Judgment :- 1. Developments in this writ petition are rather, strange, to say the least. 2. Petitioner described as M/s. Liberty Motors, owned by one John Baptist Serrao, has presented the petition seeking for the following relief: To issue a Writ or order in the nature of mandamus or any other writ in the same nature directing the Respondent to consider the Petitioner objections and claim in respect of the building structure at Sy.No.42/2, Peenya Village, Tumkur Road at Bangalore which belongs to the Petitioner and pay the compensation in respect of the building to the Petitioner. Contending that the petitioner had taken on lease a vacant land at property bearing No.42/2, Peenya village, Tumkur road, Bangalore, from its owner Sri Narasimhaiah as per the lease deed dated 13-8-1995 and had put up a construction for the purpose of his business in the name of Hero Honda service station and there were further lease agreements between the petitioner and the lessor etc. 3. It is the further version of the petitioner that the first respondent-special land acquisition officer of KIADB had caused a notification dated 16-2-2009 [copy at Annexure-C to the writ petition) issued under Section 28(1) of the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Act, 1966 [for short, the Act], and it is averred that the petition premises also figured in the notification and the petitioner had filed its objections to the same as per representation dated 30-3-2009 [copy at Annexure-D to the writ petition], objecting to the entire compensation being paid to the land owner, without taking into consideration the interest of the petitioner etc. 4. It is the further assertion of the petitioner that while the petitioner is entitled to receive a part of the compensation payable to the land owner and even as per the representation to the respondent-authorities as per Annexure-D, the petitioner on the other hand has reliably learnt that the respondent-authority is planning to give the compensation amount to the owner of the land in respect of the building portion also and therefore the present petition. 5. 5. Originally, only two respondents figured as respondents in the writ petition viz., the special land acquisition officer, KIADB and the special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation and in terms of the order dated 1-7-2010 passed by this court, while issuing notice to the respondents and staying disbursement of compensation amount in respect of the building portion in favour of the land owner, the petitioner was permitted to amend the cause title to implead one Sri Narasimhaiah as third respondent to the petition and notice has been issued to the third respondent. 6. All the three respondents are served and represented by counsel. First respondent is represented by Sri Basavaraj v. Sabarad, Advocate, second respondent is represented by Ms. Sumana Baliga, Advocate and the third respondent is represented by Sri Shiva Reddy for Ms Suguna R. Reddy. 7. When the matter had come up for orders on 22-11-2010 regarding the memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for withdrawing the petition, the following order came to be passed: A memo is placed before the court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, reading as under: “The petitioner and third respondent settled the issues out of court. Hence the petition will not survive. Wherefore the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the petition in the interest of equity and justice.” 2. Copy of the same is not furnished to the learned Counsel Shri. C.R. Raghavendra, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 Shri, R.V. Amarnathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner assures that a copy of the memo will be given in the course of the day. 3. Shri Raghavendra counsel for respondent No.3 requires the matter be called a day after to enable him to get instructions from his client. 8. While Sri. Bore Gowda, learned counsel appearing for first respondent and Ms. 3. Shri Raghavendra counsel for respondent No.3 requires the matter be called a day after to enable him to get instructions from his client. 8. While Sri. Bore Gowda, learned counsel appearing for first respondent and Ms. Sumana Baliga, learned counsel for second respondent, have no objection for passing orders on the memo, Sri Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for third respondent, on the other hand, submits that the version of the petitioner as contended in the writ petition is not correct; that the petitioner had not put up any construction on the land in question; that the third respondent is not even aware of any settlement having been reached in respect of the question of receiving compensation by the owner of the land and building etc., and points out that the statement of objection filed on behalf of the third respondent, and it is subsequent to filing of such objection, the petitioner has come up with the present memo seeking for permission to withdraw the writ petition on the pretext of the matter having been settled out of court between the petitioner and the third respondent. 9. However, Sri A.V. Amarnathan, learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that the third respondent is an aged person and has been hospitalized for the past more than a month or more and as the petitioner was keen on receiving compensation and as the wife and children of third respondent were keen on receiving their part of the compensation at the earliest, they had entered into a compromise with the petitioner and the memo had been filed in the background of such developments etc. 10. The writ petition praying for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to consider its objections in respect of the disbursement of compensation for the building, is not a relief which can be granted in writ jurisdiction. 11. Even the so-called objection/representation is addressed to the respondent-corporation, whereas the compensation will be disbursed by the land acquisition officer to persons interested in the land/property acquired for the public purpose. 12. The effort on the part of the petitioner appears to be more to establish some civil rights vis-à-vis third respondent, through this petition, rather than to ventilate any legitimate grievance of the petitioner against any public authority. 12. The effort on the part of the petitioner appears to be more to establish some civil rights vis-à-vis third respondent, through this petition, rather than to ventilate any legitimate grievance of the petitioner against any public authority. Even assuming for arguments sake that the petitioner has some interest in the subject property, it is a matter where the petitioner has to seek for a reference to the civil court, if there are any conflicting claims for receiving the compensation amount payable to persons interested in the land acquired by the state for a public purpose and even before the resolution of such a disputed question by the civil court the writ petitioner has approached this court through this writ petition, which is neither the proper cause nor this court should examine and grant relief in writ jurisdiction. 13. Ms. Sumana Baliga, learned counsel for the second respondent submits that a dispute of this nature will have to be necessary go before the civil court and the LAO is bound to refer the matter civil court, if there is any dispute etc. 14. While such is the legal position, the present writ petition, is without any bona fides, but with some ulterior motive and is definitely not a bona fide or legitimate invocation of writ jurisdiction of this court and at any rate the petitioner even if had any bona fides, is not entitled for the mandamus as prayed for, as no right can be established before a writ court and it is only the civil court which is the appropriate forum, before which persons claiming civil rights can go and establish such rights, by seeking suitable relief in the suit. 15. The present petition being without either bona fides or merit, is dismissed, levying cost of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) on the petitioner, which is to be paid to the respondents or to be deposited before this court by the petitioner and on such deposit, respondents are permitted to withdraw the amount through their counsel. The cost to be paid or deposited within four weeks from today, failing which, the registry is directed to issue a certificate in favour of the 3rd respondent, for recovery of the cost, as though it is a decree passed by a civil court. Call on 25.11.2010 It is under such circumstance, the petition is listed for further orders today.