ORDER A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for issue of writ of certiorari and quash the endorsements dated 14-12-2009 and 25-7-2001 which are impugned at Annexures-A and B to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of a direction to the respondents to allot two sites to the petitioners keeping in view the extent of land which has been acquired from the petitioner's family. The case of the petitioner is that he was the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 116/2 measuring an extent of 2 acres situate at Hinkal Village, Mysore Taluk along with his father, which was notified for acquisition by the respondents to form the Vijayanagar II Stage Layout, Mysore. Notification was published on 31-3-1984 and the process has been completed. The petitioner no doubt had sought for enhancement of compensation by filing AC No. 164 of 1988. The petitioner claims that notwithstanding the compensation granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is also entitled to the grant of one site per acre which had been granted to several other landowners whose lands were acquired. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation seeking allotment of the sites. The respondents have issued the endorsement dated 14-12-2009 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected and reference was also made to the earlier endorsement dated 25-7-2001 which was issued to the father of the petitioner rejecting a similar request. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner has assailed the endorsements as at Annexures-A and B and has sought for further directions to the respondents to allot the sites. 2. The respondents have filed their objection statement. Though the acquisition of the land from the father of the petitioner as contended by the petitioner is admitted, the right as claimed by the petitioner for allotment of sites for the land acquired has been disputed. They contend that first and foremost the lands of the petitioner's family was acquired in accordance with law and the compensation has also been paid, which is thereafter enhanced and therefore, the instant process cannot be considered as a voluntary surrender of the land for claiming the additional benefit of grant of sites. They contend that first and foremost the lands of the petitioner's family was acquired in accordance with law and the compensation has also been paid, which is thereafter enhanced and therefore, the instant process cannot be considered as a voluntary surrender of the land for claiming the additional benefit of grant of sites. It is further contended that the statutory rules has been framed as far back as in the year 1994 and as such the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the resolution which had been passed earlier for granting the sites. It is further contended that a resolution dated 31-3-2012 has been subsequently passed whereby the earlier resolution dated 22-10-1990 has been recalled and therefore, even otherwise, the petitioner cannot claim for the allotment of sites. It is also contended that when the father of the petitioner had been intimated that his request cannot be considered by issue of endorsement dated 25-7-2001 and the father of the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said endorsement during his lifetime, though he was alive for a long period of time for nearly about 7 to 8 years, the petitioner, at this juncture, could not have made one more request and approached this Court. It is therefore contended that the endorsement issued to the petitioner is also justified and the same does not call for interference. 3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 4. In the background of the contentions of the respondents that the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit and in answer to the same, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order dated 4-3-1998 passed in W.P. Nos. 15648 to 15650 of 1995. In fact in similar set of circumstances, this Court was considering the request of the petitioners therein for allotment of sites in respect of the land acquired, based on the resolution dated 22-10-1990 passed by the respondent-Authority. While considering the contentions therein, the learned Judge of this Court has considered all aspects of the matter including the contention relating to the claim of site which had been made belatedly. Further, the contention relating to the entitlement only on voluntary surrender and as to whether the person who had sought for enhancement of compensation could be denied the benefit was also considered. Further, the contention relating to the entitlement only on voluntary surrender and as to whether the person who had sought for enhancement of compensation could be denied the benefit was also considered. Having considered all aspects of the matter, this Court was of the view that a direction needs to be issued to grant the sites. When the respondents were before the Division Bench assailing the said order in W.A. Nos. 5738 to 5740 of 1998, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge by its judgment dated 15-6-1999. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further relied on the order passed in W.P. No. 38098 of 2003 disposed of on 7-12-2006 and the same being upheld in W.A. No. 931 of 2007, disposed of on 28-7-2008; the order dated 19-9-2011 passed in W.P. Nos. 35158 and 35159 of 2009 which was again upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos. 2512 and 2513 of 2012, disposed of on 2-1-2013. In addition, the decision of another learned Single Judge in W.P. Nos. 4495 and 4550 to 4552 of 2012, disposed of on 13-12-2012 is also relied on. In all these cases, this Court has taken the view that the petitioners therein would be entitled to the grant of the site. The petitioner herein contends that he being a similarly placed person is entitled a similar benefit. 5. Keeping in view the contentions which had been put forth by the respondents, at the outset, it would also be necessary to refer to another set of decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents which was passed by another learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 27743 of 2012, disposed of on 15-3-2013, W.P. Nos. 46749 to 46756 of 2011, disposed of on 15-3-2013, W.P. Nos. 46483 to 46485 of 2011, disposed of on 15-3-2013 and W.P. No. 25796 of 2012, dated 15-3-2013. 6. Having taken note of the said set of decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for respondents, I am of the opinion that the said decisions cannot be made applicable to the instant facts. I am of the said opinion for the reason that in the cases referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents, this Court had not rendered a finding on that aspect of the matter relating to entitlement or otherwise. I am of the said opinion for the reason that in the cases referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondents, this Court had not rendered a finding on that aspect of the matter relating to entitlement or otherwise. This Court having taken note of the tenor of the endorsement issued by the respondents in those cases was of the view that the matter requires reconsideration in the light of the contentions which had been put forth by the respondents and the matter had been remitted for reconsideration after quashing the endorsements. Hence, to the said extent, I am of the view that the said orders cannot be treated as a precedent to the instant facts, more particularly when the orders passed by the learned Single Judge relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and the said decisions were rendered after detailed consideration of all aspects of the matter. 7. In that light, first and foremost, as noticed from the said decisions, this Court was of the view that even if a land loser had sought for enhancement of the compensation and if a request had been made for allotment of a site as provided under the resolution dated 22-10-1990, the same was to be considered. In the instant case also, the acquisition is of the year 1984 and the resolution of the year 1990 was in force when the petitioner had made a request like other similarly placed land loosers. From the very endorsement issued to the father of the petitioner, it would disclose that the father of the petitioner had made such request as far back as in the year 2001. It is no doubt true that the father of the petitioner had not assailed the endorsement immediately thereafter, but the father of the petitioner is not alive and the petitioner pleads ignorance of such endorsement till his request was rejected. In a normal circumstance, when such endorsement is not questioned within reasonable time, and more particularly when the petitioner herein has made one more representation and a subsequent endorsement has been issued, such endorsement would not have called for interference. However, the facts in the instant case would disclose that the decision in the very case to which the respondents were party in W.P. Nos. However, the facts in the instant case would disclose that the decision in the very case to which the respondents were party in W.P. Nos. 15648 to 15650 of 1995 had been rendered as far back as 4-3-1998 and the same had been approved by the Hon'ble Division Bench on 15-6-1999. Therefore, as on the date of the endorsement dated 25-7-2001 being issued to the father of the petitioner, the position had been clarified by this Court and the father of the petitioner was entitled to that benefit. 8. Even if the father of the petitioner was not aware of the decision rendered by this Court, the respondents being the statutory authorities were required to keep in view the law declared by this Court while considering their resolution dated 22-10-1990 and necessary action should have been taken. The instant position cannot be considered as adversarial litigation inasmuch as the citizen, who has lost the land to enable the respondents to form the layout was only seeking for the benefit of their resolution which had been passed by them and the respondent being a Statutory Authority also had a duty towards the citizen. When this Court had interpreted the resolution to indicate the entitlement and had rendered a decision that the persons similar to that of the petitioner were entitled to the allotment of site; it was incumbent on the respondents themselves to have allotted the site as per the decision when a request was made and therefore the endorsement dated 25-7-2001 was palpably contrary to law to the very knowledge of the respondents. Hence, the same cannot be held against the petitioner at this juncture to arrive at a conclusion that the benefit cannot be granted to the petitioner. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, the position in the year 2009 when the petitioner made the representation cannot be treated as independent of the position which existed as in the year 2001. Therefore, even the endorsement issued in the year 2009 was contrary to the view expressed by this Court. 9. It is no doubt true that the respondents contend that the statutory provisions were made in the year 1994. That was also the position, when the decision referred above was rendered in the year 1998 in similar set of circumstance. Therefore, even the endorsement issued in the year 2009 was contrary to the view expressed by this Court. 9. It is no doubt true that the respondents contend that the statutory provisions were made in the year 1994. That was also the position, when the decision referred above was rendered in the year 1998 in similar set of circumstance. If at all the same is to be looked into in the background of the subsequent resolution passed by the respondents dated 31-3-2012, the same would be possible when it would be a different situation on facts evolving therein and would not apply to the instant facts. Furthermore, the reliance placed by the respondents on the resolution dated 31-3-2012 (Annexure-R2) also cannot be made applicable to the instant facts of the case since as already noticed, in the instant case, the acquisition was of the year 1984, the resolution granting the benefit of allotment of sites was in the year 1990 and the present resolution dated 31-3-2012 withdrawing the resolution of the year 1990 cannot be made applicable to the facts of the instant case since I have already noticed that the petitioner's father himself had a right for allotment of the site in the year 2001 itself which had been wrongfully denied. Keeping all these aspects of the matter in view, the claim as made by the petitioner would have to be considered as similar to the claim which had been made by the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 15648 to 15650 of 1995 disposed of 4-3-1998 and the benefit which was granted to the petitioners therein would be available to the petitioner herein. 10. In that view of the matter, the endorsements at Annexures-A and B stand quashed. Since it is not in dispute that the extent of 2 acres belonging to the family of the petitioner has been acquired, as per the resolution dated 22-10-1990, the petitioner would be entitled to one site measuring 40 ft. x 60 ft. (2400 sq. ft.) at the prevailing allotment value as indicated in the resolution. The first respondent shall therefore allot one site of the said dimension to the petitioner in the same layout formed in the property which was the subject-matter of the acquisition for the layout or in any other layout formed by the first respondent, if no such site is available in the said layout. The first respondent shall therefore allot one site of the said dimension to the petitioner in the same layout formed in the property which was the subject-matter of the acquisition for the layout or in any other layout formed by the first respondent, if no such site is available in the said layout. Keeping in view the fact that the father of the petitioner was seeking the benefit as far back as in the year 2001 itself, the process shall be completed expeditiously. To enable the same, the petitioner shall now file a representation along with a copy of this order with the first respondent within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first respondent shall in terms of this order allot the site in favour of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. In that regard the first respondent shall identify the site and issue the allotment letter to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to make payment of the sital value. Such communication shall be issued to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. The process shall thereafter be completed within a further period of two months from the date on which the petitioner makes the payment. In the above terms, the petition stands disposed of.