by the acquiring authorities from the petitioner during the year 2003 as submitted by Sri Murali Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. The notifications either the preliminary or final in respect of petitioner’s land or copy of the same are not placed before the court. Mr. Murali Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are available, but copy is not placed before the court. 8. For the purpose of making good that the land of the petitioner’s husband are acquired, the petitioner has placed before the court copies of notice dated 16.6.2000 [copy at Annexure-F], a notice issued to Munishamappa @ Hotteppa, Doddasanne Village to attend the meeting of the advisory committee meant to negotiate and settle the land price with the owners of the land issued by K.N. Venkateshappa, special land acquisition officer, International Airport, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board and a further notice dated 31.1.2002 [copy at Annexure-H] fixing the date for enquiry at 11 am on 16.2.2002 at the Banyan Tree of Doddasanne Village in the context of objections filed by one K.C. Reddy, son of Balarama Reddy and Smt. K. Anjana, wife of K. Ananthapadmanabha, Sugganahalli Village, Hospet Taluk, Bellary District. 9. While these two notices definitely indicate some interest in the subject land of 2 acres in survey number referred to above, it is not clear what kind of interest the person had in the subject land as Annexure-H notice indicates the name of Anubhavdar and khatedar to be one Venkatappa, son of Chikkaputtappa. 10. Sri Murali Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain to the court as to the relationship between the petitioner or her husband to the khatedar Venkatappa, son of Chikkaputtappa. 11. 10. Sri Murali Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain to the court as to the relationship between the petitioner or her husband to the khatedar Venkatappa, son of Chikkaputtappa. 11. While the land owner who loses land due to the compulsory acquisition by the State purporting to be for a public purpose is undoubtedly entitled to receive compensation at market value, the history of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the proceedings there under only reveal that such owners are only being harassed and payment of compensation amount even as determined by the land acquisition officer where upon the award is passed, which is more often than not a pittance of amount, is never paid to the land owners, but is said to be kept in deposit etc., and the land owners are always left high and dry and left to languish on the streets even after losing their source of livelihood. 12. Submission of Sri Murali Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner is that till date neither said Munishamappa nor his wife – petitioner nor their son has received any compensation. 13. This only reflects the sorry state of affairs in the governance and particularly in situations where private lands are acquired in the name of public purpose to the great detriment of the owners of private properties more often than not who are all farmers and their only source of livelihood will be their agricultural land. 14. Mr. Murali Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before the court the order dated 15.4.2008 passed in writ petition No.3611 of 2008 in the case of Dasappa, son of late Hanumappa against the State of Karnataka, Department of Commerce and Industries, the special land acquisition officer, International Airport and the Executive Member and Chief Executive Officer, KIADB who are arrayed as respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively where under the learned single Judge of this court has disposed of the writ petition for like relief as is sought for in the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 therein to consider the representation of that petitioner in accordance with law and to grant relief in accordance with law within a period of two months. The order dated 15.4.2008 passed in WP No.3611 of 2008 reads as under: “The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner’s representation dated 26.6.2007 would be considered in accordance with law. Recording the said submission, I dispose of this petition with a direction to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 26.6.2007 and to pass appropriate orders thereon within an outer limit of two months. Liberty is also reserved to the petitioner to submit additional representation to the petitioners. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” 15. While the above order does show that the petitioner therein did get some relief at the hands of this court, the order is one passed after learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 made a concession to that effect and based on the concession made by counsel for the respondents 2 and 3. 16. Submission of counsel for respondents 2 and 3 therein, who also figure as respondents 2 and 3 in the present writ petition also only betrays another radically wrong method of working of the so called public authorities, in this case, the special land acquisition officer as it is obvious that a duty that is required to be performed by the special land acquisition officer for ensuring that the land owner is paid the compensation in terms of the award is not happening as a routine except when land owners approach this court by filing writ petitions seeking for issue of a writ of mandamus! 17. It is the bounden duty of the special land acquisition officer to remit/tender the compensation amount to the land owner on his own and as is mandated under the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 [for short ‘the Act’] and not to drive the land owners to approach this court time and again for even receiving compensation due to them in law. 18. The order relied upon is dated 15.4.2008 and if that order is being obeyed by the special land acquisition officer, International Airport Authority in letter and spirit it was also his bounden duty to have disposed of all such claims on his own and not to keep awaiting for court orders, time and again, in the case of such land owners, who have not been paid compensation hitherto. 19. 19. The way petitions are presented, the way concessions are made by counsel appearing for public authorities before the court, and orders are obtained by petitioners only reveals a pattern for such petitions being filed time and again and such orders being passed time and again and in the process it is not even definite as to who becomes the petitioner, to whether the petitioner is a genuine land owner or some other person impersonating as land owner. 20. The material placed by the petitioner and submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner does not satisfy the court as to the entitlement of the petitioner to receive compensation for causing issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to perform a public duty on their part in favour of the writ petitioner. 21. Nevertheless, failure on the part of the counsel should not deprive a bona fide litigant for a proper relief to which the petitioner is otherwise entitled to in law and it is only to satisfy myself on this aspect of the matter, this writ petition is admitted for further examination by issue of rule. 22. Rule is issued only to ensure that the respondent – State of Karnataka and the authorities functioning under the state and under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and KIAD Act, 1966 place before the court the necessary records, where upon the matter can be heard further. 23. Many aspects of the matter are required to be clarified even by the respondents and entire original record is required to be looked into relating to the acquisition of the land in the context of formation and construction of International Airport Authority at Bengaluru. 24. Emergent Notice is directed to be issued to respondents, Sri N.B. Vishwanath, learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for first respondent. Emergent Notice to be issued to respondent No.2. All modes of services is permitted. Service of notice on respondent No.2 is also permitted, by service on standing counsel, appearing for the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board. 25. Counter, if any, to be filed by the respondents within two weeks from today. 26. List for further hearing on 3.11.2010 or even on such earlier date immediately after the learned counsel for the petitioner, files memo of service of notice on the respondent No.2 whichever is earlier.