Judgment :- 1. On 19/3/2013, the following order was passed: “Petitioner’s vendor-in-title was allotted site bearing No.S61 in Nandini SFHS Layout, Bangalore, measuring East to West (12.19 + 14.02)/2 Meters and North to South 9.14 Meters in all measuring 119.73 Meters and bounded on the: East by: Road; West by: Property belonging to the respondent; North by: Site No.S62 and South by: Site No.60 The allottee, by name, M. Devaraju, obtained a deed of conveyance dated 25.06.2004 executed by the respondent – Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’), and was put in possession of the said Site and thereafter conveyed the same in favour of the petitioner under a deed of conveyance dated 24.08.2005, for a valuable consideration. It is not in dispute that the BDA, without notice to the petitioner or following the procedure under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, usurped Site No.S61 and put up construction of a multi-storied building. Petitioner, aggrieved by the said action, filed representations dated 04.02.2011 and 08.12.2011 bringing to the notice of the BDA about its action, which when not responded to, led to filing W.P. No.1747/2012. In that petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner, having made a submission that similarly circumstanced site holders (adjacent site holders) when deprived of possession of their sites since encroached upon for construction of a multi-storied building, have been allotted alternate sites, this Court by order dated 12.06.2012 Annexure ‘A’, directed the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representations within a period of eight weeks and accordingly disposed of the petition. When nothing appreciable was done by the BDA., in compliance with the order dated 12.06.2012 in W.P. No.1747/2012, petitioner made a representation dated 24.07.2012 Annexure ‘D’ for a consideration over allotment of an alternate site from one amongst two available sites 50(A) and 50(C) situate in SFHS, Nandini Layout. In fact, by an earlier endorsement dated 27.03.2012 Annexure ‘E’, the BDA in reply to the petitioner’s representation dated 28.02.2012 stated that there is no mention of the aforesaid two sites 50(A) and 50(C) in the registers. 2. In fact, by an earlier endorsement dated 27.03.2012 Annexure ‘E’, the BDA in reply to the petitioner’s representation dated 28.02.2012 stated that there is no mention of the aforesaid two sites 50(A) and 50(C) in the registers. 2. Petitioner alleging that a similarly circumstanced allottee, by name, M. Venkatesh also having filed W.P. No. 872/2011, a learned single Judge by order dated 29.06.2011 Annexure ‘G’ disposed of the petition with a direction to BDA to execute an absolute sale deed in respect of an alternate site allotted to him, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of that order. 3. Hence, this petition for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to allot and sell one of the vacant sites bearing Nos.50A, 50B and 50C in Nandini Layout, Bangalore, and recover any difference in amount between the price of the site taken from the petitioner and that of the alternate site to be allotted in Nandini Layout. 4. The statement of objections dated 26.11.2012 of the respondent is to the effect that BDA issued an allotment letter dated 20.11.2012 in favour of the petitioner allotting site No.565, Nandini Layout, in Sy. No.15, Laggere and if the petitioner complies with the conditions enumerated in the allotment letter, all steps will be taken expeditiously and that the unavoidable delay in the process of allotment is solely due to administrative reasons beyond the control of the respondent and a lenient view be taken in the matter. 5. Although in the course of hearing of the petition in order to bring about a resolution of the dispute, parties were directed to amicably settle the issue, following which, the BDA issued an allotment letter in respect of Site No.50A measuring 40 feet x 60 feet, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of money, being the value of the site in addition to and after deducting the amount already paid by the petitioner towards the value of the site purchased by her, nevertheless, the petitioner for various reasons, in the reply dated 14.03.2013 withdrew the agreement to compromise the matter and demanded restoration of site No.61, SFHS Nandini Layout. 6. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings, the point for consideration is: “Whether the taking over of the property bearing No.S61, Nandini SFHS Layout, belonging to the petitioner by the respondent – BDA is in violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and if so, what relief the petitioner is entitled to?” 7. Regard being had to the facts of the case that the petitioner’s immovable property being Site No.S.61 was taken over by the respondent – BDA without notice or proceedings for acquisition, either under the BDA Act, 1976 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the BDA, being a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, had no authority to deprive the petitioner, a citizen, of her property without adhering to law, more so, in a democratic polity, which is supposedly governed by the rule of law. 8. It is to be noticed that when Article 31 of the Constitution of India was intact and the right to property was a part of the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, nevertheless, even if the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right, taking possession or acquiring the property of a citizen cannot but tantamount to deprivation and such deprivation can take place only in accordance with law “ IN THE LIGHT OF THE WORDS USED IN ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION”. In other words, the said deprivation can only be by resorting to procedure prescribed by the Statute. Needless to state that in Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar Vs. State of Gujarat and Another ( AIR 1995 SC 142 ) it was observed that Article 300A of the Constitution of India only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law and therefore, deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300A. 9. In almost similar, though not identical circumstances, the Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others Vs. M.I.D.C. and Others ( AIR 2013 SC 565 ) at paragraph 7, it was observed thus: “The right to property is now considered to be, not only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right. 9. In almost similar, though not identical circumstances, the Apex Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others Vs. M.I.D.C. and Others ( AIR 2013 SC 565 ) at paragraph 7, it was observed thus: “The right to property is now considered to be, not only a constitutional or a statutory right, but also a human right. Though, it is not a basic feature of the Constitution or a fundamental right, human rights are considered to be in realm of individual rights, such as the right to health, the right to livelihood, the right to shelter and employment etc. Now however, human rights are gaining an even greater multi faceted dimension. The right to property is considered, very much to be a part of such new dimension. (Vide: Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram & Ors. (2007) 10 SCC 448 : (AIR 2007 SC (supp) 1169); Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & amp; Ors. (2010) 10 SCC 43 : (AIR 2011 SC (Civ) 1587 : 2011 AIR SCW 3413); Narmada Bachao Andolan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 2011 SC 1989 : (2011 AIR SCW 3337); State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. AIR 2012 SC 559 : (2012 AIR SCW 276) and Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P & Anr. AIR 2012 SC 573 ): (2012 AIR SCW 129) xxx” At paragraph 15 observed thus: “15. Depriving the appellants of their immovable properties, was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but there is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such persons. The non-fulfillment of their obligations would tantamount to forcing the said uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national activities as such sentiments would be born in them on account of such ill-treatment. Therefore, it is not permissible for any welfare State to uproot a person and deprive him of his fundamental/constitutional/human rights, under the garb of industrial development.” 10. The facts obtaining therein giving rise to appeal before the Supreme Court was the issue of a notification by the State under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, ‘the Act’) to acquire 0-2-3 and 0-7-1 (9500 Sq. Mtrs) in Sy. The facts obtaining therein giving rise to appeal before the Supreme Court was the issue of a notification by the State under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short, ‘the Act’) to acquire 0-2-3 and 0-7-1 (9500 Sq. Mtrs) in Sy. Nos.2 and 3 respectively in the revenue estate of village Shirwame Taluka and District Thane, owned by the appellants therein, for establishment of Ulhas Khore Project for industrial development and no subsequent proceedings were taken up and therefore, the acquisition had lapsed. Though the appellants were persuaded by the officers of the authority to hand over possession of the said land, nevertheless, the authorities having realized grave injustice done to the appellants, issued a fresh notification under Section 4 of the Act on 14.05.1981 and did not take up further proceedings. Though appellants persuaded the authorities to complete the deemed acquisition proceedings, despite which, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was not issued. 11. Applying the principles afore stated to the facts of this case, indisputably, the petitioner is deprived of her right to possess, own and enjoy site No.S-61. 12. As can be noticed from the facts, despite petitioner’s persuasion, the authorities of the respondent – BDA, remained insensitive. The direction issued by this Court in its order dated 12.06.2012 in W.P. No.1747/2012 Annexure ‘A’ too was not complied with. Hence, non-compliance of orders passed by this Court tantamount to contempt ex facie. 13. Respondent – BDA with full knowledge of its irresponsible action in the circumstances, ought to have remedied the wrong at the earliest opportunity, however, threw all caution to the wind and acted in a manner insensitive to the rights of the petitioner. Regard being had to the persistent efforts of the petitioner to bring to law, the action of the respondent being in violation of the rule of law followed by inaction coupled with insensitivity to address its mistake while being deplorable, the so called delay in allotting site No.565 measuring 110.33 Sq. Mtrs. At Nandini layout, Sy. No.15, Laggere, is no justification. Viewed in the light of the constitutional right of the petitioner to shelter and obligation of the State, petitioner is entitled to restitution at the hands of the respondent – BDA. 14. Mtrs. At Nandini layout, Sy. No.15, Laggere, is no justification. Viewed in the light of the constitutional right of the petitioner to shelter and obligation of the State, petitioner is entitled to restitution at the hands of the respondent – BDA. 14. The question is, “Who has to pay for the harassment and agony meted out to the petitioner ever since the order 2009, is it BDA or it be realized from those, who are responsible for it?” In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta ( AIR 1994 SC 787 ) observed that the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act was justified in directing the department concerned to pay the amount to the complainant from the public fund immediately but to recover the same from those, who are found responsible for such unpardonable behaviour by dividing it proportionately where there are more than one functionary. 15. Learned counsel for the BDA submits that multi-storied building having been constructed on the petitioner’s property there are impediments in restoring the site of the petitioner at this distance of time. The tenor of the submission itself discloses that the BDA is not willing to express remorse for its unlawful action. 16. In the circumstances, the Commissioner, BDA., is directed to file explanation as to why: (i) action in accordance with law should not be initiated against him for proceedings relating to contempt having arisen out of non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No.1747/2012 dated 12.06.2012 Annexure ‘A’?; (ii) BDA., should not be mulcted with compensation for its illegal action?; and (iii) Exemplary costs should not be awarded for the inaction in the matter of compensating the petitioner for the loss of her site No.S61, without authority of law?” 2. Pursuant to the order dt. 19/3/2013, the respondent, Commissioner for BDA, filed an explanation, which does not answer, much less assign reasons/explanation over the first question as to why action in accordance with law should not be initiated for contempt for non compliance with the order dt. 12/6/2012 – Annex.A in W.P.No.1747/12. In paragraph 2 it is stated that non-compliance was on account of administrative reaons. What are administrative reasons, is not forthcoming. 3. The Commissioner by name T.Sham Bhatt is said to have taken charge on 28/8/2012, while the order in W.P.1747/12 is dated 12/6/2012. 12/6/2012 – Annex.A in W.P.No.1747/12. In paragraph 2 it is stated that non-compliance was on account of administrative reaons. What are administrative reasons, is not forthcoming. 3. The Commissioner by name T.Sham Bhatt is said to have taken charge on 28/8/2012, while the order in W.P.1747/12 is dated 12/6/2012. It is not forthcoming as to who was the Commissioner on the date when the order was passed by this court. The Commissioner had failed to make available the name of the Officer who held the post of Commissioner on the date when the order – Annex-A in the writ petition was passed. 4. There is no dispute that the BDA, without authority of law, usurped the property of the petitioner. Though a faint effort is made by the learned counsel for the respondent – BDA by traversing paragraph 9 of the writ petition, to contend that the petitioner handed over the property without hesitation or persuasion for the construction of a monumental building while other allottees too, joined hands, there is not a titre of evidence in the form of a written consent or a relinquishment deed, much less, instrument of transfer, duly registered conveying the property in favour of the BDA. So also, admittedly there is not a titre of evidence over acquisition of the property under the BDA Act, 1976 or under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore the submission that the petitioner had handed over the property to the BDA for the construction of the EWS building, is unacceptable. Under Art.300A of the Constitution of India, petitioner cannot be deprived of her immovable property without due process of law. BDA thus, cannot take shelter under the averments in paragraph 9 of the memorandum of writ petition. 5. The BDA sought to appease the petitioner, who, having filed this petition for the 2nd time on 24/9/2012, by an allotment letter dt. 20/11/2012 – Annex.R1 to the statement of objections, informing the petitioner over allotment of site No. 565 in Sy.No.15 measuring 110.33 sq.mtrs. and requesting the petitioner to pay a certain sum of money and to furnish the title deeds of the property lost by her having when usurped by the BDA. This appeasement, in my considered opinion, does not water down the rigor of noncompliance with lawful orders of this court, much less the right of the petitioner under Art.300A of the Constitution of India. This appeasement, in my considered opinion, does not water down the rigor of noncompliance with lawful orders of this court, much less the right of the petitioner under Art.300A of the Constitution of India. Therefore the allotment of site No. 565 is not consolation for usurping the property of the petitioner without authority of law. 6. It is no doubt true in this petition, the BDA withdrew the allotment letter – Annex.R1 and issued a fresh allotment letter dt. 28/1/2013 – Annex-A to the petitioner allotting site No.50A measuring 216 sq.mtrs., subject to the petitioner paying Rs.6,07,500/-, which too was withdrawn and another letter dt. 30/1/2013 – Annex-B, issued allotting the very same site, subject to the petitioner paying Rs.3,88,642/-, the value of 96.27 sq.mtrs., being the area in excess of the area of the site usurped by the BDA. The order sheet discloses that though the petitioner did accept the same as a compromise, nevertheless retracted and declined the allotment, as an alternative for the loss of the site, as indicated supra. In that view of the matter, there can be no more dispute that the BDA must be mulked with the payment of compensation for the site in question which was illegally usurped. 7. The very fact that from the inception of usurping the property in the year 2009, the petitioner had to come before this court twice over coupled with the harrowing experience of the petitioner in making non-responsive representations, though the BDA on its own ought to have ensured that the petitioner was paid compensation at the earliest and having not done so, petition deserves to be allowed on payment of exemplary cost. 8. Site No. S61 in Nandini Layout allotted to the petitioner’s vendor-in-title by the BDA commanded a market value of Rs.7,000/- pet sq. foot, in the year 2009, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, and that if the BDA had agreed to pay that sum, then the petitioner would have parted with the property and not otherwise. Though the learned counsel for the respondent – BDA submits, according to the Engineer who usurped the property, and who is present before court, the value of the said site was Rs.2,500/- per sq. Though the learned counsel for the respondent – BDA submits, according to the Engineer who usurped the property, and who is present before court, the value of the said site was Rs.2,500/- per sq. foot in the year 2009, is unacceptable, for the simple reason that it is for the petitioner to have offered to sell the site at a price and not for the BDA to make an offer about purchase of the property. Even otherwise, the Engineer an employee of the BDA having usurped the Petitioner’s property, his submission must be taken with a pinch of salt and is unreliable. The area of site No. S61 was 1350 sq.ft. and at the rate of Rs.7,000/- sq.foot, its value is Rs.94,50,000/- on the date of the usurpation of the property by the BDA during the year 2009. Petitioner was illegally kept away from the said amount from the year 2009 and had she the amount, petitioner would have put it to better use by purchasing a property during that year itself, perhaps. Petitioner when deprived of the said sum of money, is entitled to interest at the bank rate on fixed deposits, which, during 2009 was 10% and therefore entitled to interest at 10% p.a. from the date on which the property of the petitioner was usurped, upto the date of payment. 9. The offer of the BDA, as aired by it’s learned counsel, to allot site No.50A measuring 216 sq. mtrs., on payment of Rs.3,88,642/- which was accepted by the petitioner and the amount deposited is justification to establish the bonafides of the BDA, I am afraid, in the circumstances, is no consolation. Petitioner having lost her property without notice, the BDA has neither moral nor legal right to call upon her to pay Rs.3,88,642/-for allotment of an alternate site, though, of a bigger dimension. Hence unacceptable. 10. Regard being had to the fact that BDA and its officers have shown no remorse for their illegal actions, a direction must ensue to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department to initiate such action as is necessary, in law, against all officers who have acted in violation of rule of law in taking over the petitioner’s property and submit an action-taken report, within a time frame. Needless to state, the concerned Principal Secretary of the Union of India may also initiate such action as is necessary against the concerned IAS Officers and submit an action-taken report to the Registrar General, within a time frame. If the officers are found guilty, the State and the Union Government to record so in the service registers of the respective officers. 11. Who then is to pay for the illegality perpetuated against the petitioner, is it the State from out of its treasury being the amounts collected from citizens, or the officers who acted in violation of the Rule of Law. The Principal Secretary, Housing Urban Development, Government of Karnataka, is directed to enquire into the matter, ascertain who are involved in the process of usurping the property of the petitioner and initiate proceedings against them, in accordance with law, for recovery of Rs.94,50,000/- and interest thereon at 10% p.a. until payment, from out of the monthly salary of the officers. Respondent – BDA will have to pay to the petitioner, Rs.94,50,000/- with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of usurping the property of the petitioner, upto the date of payment and recover the same from its officers, in the manner noticed supra. Writ petition is accordingly ordered. Costs quantified at Rs.1,00,000/- payable to the petitioner. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Housing Urban Development and the Principal Secretary concerned of the Union of India, for necessary action. BDA to refund Rs.3,88,642/- with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of deposit, upto the date of payment, to the petitioner forthwith.