JUDGMENT : P.S.Dinesh Kumar, J. Bengaluru Development Authority has presented this petition challenging order dated 4th October 2017 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.No.34145/2016 (LA-BDA). 2. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status in the writ petition. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, writ petitioner has filed the instant writ petition contending inter alia that BDA has utilized his land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy. No.68 situated in Banasawadi village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk for formation of outer ring road and that he is entitled for land equivalent to 100% area of land lost by him. However, BDA has resolved to allot only 75%. Accordingly, petitioner sought a writ of mandamus and to direct the BDA to allot land equivalent to 100% of the area of land utilized by the BDA and other reliefs which read as follows: "WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to' 1. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st Respondent -the Commissioner, B.D.A., T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore 560 020, to consider the request of the Petitioner and to allot 100% of the alternate developed land / developed sites in favour of the Petitioner, in lieu of utilization of his land bearing Sy.No.68, measuring 1 Acre 05 Guntas, situated at Banasavadi Village, K.r.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore. 2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st Respondent the Commissioner, B.D.A., T.Chowdaiah Road, Kumara Park West, Bangalore 560 020 to consider the Representation dt.20.06.2007 produced at Annexure-A and allot alternate developed land / developed sites to the Petitioner, as prayed in the said Representation. 3. Issue a Writ Mandamus, directing the Respondents to allot alternate developed land / developed sites to the Petitioner, as the Respondents have utilized totally,1 Acre 05 Guntas of land in Sy. No.68 situated at Banasavadi Village, K.r.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore, as was given in favour of one Sri.Mirle Varadaraju, as per the Order dt.16.09.2014 in W.P.No.46259/2013 (LA-BDA) passed by this Hon'ble Court, which is mentioned as per the Notice of B.D.A. dt.18.09.2015 produced at Annexure-g to the Writ Petition. 4. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to award special damages to the Petitioner for 20 years, as they utilized the land of the Petitioner in the year 1997 that too without any acquisition proceedings. 5. 4. Issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to award special damages to the Petitioner for 20 years, as they utilized the land of the Petitioner in the year 1997 that too without any acquisition proceedings. 5. Pass such other orders, as the Petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the proceedings, in the interest of the justice and equity." 4. Petition was contested by the BDA by filing statement of objections. 5. The Hon'ble Single Judge by the impugned order has directed the BDA to allot equal extent of land having equal potentiality. It is further directed, that, should BDA were unable to allot alternate land, it shall notify the land in question, complete acquisition proceedings within a month and pay compensation as per provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,2013. Feeling aggrieved, BDA has presented this writ appeal. 6. Shri.G.S. Kannur, learned Senior Advocate for the BDA contended; that the direction by Hon'ble Single Judge to allot equal extent of land having equal potentiality is unsustainable in law; that BDA acquires lands and develops layouts. While developing,45% of the land will be utilized for the purpose of civic amenity etc. (10% is utilized for civic amenity sites,20% for roads and 15% for parks and open spaces). Thus only 55% of the acquired land shall be available for sale; that while developing one acre of land which measures 43,560 sq. ft.,6 sites measuring 50' x 80' or 10 sites measuring 60' x 40' or 20 sites measuring 30' x 40' can be formed. Approximate cost towards formation of road, park etc., works out to about Rs.60,00,000/-. In addition, BDA has to spend about Rs.60,00,000/- towards deposits and other expenditure to be made to BWSSB and BESCOM for water supply and electricity; that so far as petitioner's land measuring 1 acre 5 guntas is concerned, BDA utilized the same for formation of outer ring road in the year 1996. Value of the land during 1996-97 was Rs.70,875/-, at which price BDA acquired lands at that time for NGEF Layout; that petitioner, in his representation, requested for allotment of 50% of the land lost by him. Value of the land during 1996-97 was Rs.70,875/-, at which price BDA acquired lands at that time for NGEF Layout; that petitioner, in his representation, requested for allotment of 50% of the land lost by him. However, in the writ petition, petitioner has sought land equivalent to 100% of the land utilized; that valuation of land belonging to the petitioner as per 2017-18 guidelines works out to Rs.5,51,25,000/-; that petitioner has been allotted with following sites: (a) Site No.473 18X12 - (60X40 =2400 sq. ft = 216 Sq. mts) @ rate of Rs.65,120/- per Sq. mts. Rs.1,40,65,920/- (b) Site No.479 18X12 - (60X40 =2400 sq. ft = 216 Sq. mts) @ rate of Rs.65,120/- per Sq. mts. Rs.1,40,65,920/- (c) Site No.470 18X12 - (60X40 =2400 sq. ft = 216 Sq. mts) @ rate of Rs.65,120/- per Sq. mts. Rs.1,40,65,920/- (d) Site No.481 18X12 - (60X40 =2400 sq. ft = 216 Sq. mts) @ rate of Rs.65,120/- per Sq. mts. Rs.1,40,65,920/- (e) Site No.261 15.23 X 24.38 - (50X80 = 4000 sq. ft = 371.307Sq. mts) @ rate of Rs.59,200/- per Sq. mts. Rs.2,19,81,375/- Total value of the above mentioned 5 sites = Rs.7,82,45,055/- 7. The cumulative value of above sites is Rs.7,82,45,055/- which is far in excess of the value of petitioner's land as per 2017-18 guidelines. 8. Shri.Kannur argued that petitioner has been allotted sites whose value is much more than the current value of petitioner's land utilized by the BDA. Therefore, the directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge are unsustainable in law. Amplifying this submission, he urged that petitioners' principal argument is, BDA is treating petitioners in a discriminatory manner vis-a-vis persons who are similarly situated. He submitted that, BDA has allotted sites equivalent to the value of land lost as per market value and also given monetary damages in some cases in compliance with directions issued by this Court in various writ petitions and writ appeals. He argued that even if some other land losers have been allotted equal area of land pursuant to directions of Court, the same principle cannot be applied as ratio decidendi in this case. 9. Shri. Kannur submitted that there can be no dispute that a land loser must get 'just' and 'appropriate' compensation. Placing reliance on Basavaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (4) SCC 81 he urged that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality. 9. Shri. Kannur submitted that there can be no dispute that a land loser must get 'just' and 'appropriate' compensation. Placing reliance on Basavaraj and another Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 2013 (4) SCC 81 he urged that Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality. He also relied upon Vishal Properties Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2007) 11 SCC 172 in support of his contentions. 10. Opposing the writ appeal, Shri Vijaya Shankar, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner submitted as follows: that writ petitioner was illegally deprived of his property which was situated within the BBMP limits by laying road in the said property in the year 1988; that the Hon'ble Single Judge has recorded in paragraph No.5 of the order that the Commissioner, BDA was present on 12.07.2017 before the Court and assured that necessary action would be taken to redress petitioner's grievance; the Land Acquisition Officer has filed a memo before this Court on 24.07.2017 stating that the value of the land was Rs.5,51,25,000/- on the said date and it would be paid to the petitioner or in the alternative petitioner would be allotted developed sites equivalent to the said sum. Petitioner did not accept the said offer as the value of the land as on that date was Rs.97,630 per sq.mtr. ; that as undertaken in the Memo dated 24.07.2017, the BDA is duty bound to allot sites. The rule of deduction of area required for development of layout is not applicable in petitioner's case, because this is not a case of acquisition of large extent of land; that denial of compensation to the petitioner as determined by this Court in identical cases is discriminatory in nature and therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and that in a similar case, by resolution dated 23.03.1998 (Subject No.49/1998), the BDA has decided to allot 30 guntas of acquired land in Sy.No.88 of Nagavara Village as compensation for deprivation of 30 guntas of land by the land owner in Sy.No.85/7 on exchange basis. Petitioner's case is identical to that case and therefore, petitioner is also entitled for equal area of land lost by him. 11. Thus, in substance, Shri Vijaya Shankar urged that BDA has allotted equivalent area of land to the land losers in several cases. Petitioner's case is identical to that case and therefore, petitioner is also entitled for equal area of land lost by him. 11. Thus, in substance, Shri Vijaya Shankar urged that BDA has allotted equivalent area of land to the land losers in several cases. Therefore, on the rule of parity, petitioner is also entitled for equivalent area of land lost by him. While summing up his argument, he prayed for dismissal of this writ petition and sought for a direction to the BDA to convey title with respect to balance 2666 sq. mtrs. in the form of developed sites. 12. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 13. Petitioner's principal contention is that, he is entitled for allotment of developed sites equivalent to the area of the land lost by him. 14. It cannot be gainsaid that petitioner is not entitled for 'just' and 'appropriate' compensation for the land utilized by the BDA. The main ground urged by Shri. Kannur is that, if some land owners have received compensation more than the value of the land either in the form of monetary compensation or allotment of developed sites under the orders of the Court, the same shall not enure to petitioner's benefit inasmuch as there is no equality in illegality. 15. The claim of writ petitioner that the benefit which flowed from various orders of this Court to different land losers must be extended to the petitioner also, cannot be countenanced. We say so because a litigant cannot cry foul of unequal treatment or discrimination based on inter-party judgments in which some land losers may have been benefited more than their entitlement. 16. In the case of Vishal Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of U.P. it is held as follows: "13. Even otherwise, Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate an illegality. It provides for positive equality and not negative equality. Therefore, we are not bound to direct any authority to repeat the wrong action done by it earlier. In Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India, (2005) 3 SCC 16 this Court rejected such a contention as sought to be advanced in the present case by observing: (SCC pp. 28-29, para 36) "36. Only because some advantages would ensue to the people in general by reason of the proposed development, the same would not mean that the ecology of the place would be sacrificed. 28-29, para 36) "36. Only because some advantages would ensue to the people in general by reason of the proposed development, the same would not mean that the ecology of the place would be sacrificed. Only because some encroachments have been made and unauthorised buildings have been constructed, the same by itself cannot be a good ground for allowing other constructional activities to come up which would be in violation of the provisions of the Act. Illegal encroachments, if any, may be removed in accordance with law. It is trite law that there is no equality in illegality." 17. In the case of Basavaraj Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows: "8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a Judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide: Chandigarh Administration & Anr. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., (1995) AIR SC 705, M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2005) AIR SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. & Ors., (2006) AIR SC 898; and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) AIR SC 1937)." (Emphasis supplied) 18. In the case of Mohd. Yusuf and others etc. Vs. v. Jagjit Singh & Anr., (1995) AIR SC 705, M/s. Anand Button Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2005) AIR SC 565; K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. & Ors., (2006) AIR SC 898; and Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, (2010) AIR SC 1937)." (Emphasis supplied) 18. In the case of Mohd. Yusuf and others etc. Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2018) 16 SCC 105 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that no hypothetical view should be taken while awarding compensation. The relevant passage reads as follows: "14. In a catena of cases, this Court has held that compensation should be adequate and there must be no injustice with the land owners since they stand deprived from their very vital right i.e., Right to Property. At the same time, it is also to be kept in mind that no hypothetical view shall be taken as it may be harmful to the public exchequer in case of acquisition for public purposes. Hence, courts must maintain balance between both the parties. (Emphasis supplied) 19. We have also considered Shri.Kannur's submission with regard to cost incurred in development of land by the BDA. As per the calculation furnished before this Court, BDA would be able to sell only 55% of the land it acquires. Therefore, it would be incongruous to hold that petitioner shall be entitled to 'developed sites' equivalent to 100% of the area of land lost by him. 20. Thus, in view of settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that petitioner's prayer for grant of equal area of developed land does not merit any consideration. 21. Shri.Kannur, in the course of his submissions, has brought to the notice of this Court that the valuation of the land lost by the petitioner as per 2017-18 guidelines was Rs.5,51,25,000/- and the cumulative value of the sites allotted to the writ petitioners is Rs.7,82,45,055/-. 22. In paragraph No.4 of the Statement of objections dated 6th March 2018 filed on behalf of the BDA it is stated thus: 4. 22. In paragraph No.4 of the Statement of objections dated 6th March 2018 filed on behalf of the BDA it is stated thus: 4. It is submitted that, the appellant herein has allotted sites for the tune of 30% against to 100% of land during pendency of the writ petition after collecting the charges from the respondent herein details of the allotment is as follows : Sl No Allotment Particulars Date 1 NO.BDA/DS-4/H.B.R/1-4/472/2017-18 21.08.2017 2 NO.BDA/DS-4/H.B.R/1/Sy.No.261/2017-18 21.08.2017 3 NO.BDA/DS-4/H.B.R/1-4/481/2017-18 21.08.2017 4 NO.BDA/DS-4/H.B.R/1-4/480/2017-18 21.08.2017 5 NO.BDA/DS-4/H.B.R/1-4/479/2017-18 21.08.2017 6 NO.BDA/DS-4/H.B.R/1-4/475/2017-18 21.08.2017 7 NO.BDA/DS-4/H.B.R/1-4/474/2017-18 21.08.2017 8 NO.BDA/DS-4/H.B.R/1-4/473/2017-18 21.08.2017 23. On 13th February 2019 BDA has filed a detailed calculation with regard to the valuation of the land and the valuation of site already allotted to the writ petitioner and it reads as follows: The award value of the land of the Petitioner is Rs.7,94,270/- (a) Basic Value of the 1 acre 5 Guntas = Rs.70,875/- (b) 30% solatium = Rs.21,263/- (c) 12% additional value from 1984-96 = Rs.1,02,060/- (d) Total value of (a+b+c) = Rs.1,94,198/- (e) Interest from the date of taking possession from 1996-2017 I. 9% for 1st one year = Rs.17,478/- II. 15% for remaining period = Rs.5,82,594/- The grand total of (d+e) is Rs.7,94,270/- 24. Further, Shri.Kannur is right in his submission that petitioner in his representation dated 31st October 2015 addressed to the Secretary, BDA, (produced as Annexure R5 to the Statement of Objections filed by the BDA in the writ petition) has requested for grant of land equivalent to 50% of the area of land lost by him. It is relevant to note that in his representation, petitioner has made a reference to the opinion tendered by BDA's Law Officer. Thus, petitioner was in knowledge of the scheme, the legal opinion on the subject and made a conscious request for allotment of sites equivalent to 50% of the area lost by him. It is BDA's specific case as pleaded in paragraph No.9 of Statement of objections that petitioner has suppressed this material fact. 25. Thus, petitioner's request was for allotment of sites equivalent to 50% of the area. Having thus sought, petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. 26. It is BDA's specific case as pleaded in paragraph No.9 of Statement of objections that petitioner has suppressed this material fact. 25. Thus, petitioner's request was for allotment of sites equivalent to 50% of the area. Having thus sought, petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. 26. The conspectus of facts of this case reveal that BDA offered to allot sites and it is admitted by the writ petitioner that the sites mentioned in the Statement of objections dated 6th March 2018 extracted above were allotted. The contention urged on behalf of the BDA is that the value of sites bearing No.261,473,479,480 and 481 cumulatively work out to Rs.7,82,45,055/-. But the said valuation is not accepted by the writ petitioner. Thus parties are at variance with regard to the valuation of the land. 27. The first and the second prayers made in the writ petition are for consideration of petitioner's request to allot 100% area of alternate developed land or site. The third prayer is for a direction to the BDA to allot developed sites as given in the case of petitioner in W.P. No.46259/2013. The fourth prayer is for awarding special damages. Analysis of the prayers show that petitioner has, in substance, prayed for developed sites totally measuring 1 acre 05 guntas and damages. 28. In view of the factual matrix of this case discussed by us and the law laid down by the Apex Court noted above, we are of the view that the writ petition does not merit consideration and therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following: ORDER (a) Appeal is allowed; (b) The order dated 4th October 2017 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P. No.34145/2016 is set-aside; (c) Writ petition No.34145/2016 is dismissed; (d) Petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate his rights with regard to the valuation of the sites bearing No.261,473,479,480 and 481 and seek appropriate relief before appropriate forum. No costs.