JUDGMENT : S. SUJATHA, J 1. The petitioners have sought for a direction to respondents to consider the petitioners' representation and direct the respondents to pay 50% of the value of the compensation as valued by the PWD department as per Annexure-A to the writ petition. 2. The petitioners are claiming to be the property losers which were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Bhadra Wildlife Zone. It is submitted that the Government promised the petitioners that they would pay at least valuation of the houses of the petitioners valued through the Public Works Department and published by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikamagaluru District. The Assistant Conservator of Forests, Bhadra Wildlife Zone, Chikkamagalur issued notice dated 26.03.2006 to vacate the houses acquired by the Government and they have promised to pay the 25% of the valuation initially and then 25% and thereafter the balance 50% totally in three phases. It is the grievances of the petitioners that the Government paid the first two installments of 25% each but failed to pay the balance 50% of compensation till now. The repeated requests made to the State Government/respondents have not yielded any response. Hence, these writ petitions. 3. Learned counsel Sri.P.P.Hegde appearing for the petitioners placing reliance on the list containing the khatedars of the houses and the valuation as published by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur District submitted that there is no dispute that these petitioners were the khatedars of their respective houses to which valuation was determined. 4. In terms of the notice dated 26.03.2003 issued by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bhadra Wild life zone, Chikmagaluru, it was promised that the petitioners have been paid Rs.1,19,920/- and additional 50% of Rs.1,19,920/- shall be paid after the Central Government releasing the same. With that promise and assurance, the petitioners were made to vacate their houses but the same has not been complied with despite several representations. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed [D] TH. LRs and Others V/s. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat & Another (Civil Appeal Nos.14016/2015 and allied matters); and Olga Tellis and Others V/s. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 545 . 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed [D] TH. LRs and Others V/s. Shirdi Nagar Panchayat & Another (Civil Appeal Nos.14016/2015 and allied matters); and Olga Tellis and Others V/s. Bombay Municipal Corporation and Others, (1985) 3 SCC 545 . 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents inviting the attention of the Court to paragraph 5 of the Statement of objections filed by the State, submitted that the petitioners are paid with the compensation to the value of their respective properties fixed by PWD as per the order dated 25.03.2003 by various cheques in the year 2003 itself. The petitioners-unauthorized occupants having received the compensation amount in terms of the order in the year 2003, have slept over for a period of 13 years and now approached this Court seeking for further 50% compensation which is unsustainable. Reliance is placed on the Cognate Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sri.Nagaraj and others V/s. The Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others, W.P.No.32147/2016 and allied matters. 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the promise/assurance made by the State Government as per the notice dated 26.03.2003 while evicting them from their houses has not been adhered to. The order dated 25.03.2003 placed on record as per Annexure-R2 to the statement of objections filed by the State Government discloses that 25% of the compensation amount shall be released from the Central Government and for further 25%, State Government has accorded permission to award compensation and the same has been paid in full as per the payment details given. The payments are made in consonance with the notice issued at Annexure - B series. 8. The second petitioner herein Sri.S.R.Nagaraja was the petitioner in W.P.No.32147/2016 and the said writ petition along with the connected matters came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2017. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein for ready reference: "2. The same is opposed by the learned Government Advocate. She contends that admittedly, the petitioners were unauthorised occupants of Government land. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein for ready reference: "2. The same is opposed by the learned Government Advocate. She contends that admittedly, the petitioners were unauthorised occupants of Government land. Notwithstanding the same, the State has agreed to pay 50% of the compensation purely on a humanitarian consideration. Subsequently, 25% has been enhanced to 50%. Therefore, it is not a case of 50% of the total entitlement, but the entire entitlement itself is 50% of the Government order. 3. In view of the statement of objections which contains the payments to each one of the writ petitioners, I find no good reason to direct consideration of the representation of the petitioner, since the same would be a futile exercise. What has been granted to the petitioners is entitlement in terms of the Government Order vide Annexure-A dated 25- 3-2003. The petitioners have been paid their entire entitlement. They are not entitled for any further payment from the Government. Consequently, the petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed." 9. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioners having availed the benefit in terms of the Government order at Annexure-A dated 25.03.2003 and the notice dated 26.03.2003 [Annexure-B], are not entitled for any further payment from the Government. 10. The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed.