ORDER : 1. Petitioner was owner of land bearing Sy. No. 169/5 situated at Kothanur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, measuring acres 10 guntas including guntas of karab land. The said land was initially notified for acquisition by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘BDA’) vide preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988. Vast extent of 1009 acres 14 guntas was notified for acquisition as per the said notification for formation of “Jayaprakashnarayan Nagar 8th Stage”. First final notification was issued on 19.10.1994 restricting the acquisition to 974 acres 08 guntas of land. In view of the order passed by the High Court quashing the acquisition of some of the lands under the first final notification, the State Government issued second final notification on 17.09.1997, this time restricting the extent of land acquired to 327 acres 12 guntas. The third final notification dated 05.04.1999 in respect of 123 acres 29 guntas of land, followed by fourth final notification dated 07.10.1999 for an extent of 92 acres only. 2. The land of the petitioner has been acquired as per the fourth final notification dated 07.10.1999, which means that after lapse of nearly 11 years from the date of issuance of preliminary notification dated 23.03.1988, the final notification in respect of the land of the petitioner was issued. Award was passed on 06.05.2008. Possession of the land of the petitioner was taken over as is evident from Section 16(2) notification dated 02.09.2012, but compensation determined for the land was neither paid nor deposited. It is in this background, petitioner has approached this Court seeking declaration that acquisition proceeding has lapsed as the same has not been completed by paying compensation to the land loser. In the alternative, petitioner has also sought for direction to the BDA to allot equal extent of land in the same or similar locality having equal potential. 3. Mr. G. Krishnamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner invites attention of the Court to the pleadings and documents placed on record, to contend that conduct of the BDA in resorting to acquisition by racing it over period of almost 20 years disclosed that petitioner has been subjected to the ordeal of prolonged acquisition proceedings without paying any compensation. It is his submission that even as on today, BDA has not paid any compensation for the acquired land. It is his submission that even as on today, BDA has not paid any compensation for the acquired land. He has urged that rights of the petitioner recognized under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India have been violated. He invites the attention of the Court to the judgment rendered by this Court under similar circumstances in W.P. No. 9302/2016 disposed of on 17.08.2017 to contend that petitioner is entitled for similar direction for either payment of compensation for the land as it obtained today or for allotment of equal extent of land as an alternate land in similar locality. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA taking me through the statement of objections submits that possession of land has been taken and layout has been formed, therefore, question of declaration that acquisition stood lapsed and consequentially for restoration of possession of land to the petitioner did not arise. He, however, submits that petitioner will be paid compensation based on the award passed along with permissible interest. 5. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for both parties and on careful perusal of the entire materials on record, find that admittedly acquisition proceedings though initiated on 23.03.1988 by issuance of preliminary notification, final notification was issued after lapse of 11 years i.e. on 07.10.1999 acquiring the land of the petitioner. Thereafter also, it took nearly nine years for the BDA to pass the award on 06.05.2008, but it did not pay any compensation. Even as on today, compensation has neither been paid nor deposited in accordance with law before the court. Indeed, this is evident from the endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Land Acquisition, BDA, on 15.09.2017 which has been placed before the Court along with memo dated 18.09.2017. It is clear from the said endorsement issued by the BDA that no compensation has been paid in respect of the land belonging to the petitioner. 6. It is thus evident that petitioner has been deprived of his land without paying any compensation. This is clear violation of the right of the petitioner as recognized under Articles 31-A and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 7. 6. It is thus evident that petitioner has been deprived of his land without paying any compensation. This is clear violation of the right of the petitioner as recognized under Articles 31-A and 300-A of the Constitution of India. 7. In similar circumstances, in the order dated 17.08.2017 passed in W.P. No. 9302/2016, after referring to several judgments of the Apex Court including the judgment in Vijay Latka and Another vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2016) 12 SCC 487 and by extracting the observations of the Apex Court in paragraphs therein, and also by referring to the judgment in the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others vs. M.I.D.C. and Others, (2013) SCC 353 and by referring to observations made in paragraphs therein by the Apex Court, this Court has held in paragraphs 15 to 19, as under: “15. As already pointed out above, BDA has acquired the land, taken possession of the same, and has allotted it to third parties receiving the consideration thereof. But, as far as the land looser is concerned, it has not bothered to pay the compensation. It has kept the amount unto itself. This action can only be characterized as highly illegal, unjust and hence, deprecable. 16. In the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others vs. M.I.D.C. and Others, (2013) SCC 353, in paragraphs 9, the Apex Court has observed as under: “8. In the case at hand, there has been no acquisition. The question that emerges for consideration is whether, in democratic body polity, which is supposedly governed by the Rule of Law, the State should be allowed to deprive 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. 9. There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. 9. There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with different scenario altogether. Functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode. There is distinction, true and concrete distinction, between the principle of "eminent domain" and "police power" of the State. Under certain circumstances, the police power of the State may be used temporarily, to take possession of property but the present case clearly shows that neither of the said powers have been exercised question then arises with respect to the authority or power under which the State entered upon the land. It is evident that the act of the State amounts to encroachment, in exercise of "absolute power" which in common parlance is also called abuse of power or use of muscle power. To further clarify this position, it must be noted that the authorities have treated the land owner as subject of medieval India, but not as citizen under our constitution.” 17. Though these observations are made by the Apex Court in the context of case where the State had deprived the citizen of his valuable land without acquiring the same and without paying compensation to him, the said observations regarding right of the land looser and the obligations of the acquiring body to follow the due procedure which not only involves acquisition of land in accordance with law, but also payment of compensation as per the procedure prescribed before taking over possession are very much applicable to the instant case. If land is acquired by issuing notifications and award is passed but compensation is not paid, the harm and injury that results to the land looser is not different as compared to the utilization of land without acquisition. The latter, no doubt, is graver form of arbitrary exercise of power completely violating the constitutional mandate under Article 300-A and the other statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. But merely because notifications acquiring the land had been issued, and indeed award had passed determining the compensation payable for the acquired land, action of the statutory authority cannot pass the litmus test of being just, fair and reasonable as mandated in Article 300-A and as required under the statutory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, unless compensation is paid/tendered/deposited by following due process before possession was taken. Failure to comply with this mandatory requirement, may entail very serious consequences on the acquiring body and may even in certain cases affect the very basis of acquisition. The BDA cannot get away with such arbitrary, illegal and unjust act by saying that it will pay compensation along with interest reckoning the date of Preliminary Notification for quantifying the compensation. 18. The facts of the case clearly disclose that father of the petitioners had asserted his rights. He had even requested the BDA to consider his case for grant of permission to develop the land with an option to deliver 30% of the developed land to the BDA for allotment to the needy. Indeed, this Court having examined this request had issued direction to the BDA to consider the request. Nothing is forthcoming from the records nor anything is stated in the statement of objections as to what happened to this direction issued by this Court. On the other hand, BDA has issued award notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act on 02.09.2000. But, without even tendering compensation, has taken possession on 04.09.2000 as is clear from the records. It is thus clear that inspite of court direction to consider the request of petitioners under the scheme providing 70:30 sharing of developed land, in utter violation of the direction, the BDA has dispossessed the petitioners. The BDA has gone ahead with the acquisition and has taken possession of the land highhandedly without paying compensation or depositing the same. Therefore, this is clear case of highly arbitrary action. The BDA has gone ahead with the acquisition and has taken possession of the land highhandedly without paying compensation or depositing the same. Therefore, this is clear case of highly arbitrary action. Petitioners have been deprived of the valuable piece of land which was their source of livelihood, without any compensation. 17 years have since passed. It will be highly unjust to tell the petitioners that they should take the compensation amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer along with interest and rest satisfied. They are entitled for payment of compensation based on the current market value along with damages. 19. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. It is hereby ordered that BDA shall treat the land as having been acquired today and pay the compensation determining the market value based on the present market value as it obtains today as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The market value shall be determined by passing an order within period of 15 days from today and the same shall be paid within period of 15 days thereafter to the petitioners. It is also open to the BDA to grant equal extent of land of similar value having similar potentiality as an alternative. The said order to be passed by the BDA shall be construed as an award for all practical and legal purposes. It is held that BDA is also liable to pay damages for the illegal use and occupation of the land in question with effect from the year 2000 which has to be assessed while passing the order. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the competent authority seeking reference of their dispute for further relief.” 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case admittedly no compensation has been paid to the petitioner and he has been deprived of his valuable land for all these years. Hence, petitioner is entitled for similar relief. 9. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. BDA is directed to grant equal extent of land measuring acres 10 guntas of similar value having similar potentiality in the nearby locality, or in the alternative, to pay compensation treating the land as having been acquired today in terms of the provisions contained under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. BDA is directed to grant equal extent of land measuring acres 10 guntas of similar value having similar potentiality in the nearby locality, or in the alternative, to pay compensation treating the land as having been acquired today in terms of the provisions contained under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Compliance within three months.