ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J : 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.23/2 of Kodigehalli village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, claiming to belong to the petitioner, having purchased the same under a deed of conveyance dated 7.2.2002 Annexure 'A', when subject matter of acquisition amongst other large tracks of land, by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority under the notification dated 21.5.2008 issued invoking Sections 17(1) and (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, for formation of "Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout" followed by the final notification dated 18.2.2010 Annexure 'F1', led to the petitioner making a representation dated 28.6.2012 Annexure 'K' addressed to the respondents to delete from acquisition her property, since lands in Sy.No.23/3 and Sy.No.23/4 surrounding the petitioners land are excluded from acquisition and that certain areas surrounding the petitioner's land are built up hence would not form a compact block to implement the scheme. Petitioner alleging no response to the representation Annexure 'K', has presented this petition, for a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider petitioner's representation Annexure 'K' and a further direction to delete/de-notify land in Sy.No.23/2 from the final gazette notification, on the premise that the land is situate in the middle of Sy. Nos.23/3 and 23/4, which are deleted/de-notified in the final notification. 2. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections interalia contending that, the statement in the writ petition that the petitioner had no notice of the preliminary notification is false, since notice dated 14.8.2008 was issued to the petitioner calling upon her to exercise one of the two options, namely, either receive 40% of the developed land or, monetary compensation, for the acquired land, though such options are set out in the preliminary notification itself. It is stated that at paragraph 8 of the memorandum of writ petition, there is a clear admission on the part of the petitioner opting for 40% of the developed land, on filing an affidavit and therefore, petitioner is disentitled to the relief of deletion/de-notification of the acquired land. Lands in Sy.No.23/3 and 23/4, it is submitted, have certain inherent title disputes and are not found in the final notification while an additional preliminary notification dated 27.11.2009 Annexure 'R3' is issued in respect of the said two properties while final notification is proposed. Lands in Sy.No.23/3 and 23/4, it is submitted, have certain inherent title disputes and are not found in the final notification while an additional preliminary notification dated 27.11.2009 Annexure 'R3' is issued in respect of the said two properties while final notification is proposed. The allegation that the lands in Sy.No.23/3 and Sy.No.23/4 surrounds the petitioner's property and not in the best interest of the BDA to acquire the land is specifically denied. In addition it is stated that the rough sketch prepared by the petitioner does not depict the true state of facts. The respondent has denied the further allegation of the petitioner that the lands are not developed since 2008-2012. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 4. There can be no more dispute that the petitioner having exercised the option to receive 40% of developed property, in lieu of monetary compensation, on the acquisition of her immovable property in Sy.No.23/2 measuring 27 guntas, the relief for deleting the said property from acquisition does not arise. 5. Even otherwise, merely because lands in Sy.Nos.23/3 and 23/4 do not find a place in the final notification Annexure 'R4' does not mean that the BDA has deleted from acquisition the said lands. In fact, the respondent-BDA by an additional notification dated 27.11.2009 Annexure 'R3' has sought to acquire the lands in Sy.No.23/4 and 23/5 for the said scheme. The explanation offered by the BDA that lands in Sy.Nos.23/4 and 23/5 are not part of the final notification Annexure 'R4' in view of certain title disputes, which are pending, before the Civil Court, and hence the decision over its final notification is pending is acceptable. 6. The allegation that the land belonging to the petitioner is land locked lands in Sy.Nos.23/3 and 23/4 surround the said land is denied. Except for the hand sketch Annexure 'L' of the petitioner, there is no material whatsoever to substantiate the said fact and therefore, is a specious plea. 7. Regard being had to the scheme propounded by the Government to be implemented not only in the land of the petitioner, but large tracks of land surrounding the said land, for a public purpose of formation of sites and distribution to site less persons, no exception can be taken to the rejection of the petitioner's representation by the endorsement dated 05.02.2013 Annexure 'R1'. Petition devoid of merit, is rejected.