Judgment : 1. As the petitioner is now aged 76 years and as he has been agitating his right for the allotment of the alternative site on losing his revenue property on account of its compulsory acquisition in 1969, I allow I.A. No. 1 of 2011 for early hearing. The case is taken up for final disposal with the consent of both the learned advocates. 2. The petitioner has called into question the endorsement, dated 20.6.2009 (Annexure-L) turning down the petitioner’s request for the allotment of an alternative site. The petitioner has also prayed for a consequential direction to the respondents to allot an alternative site. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner had purchased a revenue site carved out of the lands at Sy. Nos. 12/5 and 14/6 of Tavarekere Village, Bangalore South Taluk from one Sri Shivaraman in the year 1969. On the compulsory acquisition of the said lands, the petitioner and the similarly placed erstwhile revenue site owners challenged the acquisition proceedings by filing Writ Petition Nos. 30571 to 30594 of 1982. This Court, by its order, dated 17.4.1989 negatived the challenge to the acquisition proceedings, but gave a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and others for allotment of alternative sites. This order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the respondents in Writ Appeal Nos. 2097 and 2098 of 1993. The Division Bench, by its judgment, dated 20.6.1996 disposed of the appeals refusing to interfere in the matter. In the meanwhile, the respondents had issued the endorsement, dated 6.8.1991 (Annexure-B) conveying their decision to consider the petitioner’s request for allotment of alternative site measuring 40 ft x 60 ft. stating that in lieu of the revenue sit lost by him. 4. As nothing material happened thereafter and as the respondents were only showing unresponsiveness, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 14081 of 2007 (LA-BDA). The said writ petition was allowed by this Court by its order, dated 10.1.2008 imposing the cost of Rs.5,000/-on the respondents. It was disposed of with a clear direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request for allotment of an alternative site within an outer limit for four weeks. The first respondent challenged this order before the Division Bench by filing Writ Appeal No. 923 of 2008. It was disposed of with a clear direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s request for allotment of an alternative site within an outer limit for four weeks. The first respondent challenged this order before the Division Bench by filing Writ Appeal No. 923 of 2008. As is discernible from the judgment, dated 10.12.2008, when the Division Bench was not persuaded to take a different view having regard to the conduct of the first respondent, the first respondent sought time to comply with the learned Single Judge’s order. Extending the time by eight weeks, the writ appeal was disposed of. 5. The petitioner’s case was not considered by the respondents even within the extended time-frame. This drove the petitioner to file a contempt petition in CCC (Civil) No. 222 of 2009. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the respondents came out with the reply that they have indeed passed the order on 20.6.2009. Recording the passing of the order, the Division Bench dropped the contempt proceedings reserving the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order, dated 20.6.2009. Now this petition is filed raising a challenge to the said order. 6. Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite granting of the directions by two learned Single Judges and two Division Benches, the respondents have not allotted an alternative site to the petitioner. He submits that in a similar situation, positive directions are given to the respondents to allot an alternative site. In this regard, the learned Counsel has relied on the following decisions; .(i) K.S. Shadaksharaiah versus Bangalore Development Authority and Another, W.P. No. 21146 of 2010, dated 26.10.2010; .(ii) Sirajunnissa versus The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, W.P. No. 34042 of 2009 and connected with matters, dated 16.7.2010; (iii) B.V. Shivarudrappa versus Bangalore Development Authority and Another, W.P. No. 28495 of 2009, dated 27.5.2010; (iv) B.K. Srinivas versus Bangalore Development Authority, W.P. NO 15026 of 2007, dated 26.5.2009. 7. Sri M. Karunakaran, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no provision in the Rules to give alternative site to somebody who has lost the revenue site and he prays for the dismissal of this petition. 8. The issue is no more res integra. 7. Sri M. Karunakaran, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is no provision in the Rules to give alternative site to somebody who has lost the revenue site and he prays for the dismissal of this petition. 8. The issue is no more res integra. It is covered by this Court’s order, dated 17.4.1989 passed in W.P. Nos 30571 to 30594 of 1982, the judgment dated 20.6.1996 passed in W.A. Nos 2097 and 2098 of 1993, the order dated 10.1.2008 passed in W.P. No. 14081 of 2007 and the judgment, dated 10.12.2008 in W.A. No. 923 of 2008. The consideration of the petitioner’s case is not in the letter and spirit of these four orders. The impugned order does not take into account the relevant materials. It has not taken into account the first respondent’s endorsement, dated 6.8.1991, which reads as follows,- “With reference to your representations cited above, this is to inform you that after examining your request made in your representations referred to above and having regard to the judgment passed in W.P. No. 30571 of 1982 a decision is taken to consider your request and to allot an alternate site of 40’ x 60’ in lieu of the revenue site lost by you in Sy. No. 14/6M of Tavarekere Village, Bangalore South Taluk during the course of acquisition by the BDA for the formation of B.T.M. Layout in the year 1976”. (emphasis supplied) 9. As is evident from this endorsement, the respondents decided to consider the petitioner’s request for allotment of alternative site because he has lost the revenue site; now the respondents cannot turn around and say that the revenue site loser is not entitled to allotment of an alternative site. The promissory estoppel and legitimate expectations operate in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. The respondents are also not justified in raising the objections in piecemeal. In the earlier rounds, no objection that there is no such provision for allotment of an alternative site to the revenue site loser was ever taken. The objections taken were that the petitioner’s application was not in the prescribed form and the petitioner’s application is barred by time. Hence, I do not find any tenable defence to this petition. This respondents sought the enlargement of time before the Division Bench for compliance with the learned Single Judge’s order. The objections taken were that the petitioner’s application was not in the prescribed form and the petitioner’s application is barred by time. Hence, I do not find any tenable defence to this petition. This respondents sought the enlargement of time before the Division Bench for compliance with the learned Single Judge’s order. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted hereinbelow: “7.) Having regard to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to take a different view from the one taken by the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative site and we are also of the view that no ground is made out to set aside the order dated 10.1.2008 passed in W.P. No. 14081 of 2007 having regard to the conduct of the appellant in the proceedings. 8.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that he may be granted further time as time granted by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the application for allotment of alternative site has expired. 9.) The submission of the learned Counsel is accepted and time granted for compliance with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is extended by eight weeks from today”. 10. The respondents ought to have passed the order within two months from 10.12.2008. However, they have belatedly passed the order on 20.6.2009 (Annexure-L), which contains no tenable reason for refusing allot alternative site to the petitioner. The second paragraph of the impugned order is reflective of taking into account of the irrelevant aspects of the matter. It deals with the depositing of the compensation amount with the Reference Court. 11. In more or less similar situations, this Court by its order dated 26.5.2009 passed in .W.P. No 15026 of 2007 (B.K. Srinivas versus Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore); order dated 27.5.2010 in W.P. No 28495 of 2009; order dated 16.7.2010 in .W.P. No 34042 of 2009 as connected matters and the order, dated 26.10.2010 in W.P. NO. 21146 of 2010 has given a positive direction to the respondents to allot an alternative site to the similarly placed persons. 21146 of 2010 has given a positive direction to the respondents to allot an alternative site to the similarly placed persons. Following this Court’s orders passed in the cases of the petitioners and of the similarly placed persons, I direct the respondents to allot an alternative site to the petitioner in any layout measuring 40 ft x 60 ft at the current price within four months today. 12. As the respondents have imposed the litigation on the petitioner for no fault on his part and even when his conduct is absolutely flawless and blemishless, I also deem it just to impose the costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only) on the respondents. 13. This petition is accordingly allowed.