Judgment Writ petitioner who is said to be the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing site No. 71, Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, has sought for quashing of the preliminary notification dated 8.4.2003 and final notification dated 9.9.2003 in terms of which the petitioner’s land was sought to be acquired by the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority for the purpose of development of Sir M Visveshwaraiah Layout in the vicinity and has prayed for the following reliefs: “issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction as the case may be insofar as the petitioner’s lands are concerned and be pleased to quash: (i) The preliminary notification bearing No. BDA/A.U.V.A.L.A No. 79/03-04 dt. 8/4/03 and published in the Gazette dt. 9.4.03 & issued by the Commissioner BDA, Bangalore, which is marked as Annexure-K. (ii) Final notification bearing No. AE-749-B’lore-LAQ-2003 dt. 9/9/03 and published in the Gazette dt. 10.9.03 & issued by the 1st respondent, which is marked as Annexure-L. (iii) be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus directing the respondents & their officials from dispossessing the petitioner from the property in question, which is described in the schedule hereunder. (iv) be pleased to grant such other reliefs in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and law.” 2. I have heard Sri Krishnappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abdul Khader, learned counsel for the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority. 3. Sri Abdul Khader, learned counsel for the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority requests the matter to be called tomorrow though the report placed before the court by the very official of the BDA indicates that the writ petitioner has continued to remain in possession and occupation of the building constructed on the site and running a manufacturing unit to manufacture mosaic tiles and is also residing in very premises. 4. If such is the factual position, the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned has become stale and inconclusive, not having taken possession of the subject property, though notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). 4. If such is the factual position, the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned has become stale and inconclusive, not having taken possession of the subject property, though notified for acquisition under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’). Automatically, the notifications issued for the purpose of acquiring the lands will not enure to the benefit of the authority insofar as this particular parcel of land is concerned as it is now conceded that the authority has not taken possession but has allowed the petitioner to remain in possession so far. 5. It is the duty of this court to protect interest of the citizens from being subjected to harassment by the arbitrary and whimsical exercise of power by public authorities. It was definitely open to the authority to have saved the situation even in terms of the order that had come to be passed by this court earlier in writ petition No. 16133 of 2004 and connected matters disposed of on 6.6.2006 by offering the petitioner any alternative solution, but the authority having kept quiet and non-responsive to this writ petition as well as travails of the petitioner and even having disregarded the orders/observations/directions contained in the order of this court dated 6.6.2006 passed in writ petition No. 16133 of 2004 and connected matters, it only betrays not only gross irresponsibility on the part of the respondent – authority, but also a discriminatory manner of functioning as it is obvious that some other persons like the petitioner have been provided relief by the authority itself whereas many others including the present petitioner are driven to approach courts for relief, which again only demonstrates the erratic manner of functioning of this authority, purporting to be created under the statute for the development of Bangalore city and surrounding areas! 6. What is happening in the name of development is nothing short of destruction and haphazard manner of functioning to the detriment of persons/citizens like the petitioner. 7. 6. What is happening in the name of development is nothing short of destruction and haphazard manner of functioning to the detriment of persons/citizens like the petitioner. 7. In the wake of the inaction on the part of the authority itself and which is now conceded in terms of the report placed before this court by the authority, it is obvious that the situation is more akin to the one covered by the provisions of section 20 of the Act under which provision the authority if it is not acquiring any land within the area earmarked for development, then if the authority is of the opinion that as a result of the development in the surrounding area, the land owner whose land is left untouched stands to gain, then the authority can claim and levy betterment tax and it will be open to the authority to take action to claim such betterment tax in accordance with law, after issue of necessary notice to the petitioner in this regard. 8. Having heard Sri Krishnappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Abdul Khader, learned counsel for the respondent – authority on merits, it is found that the situation is one which is irredeemable and irretrievable for the authorities as the authority by its own inaction and letharginess has allowed the acquisition proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned to lapse. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings in terms of the preliminary notification under section 17 of the Act and final notification under section 19 of the Act are hereby quashed only insofar as it relates to the land in possession of the petitioner in terms of the report now placed before the court according to which the petitioner is in possession of site measuring 40 feet by 60 feet. 9. It is also open to the authority to ensure that the structure, if any, on the site is brought in conformity with the building bye-laws and regulations which are in force in the concerned area. 9. It is also open to the authority to ensure that the structure, if any, on the site is brought in conformity with the building bye-laws and regulations which are in force in the concerned area. It is rather surprising nay annoying that a public authority like the Bangalore Development Authority behaves in a most irresponsible manner to remain inactive without responding to either the land owners’ travails and even has the tenacity to ignore and bypass even court orders, as if this court had in a situation similar and in a cause brought before this court earlier by a group of land owners, has already passed orders (passed in writ petition No. 16133 of 2004 and connected matters disposed of on 6.6.2006), it is the bounden duty of the public authority like the Bangalore Development Authority to have implemented and obeyed that order in letter and spirit and not to drive every citizen to seek relief only before this Court. 10. Though Sri Abdul Khader, learned counsel for the respondent – authority would being to the notice of the court that this writ petition had been dismissed for default and had come to be recalled on 12.7.2010, that in no way absolves the authority from its insensible, irresponsible conduct. The authority was put on notice about this writ petition way back in the year 2004 and if the public authority is insensitive and irresponsible to the notice issued by this court to examine the grievance and for granting relief as is sought for in the writ petition and as has been extended by the very authority to other similarly placed persons, then it is nothing short of a most irresponsible conduct on the part of the public authority which is always expected to not only respond to the needs and travails of the citizens of the country, but is also duty bound to obey and respect court orders. The Bangalore Development Authority has miserably failed in meeting either of these requirements. 11. In the circumstances, the impugned preliminary notification dated 8.4.2003 (copy at Annexure-K to the writ petition) and the final notification dated 9.9.2003 (copy at Annexure-L to the writ petition) are hereby quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari, but only to the extent of petitioner’s interest in the lands covered by these two notifications and not for more. 12. In the circumstances, the impugned preliminary notification dated 8.4.2003 (copy at Annexure-K to the writ petition) and the final notification dated 9.9.2003 (copy at Annexure-L to the writ petition) are hereby quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari, but only to the extent of petitioner’s interest in the lands covered by these two notifications and not for more. 12. The respondent – Bangalore Development Authority is mulcted with exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- for the misery that it has caused to a person like the petitioner. 13. Cost to be paid within four weeks by depositing the amount before this court. Where after, the petitioner can draw the amount through his counsel. If the respondent fails to deposit the cost, then the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the petitioner, to enable the petitioner to realize the amount as though it is a decree of the civil court. 14. Writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.