Judgment :- All these petitions has been listed for further orders pursuant to the order dated 8.12.2010 passed by this Court particularly, paragraphs 8 to 16 of the order reading as under:- “8. It is in the wake of such orders, the petitioners have approached this court with the apprehension that the Bangalore Development Authority may take high handed action to demolish their buildings as the officials of the respondents are hovering around their plots/buildings with threat of demolition and therefore have approached this court seeking for following reliefs: “(i) Call for the records from the respondents. (ii) Declare that the acquisition of land initiated by the respondents vide notification dt.2.8.1978 during 1977-78 under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, in respect of the land in Sy.No.1/4 of Geddahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (presently RMV 2nd Stage BBMP Ward No.100) has lapsed; (iii) Issue a writ or prohibition restraining the respondents or any person/s claiming under them from dispossessing them or demolishing the houses constructed by the petitioners over the schedule ‘A’ to ‘W’ properties. (iv) Pass any other appropriate Order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the petition, in the interest of justice and equity.” 9. Statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the first respondent-Authority, supported by the affidavit sworn to by one G.C. Vrushubendramurthy, son of late G.N. Chandrashekar working as additional land acquisition officer in the Bangalore Development Authority. 10. I have heard Sri. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Sri. Shankar Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent-Authority. 11. The sum and substance of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the authority is that the petition is not tenable on the strength of the ratio laid down not only by the supreme court but also by full Bench of this court and another division Bench of this court rendered in the following cases. (i) ‘Union of India vs. Shivkumar Bhargava’ reported in JT 1995 (6) SC 274. (ii) ‘Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society vs. Bailamma Alias Bailamma and Others’ reported in ILR 1998 KAR 1441. (iii) ‘John B James and Others vs. BDA and Another’ reported in ILR 2000 KAR 4134. 12. (i) ‘Union of India vs. Shivkumar Bhargava’ reported in JT 1995 (6) SC 274. (ii) ‘Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society vs. Bailamma Alias Bailamma and Others’ reported in ILR 1998 KAR 1441. (iii) ‘John B James and Others vs. BDA and Another’ reported in ILR 2000 KAR 4134. 12. It is contended that while the petitioners are put to strict proof of their claims regarding ownership, it is abundantly clear that the law does not permit them to acquire title in the wake of the notifications that had been issued under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 for acquisition of subject lands; that the lands have already vested in the State Government and in turn handed over to the Bangalore Development Authority on the strength of the very preliminary notification and final declaration coupled with the award dated 8.6.1981 (copy at Annexure-R3 to the statement of objections) and as a specimen have produced a report of the revenue inspector for having taken possession of the subject land in Sy. No. ¼ on 16.7.1981 ( copy at Annexure-R4 to the statement of objection) and has therefore contended that the petitioners cannot claim any right, title and interest in the subject land; that if at all they claim to be in possession, they are in unauthorized possession and are liable for eviction and therefore the authority cannot permit the unauthorized occupants to squat on the property of the Bangalore Development Authority and action to evict them is justified in law and have urged for dismissal of the writ petitions. 13. It is also emphatically asserted that the scheme for developing the RMV II Stage has been substantially implement and that it has not lapsed as had been alleged in the writ petitions or other wise and the petitioners being intruders on public property, permitting them to remain so would be against public interest; that the petitioners have no legal right nor can invoke jurisdiction of this court in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and have urged for dismissal of the writ petitions. 14. Sri. 14. Sri. Shankara Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent- Authority submits that the respondent- authority has met the averments in the writ petition and in fact neither the counsel was aware of the earlier Judgments of this court rendered in writ petition No. 29726 of 1981 connected with WP No. 29355 of 1981 and was reviewed and altered in terms of civil petition Nos. 144 & 144A of 1989 in terms of the order dated 30.3.1992 and would venture to submit that while the Authority has answered whatever questions were raised in the petition, as the petitioners themselves had not put forth this order as a ground in support of the petitions, there was no occasion for the authority to traverse it and production of copies of the orders passed by this court earlier in the writ petitions and as reviewed at the instance of the authority are all developments during the course of the submissions made today before the court; that unless learned counsel gets back to his client to seek further instructions and is unable to make further submission without being aware of the factual position in this regard, particularly, to answer about the developments after these orders, as to whether notices had been served on land owners and as to whether the proceedings have thereafter gone about in a proper and law conforming manner and for such purpose would request the matter to be taken up on 1.12.2010 at 2.30 pm. 15. While learned counsel may be handicapped for want of proper instructions, bonafide conduct on the part of the first respondent-authority cannot be automatically inferred as it was the duty of the first respondent- authority-a statutory body under the statute which is nothing short of ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India to have placed true and correct facts before this court and not to mislead this court by incorrect facts or to suppress any relevant facts which could create a distorted picture before this court and could also create suspicion about the bonafides or lack of bonafides on the part of the respondents. 16. If as urged by Sri. 16. If as urged by Sri. Shankara Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the respondent-Authority, the respondent-Authority has acted fully in conformity with the modified order passed by this court in review petitions and can on record make good that position, perhaps that may be a plausible answer, even to cover up the blemish or the lacuna on the part of the respondent-authority in not placing all relevant facts and material before this court while filing statement of objections on behalf of this respondent. If on the other hand, it is found that the information is either deliberately withheld or with an oblique intention, to somehow manage the day before the court, it is nothing short of misleading this court and an affidavit if it has not placed the correct facts before the court, it is nothing short of committing perjury during the court proceedings.” 2. In the meanwhile, on behalf of the petitioners Misc.W.11998/2010 in W.P.No.16101-16106/2010 is filed for permission to put up some temporary construction or sheds. Application is on the premise that the petitioners’ structures which were their dwelling units have been demolished by the officials of the respondent-authority without following any procedure etc., and without issuing any notice to them and even while such constructions were demolished, petitioners continue to remain in possession and to have a shelter over their head, they are seeking permission of the Court to put up construction etc. 3. Misc.W.11998/2010 in W.P.No.16101-16106/2010 for permission is opposed by filing written statement of objection on behalf of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). On this aspect I have heard Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.V. Shankar Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the BDA and the learned Advocate General who has made submissions on behalf of the state. 4. Mr. B.V. Shankar Narayana Rao, learned counsel has pointed out to the affidavit of the Commissioner, BDA, which is placed before the Court today, in response to the order/direction dated 8.12.2010. The affidavit reads as under:- AFFIDAVIT I, Bharat Lal Meena, IAS, Son of Sri Sukhji Ram Meena, aged about 53 years, commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, do hereby state on oath as under:- 1. I state that State Government has placed on record a Circular dated 07.12.2010 on the last date of hearing i.e. 8.12.2010 2. The affidavit reads as under:- AFFIDAVIT I, Bharat Lal Meena, IAS, Son of Sri Sukhji Ram Meena, aged about 53 years, commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, do hereby state on oath as under:- 1. I state that State Government has placed on record a Circular dated 07.12.2010 on the last date of hearing i.e. 8.12.2010 2. I state that pursuant to Circular No.NA.AA.E/887/BEN.BHU.SWA/2010 dated 7.12.2010, the Bangalore Development Authority has issued Show cause notices to these writ petitioners and Petitioners in W.P.Nos.16101 to 16106/2010 calling for their objections to the action proposed in terms of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 8.12.2010. 3. I further state that matter/subject of appropriate restitution measures in case of petitioner in W.P.Nos.16101 to 16106/2010 will be placed before the Board in the immediate next meeting and appropriate decision will be taken in accordance with law. I, Bharat Lal Meena, IAS, the Deponent herein, de hereby verify that what is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and information.” 5. Objections filed to the Misc.W.11998/2010 by the authority while referring to the statement of objections filed to the main petition and reiterating the same, has also raised certain legal defences in the wake of the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the order dated 27.7.1984 in W.P.No.29726/1981/ c/w 29355/1991 r/w order dated 30.3.1992 passed in a Civil Petition Nos.144 & 144A/1989, only in respect of the orders passed referred to above. A reference is also made to Annexures L, M and N, produced along with application Misc.W.11998/2010 to indicate that those orders are in respect of different survey numbers and the benefit of the order can be claimed only by the petitioners in that petition and not by the present petitioners. 6. What is primarily contended by the learned counsel for the Authority is that petitions are not maintainable and in such petitions, no order enabling the petitioners to put up any structures on the land, at this point of time can be granted and an order of this nature could give an impression that even trespassers are recognized as having rights in properties, over which the BDA claims ownership rights through the state government which in turn had got title to the property through acquisition proceedings. 7. 7. Insofar as the undertaking, that was required to be given by the authority is concerned, reference is made to paragraph 2 of the affidavit of the Commissioner, BDA and Mr. Shankar Narayan Rao, learned counsel has submitted that the recently issued government circulars will be followed and implemented. 8. Insofar as the aspect of reparation to petitioners whose houses had been demolished is concerned, it is indicated that the details of the same will be placed before the executive committee/board of the Bangalore Development Authority in its ensuing meeting for a proper decision to be taken etc. 9. The affidavit as spelt out in paragraphs 2 and 3 is not exactly a proper response to the order passed by this Court, which was passed for the purpose of impressing upon the officials of the State Government, and also of the authority, to abide by rule of law and to follow procedures diligently and therefore a recent directions of the state government to the officers and a further reference to this circular in itself is not the criteria or can it constitute a further assurance to this Court about the proper and law conforming manner of functioning of the officials of the BDA. 10. In fact the authorities and its officials are always bound to act in accordance with law, rules and procedures and quoting the government circular is no assurance to this Court. It is precisely because the officials have violated the statutory provisions, rules and regulations by embarking upon overnight demolition acts without proper notice and opportunity to the petitioners, the Commissioner of BDA and the Secretary to Government were directed to appear before the Court to make them realize the gravity of the situation and also to ensure that suitable corrective measures are taken at their end. 11. A reading of the affidavit in paragraphs 2 and 3 does not necessarily indicate that realization had dawned upon the Commissioner BDA. 11. A reading of the affidavit in paragraphs 2 and 3 does not necessarily indicate that realization had dawned upon the Commissioner BDA. When it is obvious that the officials of the authority had acted in a high handed manner and when the Commissioner, BDA, being the head of the organization was bound to look into the matter and take suitable action, it is only an affidavit of the Commissioner, BDA, for ensuring that henceforth all actions by officials of the authority will be only in accordance with law and procedures and not otherwise and also they should assure that commensurate action will be taken against the erring officials, who thought they are a law themselves unto and took law into their own hands. This is minimum of what is expected on the part of the Commissioner, BDA, being the head of the Authority by giving an undertaking to this effect. The present affidavit woefully lacks to fulfill this requirement. Even insofar as the reparation aspect is concerned, when it is a fact that the petitioners are now living without a shelter over their heads and exposed to the open sky, after demolition of their structures and even assuming that they were trespassers in the property of the BDA, which is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was the minimum courtesy expected of on the part of the authority to have provided such affected persons some interim relief and that is not forthcoming. 12. In the circumstances, this Court has to inevitably pass orders for protecting the interest of such petitioners. 13. While Sri Shankar Narayan Rao, learned counsel for the BDA submits that action for taking possession of the lands/sites in the possession of the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 16074 to 16100/2010 as well as the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16101 to 16106/2010 has already been initiated. Insofar as the petitioners in W.P.Nos.16101 to 16106/2010 are concerned, they have come this Court complaining that their buildings/houses were demolished, pursuant to notices and have again been intimated for taking possession of the land from them also and has placed before the Court specimen copy of the notice along with a memo, a notice purporting to be issued under Section 33 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, to as many as 26 persons in W.P. Nos. 16074-100/2010 and another batch of 6 persons who are petitioners in W.P.Nos. 16101-16106/2010. 14. 16074-100/2010 and another batch of 6 persons who are petitioners in W.P.Nos. 16101-16106/2010. 14. The notice seeks to give details of the acquisition proceedings and has called upon the petitioners to produce documents to the issues of notice to evidence lawful possession and occupation of the premises by the petitioners within three days from the date of receipt of the notice further indicating that non-compliance would result in necessary ex-parte action etc. 15. Sri Bhagwat, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised two issues on this notice viz., that lend the notice no real, opportunity is given to petitioners to put forth their claim/answers, that if the petitioners are asked to reply within three days from the date of receipt of notice, particularly, production of documents etc., it is an apology for giving an opportunity to petitioners before embarking upon a drastic and irreversible action like demolition of structures and therefore the notice itself is bad in law. 16. Another aspect Sri. Bhagwat, learned counsel would bring to the notice of this Court is that a notice under section 33 of the Act cannot achieve the object of dispossessing the petitioners as held by this Court in John B. James and Others Vs. BDA & Another reported in ILR 2000 KAR 4134. 17. Mr. Bhagwat also urges that writ petitions are required to be disposed of on merits rather than interim orders to be passed, but as the six petitioners are without any shelter etc., unless they are permitted to put up structure they will be exposed to the vagaries of nature etc. 18. Submission of Mr. Bhagwat, learned counsel on the merits of the matter is that in terms of earlier order passed quashing the very acquisition proceedings, and when this Court has quashed the acquisition proceedings holding it as void and therefore, no further proceedings can take place etc. 19. 18. Submission of Mr. Bhagwat, learned counsel on the merits of the matter is that in terms of earlier order passed quashing the very acquisition proceedings, and when this Court has quashed the acquisition proceedings holding it as void and therefore, no further proceedings can take place etc. 19. It is neither possible nor necessary at this stage to go into the merits of the matter, particularly, as the affidavit of the Commissioner, BDA, before the Court is woefully lacking in its compliance to the order/directions issued by this Court on 8.12.2010 and therefore, while the Commissioner is directed to place before the Court a proper affidavit, responding appropriately to the order/direction issued on 8.12.2010, the time stipulated in the notice issued by the BDA to the petitioners to respond to the notice is extended by another 30 days and it is open to the petitioners to respond even well before 30 days, without waiting for the last date. 20. Further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notices can take place but subject to the result of these writ petitions and in the meanwhile, it is open to the authority to examine the explanations offered by the petitioners and if a decision is taken one way or the other, while it may be communicated to the petitioners for implementation the BDA to await further orders to be passed in these petitions. Implementation/execution of the orders to be passed by the BDA on the show cause notices now issued to the petitioners is put on hold, pending orders in this petition. 21. Implementation/execution of the orders to be passed by the BDA on the show cause notices now issued to the petitioners is put on hold, pending orders in this petition. 21. In the wake of the hardship and difficulty expressed by petitioner in W.P.Nos.16101-16106/2010 is concerned, and as the extent of damage the petitioners have suffered because of the high handed illegal demolition of the structures, which is conceded but the precise extent of damages suffered by petitioners due to the demolition cannot be satisfactorily resolved in these petitions particularly, as it may involve examination of rival versions and supporting material to be placed by petitioners as well as the authority, while the aspect of petitioners claiming compensation by way of damages is relegated to be worked out before the civil court if the petitioners so desire and it is also open to the petitioners to seek such further relief as they deem fit and if they are so desirous before the civil court, insofar as the present writ petitions are concerned the respondent-BDA is directed to pay an adhoc compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) each, in favour of four petitioners who had put up only ACC roofing structures and a sum of Rs.2 Lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs) each in favour of two petitioners who had put up RCC roofing structures, which had come to be demolished by the authority, by way of an interim measure which amount can be adjusted if ultimately the civil court or any other forum determines the precise extent of damages, to which the petitioners are entitled, due to illegal manner of demolition of structure. 22. It is however, made clear that this order does not either confer any right to the petitioners to claim any rights on the basis of this order itself, but it is open to the petitioners to claim such compensation, independent of this order and on such other basis as they are entitled to in law. 23. However, as there is already an interim order granted by this Court in these petitions to maintain status quo which binds the parties in W.P.Nos.16101-106/2010, it is not necessary at this stage to pass further orders on the application Misc.W.11998/2010, accordingly, it is rejected, but the interim orders granted earlier are continued during the pendency of these petitions. List for further hearing on 6.1.2011.