ORDER : 1. 1 acre 5 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No.68 of Banasavadi village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, belonging to the petitioner has been illegally and unauthorizedly utilized by the Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’) for the purpose of formation of outer ring road of Banasavadi. Petitioner and his brothers have been representing to the BDA requesting them to allot equivalent alternate land, but the respondent has not responded to the request. Annexure-A is the copy of the representation dated 20.07.2007. Petitioner followed it up by other representations. 2. BDA has acknowledged the fact that 1 acre 5 guntas of land belonging to the petitioner was utilized for formation of outer ring road without any acquisition. Indeed, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, vide his note dated 20.06.2015, after conducting joint spot inspection clearly noticed the factum of utilization of the land by the BDA and recommended the case of petitioner for allotment of alternate land/sites. This is evident from Annexures-B & B1 – note sheet and the proceedings maintained by the BDA. 3. Indeed, based on the recommendation of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the matter was considered and in similar cases decision has been taken by the BDA to grant 50% to 100% equivalent land/sites in favour of land loosers. In para 136 of the note/proceedings of the BDA, reference is made to the decision taken on 04.07.2006 in the meeting of the authority in Subject No.2/2006 for allotment of 75% of land utilized. This is found at Annexure-C. The same was not given effect to subsequently. Though this decision was taken on 21.07.2015, petitioner was not allotted the alternate land. But as regards similarly situated persons, BDA had allotted 100% alternate land. Some such instances have been narrated by the petitioner in paragraphs 5 to 8. However, as regards petitioner, though there was recommendation and indeed approval for allotment of 100% alternate land, respondents have not taken any steps in that connection. Indeed, petitioner wants to rely on the opinion of the Law Officer of the BDA dated 27.02.2016 in support of his contention that a decision had been taken to allot 100% developed land. In the above circumstances, aggrieved by the inaction of the BDA in not allotting the alternate land, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. Indeed, petitioner wants to rely on the opinion of the Law Officer of the BDA dated 27.02.2016 in support of his contention that a decision had been taken to allot 100% developed land. In the above circumstances, aggrieved by the inaction of the BDA in not allotting the alternate land, petitioner has approached this Court. 4. On 07.07.2017, after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner and the BDA, this Court passed the following order : “Upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties, it is clear that the land belonging to petitioner has been utilised by the BDA during the year 1997 for formation of outer ring road without acquiring the same and without paying any compensation. There cannot be any greater illegality by a statutory authority than depriving a citizen of his land without adopting due process of law and without paying any compensation. Confronted with this, learned counsel appearing for the BDA submits that the BDA would come up with a proposal to compensate the petitioner by granting him alternate land or paying compensation. Since the land has been utilised way back in the year 1997, the BDA ought to have settled the matter being a statutory body in the manner known to law. Instead, it has made the petitioner to wait for all these years and to come before this Court. In similar matter, this Court has directed the Commissioner to be present in case appropriate details of proposed allotment of alternate site is not made by filing a memo. However, as this matter is coming up for the first time before this Court, three days time as sought by the respondent is granted to place before the Court proposal regarding allotment of any other alternate land, its details including the location or payment of just compensation, if any to be offered. Re-list on 12.07.2017.” 5. On 12.07.2017, the Commissioner, BDA, was present before the Court. He assured the Court that necessary action on priority would be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner and hence, sought for some time. Time was granted. 6. Re-list on 12.07.2017.” 5. On 12.07.2017, the Commissioner, BDA, was present before the Court. He assured the Court that necessary action on priority would be taken to redress the grievance of the petitioner and hence, sought for some time. Time was granted. 6. On 24.07.2017, the Counsel for the BDA filed a memo duly signed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, which reads as under : “The respondent BDA submits as hereunder : It is submitted that the Bangalore Development Authority has formed the outer Ring Road in Survey Number 68 of Banasawadi village, K.R. Puram Hobli, to an extent of 01 Acre 05 Guntas. The award amount of the above mentioned land to an extent of 01 Acre 05 Guntas of the petitioner and his family members is Rs.7,94,270/- (Seven Lakh Ninety-four Thousand two hundred and seventy). The value of the same land as on today is Rs.5,51,25,000/- (Five Crore Fifty-one lakh Twenty five Thousand only). The Bangalore Development Authority submits to pay the said amount to the petitioner or in the alternative submits to give developed land (sites) equivalent to the above mentioned amount or submits to do partly both as per BDA norms and conditions. The offer of the respondent may be taken on record in the interest of justice and equity.” 7. The assertions made by the BDA regarding value of the property to be Rs. 5,51,25,000/- has been strongly denied by the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has asserted that as the land belonging to the petitioner which had high commercial potentiality has been utilized for formation of road, petitioner is entitled for allotment of similar extent of land of the same value in and around the same place or in the place having similar advantages and potentialities. In this connection, he has placed for perusal of the Court, certain proceedings of the Assistant Executive Engineer, No.6, North Sub-Division, BDA, Bengaluru, dated 15.07.2017, 18.07.2017 and also 19.07.2017. These documents have been issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In this connection, he has placed for perusal of the Court, certain proceedings of the Assistant Executive Engineer, No.6, North Sub-Division, BDA, Bengaluru, dated 15.07.2017, 18.07.2017 and also 19.07.2017. These documents have been issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005. A perusal of these documents reveals that pursuant to the order passed in this writ petition directing the Commissioner, BDA, to verify the availability of alternate land having equal potentiality for allotment to the petitioner and pursuant to the direction issued by the Commissioner, the Assistant Executive Engineer has opined that in HBR 1st Stage, 4th Block, there were sites formed in lands situated at Hennur bearing Sy. No.55 and the said site bearing Nos.475, 479, 480, 481, 472, 473 & 474 were available for allotment and that after due verification with regard to those sites and after confirming the fact that they were not allotted to anybody else, the said sites could be made use of for allotment as alternate site. This is evident from the proceedings dated 19.07.2017. He has also placed reliance on the order dated 08.03.2017 of this Court in the case of MUNIANJANAPPA & OTHERS VS. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & OTHERS passed in W.P.Nos.37184-200/2016, wherein also under similar circumstances, this Court has directed the BDA to execute sale deeds in respect of sites allotted as alternate sites in lieu of the illegal utilization of the land belonging to the petitioner therein. A direction was also given to pay compensation in terms of money as per the New Act computing the same at the present market value prevalent by issuing a notification in case there was any practical difficulty to execute the sale deeds in respect of alternate land allotted. It is submitted at the bar for both the parties, that direction issued in the aforesaid order of this Court has been complied with by the BDA by executing sale deeds in respect of alternate sites allotted. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is entitled for a similar direction. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the BDA submits that in several similar circumstances, this Court has issued directions to allot 50% of the developed land, keeping in mind the value of the acquired land and the land proposed for allotment. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the BDA submits that in several similar circumstances, this Court has issued directions to allot 50% of the developed land, keeping in mind the value of the acquired land and the land proposed for allotment. One such order passed in W.P.No.45695/2011 disposed of on 26.07.2012 is produced for the perusal of the Court. In paragraph 8 of the said order, the following directions have been issued. (i) The petitioner shall submit a detailed representation to the BDA within two weeks from today with the necessary supporting documents for the purpose of showing the market value of the land in 2008. (ii) There appears to be some dispute regarding the extent of the petitioner’s land utilised for the BDA’s purpose. The petitioner shall produce the necessary documents in support of his claiming that his land, used up by the BDA, actually measures 3 acres. (iii) On considering them and on hearing the petitioner, the BDA shall arrive at the determination of the value of the lands as well as the measurement of the lands in question. (iv) If the BDA wants to give alternative land in lieu of cash compensation, it must indicate the value of the sites to the petitioner. It is open to the petitioner either to accept the offer of the BDA or not to accept the offer or to accept the offer of the BDA only in part, meaning the petitioner may take some alternative land in respect of a portion of the acquired land and insist for the payment of the compensation in respect of the other portions of the acquired land. (v) The respondent BDA shall also award the special damages to compensate the petitioner for illegally occupying the property for the last 4 years. (vi) If the petitioner is not satisfied with the order determining the market value of the property, it is open to him to challenge the same before the Civil Court and seek further enhancement of the amounts. (vii) The respondent BDA shall complete the enquiry and pass the order within two months from the date of the receipt of the anticipated representation. 9. What is highly disturbing is, the way in which the statutory body like BDA is dealing with the rights of the citizens. These actions are totally violative of the rule of law and the rights of the people. 9. What is highly disturbing is, the way in which the statutory body like BDA is dealing with the rights of the citizens. These actions are totally violative of the rule of law and the rights of the people. To deprive a citizen of his right over the immovable property without reference to law, is unconstitutional. Apart from being unconstitutional, it amounts to violation of human rights. 10. The Apex Court in the case of TUKARAM KANA JOSHI & OTHERS – (2013) 1 SCC 353 , had an occasion to consider similar action of the authorities. The observations made in paragraphs 8, 9 & 10 are usefully extracted as under : “8. The appellants were deprived of their immovable property in 1964, when Article 31 of the Constitution was still intact and the right to property was a part of fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. It is pertinent to note that even after the right to property ceased to be a fundamental right, taking possession of or acquiring the property of a citizen most certainly tantamounts to deprivation and such deprivation can take place only in accordance with the “law”, as the said word has specifically been used in Article 300-A of the Constitution. Such deprivation can be only by resorting to a procedure prescribed by a statute. The same cannot be done by way of executive fiat or order or administration caprice. In Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State of Gujarat – AIR 1995 SC 142 , it has been held as follows : “48. In other words, Article 300-A only limits the powers of the State that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. There [is] no deprivation without [due] sanction of law. Deprivation by any other mode is not acquisition or taking possession under Article 300-A. In other words, if there is no law, there is no deprivation.” 9. 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 multifaceted dimension. 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 multifaceted dimension. The right to property is considered very much to be a part of such new dimension. (Vide Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram – (2007) 10 SCC 448 , Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab – (2010) 10 SCC 43 , State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan – (2011) 7 SCC 639 , State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar and Delhi Airtech Services (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. – (2011) 9 SCC 354 ). 10. In the case at hand, there has been no acquisition. The question that emerges for consideration is whether, in a democratic body polity, which is supposedly governed by the rule of law, the State should be allowed to deprive a citizen of his property, without adhering to the law. The matter would have been different had the State pleaded that it has right, title and interest over the said land. It however, concedes to the right, title and interest of the appellants over such land and pleads the doctrine of delay and laches as grounds for the dismissal of the petition/appeal.” 11. In paragraph 17, the Apex Court observes that depriving the appellants therein of the immovable properties was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and in a welfare State, statutory authorities were bound not only to pay adequate compensation, but also to rehabilitate such persons and hence, it was not permissible for any welfare State to uproot a person and deprive him of his fundamental/constitutional/human rights under the garb of development. The Apex Court proceeds to further observe in paragraph 19 that the appellants before it had been seriously discriminated against qua other persons, whose lands were also acquired and some of them had been given benefits of acquisition in the year 1966 itself. Such kind of discrimination would not only breeds corruption, but also disrespect for governance because of frustration that it left behind. Such kind of discrimination would not only breeds corruption, but also disrespect for governance because of frustration that it left behind. The contention urged by the respondent-statutory body setting up delay and laches as a defence ahs been turned down because the action complained remained as a slur on the system of governance and justice as well which was anathema to the doctrine of equality, which is the soul of the constitution. It is useful to extract certain observations found in the latter part of paragraph 19 and in paragraph 29, which reads as under : “19. ………Even under valid acquisition proceedings, there is a legal obligation on the part of the authorities to complete such acquisition proceedings at the earliest, and to make payment of requisite compensation. ……… 20. While dealing with the similar issue, this Court in K. Krishna Reddy v. Collector (LA) – AIR 1988 SC 2123 , held as under : “12. … After all money is what money buys. What the claimants could have bought with the compensation in 1977 cannot do in 1988. Perhaps, not even one-half of it. It is a common experience that the purchasing power of rupee is dwindling. With rising inflation, the delayed payment may lose all charms and utility of the compensation. In some cases, the delay may be detrimental to the interests of claimants. The Indian agriculturists generally have no avocation. They totally depend upon land. If uprooted, they will find themselves nowhere. They are left high and dry. They have no savings to draw. They have nothing to fall back upon. They know no other work. They may even face starvation unless rehabilitated. In all such cases, it is of utmost importance that the award should be made without delay. The enhanced compensation must be determined without loss of time.”” 12. In paragraph 22, the Apex Court has concluded as under : “22. Be that as it may, ultimately, good sense prevailed, and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State came forward with a welcome suggestion stating that in order to redress the grievances of the appellants, the respondent authorities would notify the land in dispute under Section 4 of the Act within a period of 4 weeks from today. Section 6 declaration will be issued within a period of one week thereafter. Section 6 declaration will be issued within a period of one week thereafter. As the appellants have full notice and information with respect to the proceedings, publication in the newspapers either of the notification or of the declaration under the Act are dispensed with. Notice under Section 9 of the Act will be served within a period of 4 weeks after the publication of Section 6 declaration and award will be made within a period of three months thereafter. The deemed acquisition proceedings would thus be concluded most expeditiously. Needless to say, the market value of the land in dispute will be assessed as it prevails on the date on which the Section 4 notification is published in the Official Gazette. Payment of compensation/award amount will be made to the claimants/persons interested immediately thereafter, along with all statutory benefits. The appellants shall be entitled to pursue the statutory remedies available to them for further enhancement of compensation, if so desired.” 13. In the instant case, to say the least, the BDA has been playing with the rights of the people depriving them of their valuable possession without recourse to law and without paying them any compensation, which is something just unimaginable. There are no words to describe such action of the BDA. If such action were to originate from any other person other than statutory bodies or instrumentalities of the State, it would have certainly entitled criminal prosecution and adequate remedy of restitution. The individual who suffers would perhaps be entitled for restoration of his land which was his precious in possession and in respect whereof, he might have nurtured dreams of his own and envisioned a different future for himself, particularly because the land was situated in a place like Bengaluru with so much of potentiality. Such dreams are shattered by highhanded action of the statutory body. It is not possible to direct restoration of land as the same has been utilized for forming outer ring road. It is however possible and is indeed imperative to direct the BDA for restitution. 14. Such dreams are shattered by highhanded action of the statutory body. It is not possible to direct restoration of land as the same has been utilized for forming outer ring road. It is however possible and is indeed imperative to direct the BDA for restitution. 14. As rightly submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner, the ideal situation is to direct the BDA to put in possession of the petitioner an equal extent of alternate land having equal potentiality and value in an equally developed area as that of his land, apart from compensating him by way of damages for the loss sustained by the petitioner over a period of time. Indeed, petitioner has placed before the Court certain materials in the form of notes and proceedings of the Assistant Executive Engineer who has stated that sites were available and after confirmation that they had not been allotted to others and that they were not under any litigation, the same could be allotted in the light of the direction issued by this Court to the Commissioner and the consequent direction issued to verify and report regarding availability of sites. 15. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. BDA is directed to allot an equal extent of land having equal potentiality to the petitioner. If for any reason, despite making all best efforts, BDA for reasons to be recorded in writing by the Commissioner, allotment of alternate land was not possible, it has to notify the land in question for acquisition within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and complete the acquisition proceedings within a month from the date of notification by passing an award determining compensation at the market rate payable as on the date of issuance of preliminary notification in terms of the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and pay compensation within a period of three months from today. Petitioner would be at liberty to avail all remedies open to him in law to seek enhanced compensation as provided under the provisions of 2013 Act. Petitioner would be at liberty to avail all remedies open to him in law to seek enhanced compensation as provided under the provisions of 2013 Act. BDA is also directed to determine the damages payable to the petitioner due to unauthorized use and occupation of the land and deprivation of the petitioner from use and occupation of his land with effect from the date of taking over possession of the land. Petitioner is reserved liberty to seek appropriate redressal from the competent court even as regards quantum of damages so determined by the BDA. BDA is further directed to pay costs of this proceedings in a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner within two weeks from today.