JUDGMENT : Abhay S. Oka, J. This is one of the several cases we have come across where the Bangalore Development Authority (for short “BDA”) constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short, ‘BDA Act’) has illegally taken over possession of a private property belonging to the respondent without acquiring the same in accordance with law. 2. It will be necessary to make a brief reference to the factual controversy in the writ petition. The land subject matter of the writ petition filed by the respondent is site bearing No.19 which is more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the petition (hereafter referred to as ‘the schedule land’). The case made out in the writ petition filed by the respondent is simple. It is pleaded that BDA (the appellant herein) approached the respondent for taking over the said site for the purpose of formation of roads. The respondent agreed on the condition that there would be a valid acquisition proceedings and an area equivalent to 50% of the area of the land acquired will be given to him as a developed site. 3. On 7th February, 2002, BDA passed a resolution and resolved to allot 50% of the area in BSK VI Stage Layout to the respondent. The respondent pointed out that no acquisition proceedings were initiated and the matter was in limbo for quite some time. But BDA addressed a letter to the respondent offering an area of 31,613.15 sq. feet which is equivalent to 50% of the schedule land which was already utilized by BDA without acquisition. 4. Nothing happened thereafter till 6th October, 2008 when an endorsement was issued by BDA. The endorsement was for purportedly correcting an error in allocating/showing the site allotted to the respondent as an alternate site. Correspondence between the parties went on. Finally, on 26th October, 2014, the respondent addressed a letter to BDA requesting it to hand over 50% of the land as committed by BDA, or in the alternative, to acquire the entire schedule land. Though on 11th September, 2015, BDA passed another resolution reiterating its earlier resolution of allotting 50% of the area of the schedule land, the resolution was not implemented. Ultimately on 27th March, 2018, BDA passed a resolution wherein it was stated that instead of offering the agreed developed area of 31,500 sq. feet, only an area of 17,296 sq. Though on 11th September, 2015, BDA passed another resolution reiterating its earlier resolution of allotting 50% of the area of the schedule land, the resolution was not implemented. Ultimately on 27th March, 2018, BDA passed a resolution wherein it was stated that instead of offering the agreed developed area of 31,500 sq. feet, only an area of 17,296 sq. feet will be allotted to the respondent. 5. Finally, the respondent, by a letter dated 21st August, 2018, pointed out to BDA that an area of 31,600 sq. feet was demarcated by BDA in the year 2006. On 15th December, 2018, the respondent filed the writ petition, firstly seeking a writ of mandamus directing BDA to hand over vacant possession of the schedule land or in the alternative, for a writ of mandamus directing BDA to acquire the schedule land by taking recourse to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, “the said Act of 2013”). 6. A statement of objections was filed by BDA to the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the statement of objections, it was not disputed that the respondent was the owner of the schedule land. Reliance is placed on a Government Order dated 9th October, 2018 and it was contended that it is on the basis of the said Government Order that instead of allotting 50% of the developed land, an area measuring 17,296 sq. feet was offered by BDA to the respondent on account of utilizing the total land measuring 63,000 sq. feet. 7. By the impugned order dated 1st March, 2019, the learned Single Judge held that taking over possession of the schedule land without acquiring the same offends the legal right of the respondent under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge observed that without resorting to acquisition proceedings, BDA has misappropriated the private property of the respondent. By the impugned order dated 1st March, 2019, the learned Single Judge held that taking over possession of the schedule land without acquiring the same offends the legal right of the respondent under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge observed that without resorting to acquisition proceedings, BDA has misappropriated the private property of the respondent. The learned Single Judge further observed that although the said Act does not fall within the offences of ‘theft’ or ‘robbery’ as the subject involved is an immovable property, but it will amount to a ‘criminal trespass.’ The learned Single Judge recorded the admitted position that from the year 2002, the schedule land was being used for public purpose by BDA and there were two resolutions dated 7th February, 2002 and 11th September, 2015 passed by BDA, assuring the respondent to give 50% of developed land out of the total area. The learned Single Judge noted that despite such assurances noted in the aforesaid resolutions, by an order dated 27th March, 2018, BDA decided to offer only 17,296 sq. feet as compensation to the respondent. The learned Single Judge therefore observed that the act of BDA shocks the conscience of the Court, to say the least. 8. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus was issued by the learned Single Judge to BDA to provide to the respondent on ownership basis an area of 31,613 sq. feet of developed land in Banashankari VI Stage Layout by way of compensation on account of land lost by him due to unauthorized utilization by BDA. In the alternative, a direction was issued to provide developed land in another nearest layout equivalent to the market value of 31,613 sq. feet of developed land. In addition, the learned Single Judge directed BDA to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) per year for unauthorized deprivation of his land to be reckoned from 7th February, 2002 when the first resolution was passed by it. Another direction was issued to make an adverse entry in the service records of the erring officials of BDA responsible for such unauthorized utilization of the land after giving them an opportunity of being heard. It is this order which is the subject matter of a challenge in the writ appeal filed by BDA. 9. Another direction was issued to make an adverse entry in the service records of the erring officials of BDA responsible for such unauthorized utilization of the land after giving them an opportunity of being heard. It is this order which is the subject matter of a challenge in the writ appeal filed by BDA. 9. Cross-objections have been filed by the respondent (writ petitioner) seeking an order in terms of the substantive prayers made in the writ petition. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken us through the impugned judgment and order. His submission is that BDA has acted in terms of the Government Order dated 9th October, 2018. He pointed out that there were several resolutions passed applicable to allotment of alternate land, where BDA had utilized private properties without resorting to acquisition proceedings. Initially a resolution passed was for providing alternate land and thereafter, some resolutions were passed for giving 75% area and subsequent resolutions were made for providing 50% of developed land. He sought to rely upon various figures for justifying the action of BDA. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER .v. P. MANOHAR REDDY, Writ Appeal No.697/2018 decided on 12th September, 2019 . He submitted that the direction issued to allot an area of 31,613 sq. feet to the respondent is wholly illegal. He submitted that even the direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation by way of damages is illegal. 11. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that BDA never abided by its initial promise of giving 50% of developed land out of the total acquired area and therefore, a prayer was made in the writ petition for issuing a writ of mandamus to BDA to restore possession of the land or in the alternative, to initiate acquisition proceedings in respect of the schedule land in terms of the provisions of the said Act of 2013. He further submitted that as BDA has utilized the schedule land right from the year 2002 without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings and without payment of any compensation, the same has to be restored to the respondent. 12. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. 13. It is not in dispute that the schedule land having an area of 63,162 sq. 12. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. 13. It is not in dispute that the schedule land having an area of 63,162 sq. feet was taken over by BDA in the year 2002 without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings and without paying compensation to the respondent. The schedule land has been utilized by BDA for the formation of roads. There is no dispute about the ownership of the respondent in respect of the schedule land. 14. A resolution was passed by BDA in the year 2002 resolving to provide an alternate area equivalent to 50% of the schedule land. It is also an admitted position that BDA never abided by the said resolution of placing the respondent in possession of 50% of the area. Correspondence was repeatedly made by the respondent with BDA calling upon it to allot the land as assured by it. Instead of allotting the land as per the resolution of 2002, BDA passed a resolution on 27th March, 2018 resolving to allot a developed site to the extent of 17,296 sq. feet. 15. We must note here that after the appeal was argued on an earlier date, we had granted time to the learned counsel appearing for BDA to take instructions whether BDA is willing to allot the land as provided in the resolution Subject No.53/2002 dated 7th February, 2002 to the extent of 50% of the area of the schedule land. Yesterday, the learned counsel appearing for BDA stated that he has not received any instructions to agree to allot 50% of the land. 16. Thus, the scenario which emerges is, at one stage after taking over the valuable schedule land belonging to the respondent, BDA had agreed to allot a developed land having an area an equivalent to 50% of the schedule land. At that stage, in the year 2002, the respondent was willing to accept the same. However, for a period of sixteen years from the date on which the schedule land was taken over, an area equivalent to 50% of the land was never allotted. In fact, as on 11th September, 2015, the decision to allot 50% of the land was reiterated by BDA. It is only after a lapse of sixteen years, based on a Government Order, by a resolution dated 27th March, 2018, BDA decided to offer to the respondent only an area of 17,296 sq. In fact, as on 11th September, 2015, the decision to allot 50% of the land was reiterated by BDA. It is only after a lapse of sixteen years, based on a Government Order, by a resolution dated 27th March, 2018, BDA decided to offer to the respondent only an area of 17,296 sq. feet instead of 31,613 sq. feet which was agreed to be allotted in the year 2002. Naturally, the respondent who had lost his land without acquisition and who was deprived of payment of compensation for sixteen years, was fully justified in refusing to accept the lesser area which ultimately led to filing of the writ petition before the learned Single Judge. Even today, BDA is not willing to either take recourse to compulsory acquisition or to allot a developed land/site having an area equivalent to 50% of the acquired land. 17. We have already noted the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. With some justification, the learned Single Judge has recorded findings against BDA which are strongly worded. There is every justification for the learned Single Judge to have said what he has said in the judgment. Firstly, BDA which is a statutory authority under the BDA Act and which is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, took over the schedule land which is a private property of the respondent in the year 2002, without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings and without payment of any compensation. 18. In the year 2002, the respondent, out of compulsion, agreed to accept 50% of the area subject to the condition of BDA acquiring the schedule land. In fact, in the letter dated 7th January, 2002, the respondent had stated that he may be granted compensation by exchange of 50% of developed site out of the total area acquired by BDA. As stated earlier, the said request was accepted by BDA in the year 2002 by passing a resolution which was never acted upon. 19. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for BDA, from time to time, BDA passed resolutions offering 100%, 75%, 50% of the area of the acquired land in lieu of taking over of lands without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings. 19. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for BDA, from time to time, BDA passed resolutions offering 100%, 75%, 50% of the area of the acquired land in lieu of taking over of lands without taking recourse to acquisition proceedings. It is clear that BDA cannot be a judge in its own cause and decide the extent of compensation payable in respect of the land which it has taken over without resorting to acquisition proceedings. If BDA wants to take over the land without acquisition, it can be done only with the consent of the owner or a person having interest in the land after arriving at an agreement regarding payment of compensation. 20. We may note here that such an action on the part of BDA is in complete violation of the right of the respondent guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. In this regard, reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of LARA RAM & OTHERS .v. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER, [2016] 11 SCC 31. In paragraph 124 of the said decision, the Apex Court held thus: “124. The right to property though no longer a fundamental right is otherwise a zealous possession of which one cannot be divested save by the authority of law as is enjoined by Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Any callous inaction or apathy of the State and its instrumentalities, in securing just compensation would amount to dereliction of a constitutional duty, justifying issuance of writ of mandamus for appropriate remedial directions.” 21. It may also be useful to make a reference to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of BHIMANDAS AMBWANI (DEAD) THROUGH L.Rs. .v. DELHI POWER COMPANY LIMITED, [2013] 14 SCC 195. Paragraphs 12 to 14 of the said decision are material which read thus: “12. In view of the above, the Section 4 Notification dated 26-3-1983 and Declaration under Section 6 dated 13-5-1983 superseded all earlier notifications/declarations. However, no proceedings were taken in pursuance of the said notification/declaration issued in the year 1983 and after commencement of the Amendment Act 1987, the said notification/declaration made in the year 1983 stood elapsed as no award had been made within the period stipulated under the Act. However, no proceedings were taken in pursuance of the said notification/declaration issued in the year 1983 and after commencement of the Amendment Act 1987, the said notification/declaration made in the year 1983 stood elapsed as no award had been made within the period stipulated under the Act. Thus, there can be no sanctity to any of the acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents so far as the suit land is concerned, though the appellants stood dispossessed from his land in pursuance of the Notification under Section 4 dated 5-3-1963. Thus, we have no hesitation in making a declaration that the appellants had been dispossessed without resorting to any valid law providing for acquisition of land. The Court is shocked as the appellants had been dispossessed from the land during the period when right to property was a fundamental right under Articles 31-A and 19 of the Constitution of India and subsequently became a constitutional and human right under Article 300-A. 13. This Court dealt with a similar case in Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corpn. [ (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] and held: (SCC pp. 359 & 361, paras 11 & 17-18) “11. … There is a distinction, a 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 has been exercised. A 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 landowner as a ‘subject’ of medieval India, but not as a ‘citizen’ under our Constitution. 17. Depriving the appellants of their immovable properties was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but there is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such persons. 17. Depriving the appellants of their immovable properties was a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. In a welfare State, statutory authorities are bound, not only to pay adequate compensation, but there is also a legal obligation upon them to rehabilitate such persons. The non-fulfillment of their obligations would tantamount to forcing the said uprooted persons to become vagabonds or to indulge in anti-national activities as such sentiments would be born in them on account of such ill-treatment. Therefore, it is not permissible for any welfare State to uproot a person and deprive him of his fundamental/constitutional/human rights, under the garb of industrial development. 18. The appellants have been deprived of their legitimate dues for about half a century. In such a fact situation, we fail to understand for which class of citizens the Constitution provides guarantees and rights in this regard and what is the exact percentage of the citizens of this country, to whom constitutional/statutory benefits are accorded, in accordance with the law.” 14 [Ed.: Para 14 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No. F.3/Ed.B.J./19/2013 dated 14-3-2013.] . The instant case is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in Tukaram case [ (2013) 1 SCC 353 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 491] and thus, entitled for restoration of possession of the land in dispute. However, considering the fact that the possession of the land was taken over about half a century ago and stood completely developed as Ms Ahlawat, learned counsel has submitted that a full-fledged residential colony of the employees of DESU has been constructed thereon, therefore, it would be difficult for Respondent 1 to restore the possession. In such a fact situation, the only option left out to the respondents is to make the award treating Section 4 notification as, on this date i.e. 12-2-2013 and we direct the Land Acquisition Collector to make the award after hearing the parties within a period of four months from today. For that purpose, the parties are directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector c/o the Deputy Commissioner, South M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi on 26-2-2013. The appellants are at liberty to file a reference under Section 18 of the Act and to pursue the remedies available to him under the Act. For that purpose, the parties are directed to appear before the Land Acquisition Collector c/o the Deputy Commissioner, South M.B. Road, Saket, New Delhi on 26-2-2013. The appellants are at liberty to file a reference under Section 18 of the Act and to pursue the remedies available to him under the Act. Needless to say that the appellants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits.” (Emphasis added) Thus, the scenario which emerges is, though the schedule land which is admittedly owned by the respondent to the extent of an area of more than 63,000 sq. feet which is a very valuable property, was taken over by BDA in the year 2012 without recourse to acquisition proceedings and without paying even a single pie by way of compensation till date. BDA has utilized the said land and even till the end of the year 2019, no compensation has been paid to the respondent. 22. In the writ petition filed by the respondent where it was demonstrated that BDA has not acted as per its promise in the year 2002 to allot 50% of the area by way of compensation, there was a prayer for restoration of the land and in the alternative, to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the said Act of 2013. The learned Single Judge took a charitable view and instead of directing BDA to hand over the vacant possession of the schedule land, directed BDA to allot 31,613 sq. feet of developed land to the respondent. The respondent was happy in the year 2012 to accept the area of 31,613 sq. feet by way of compensation. But in 2019, he cannot be forced to accept it by way of compensation. Perhaps, the learned Single Judge was impressed by the fact that in the year 2002, BDA had offered to allot 50% of the land and that the respondent had agreed to accept the same. If the approach of BDA was fair enough, it would not have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has taken a charitable view of the gross illegality committed by BDA and directed BDA to allot 31,613 sq. feet of developed land to the respondent. If the approach of BDA was fair enough, it would not have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has taken a charitable view of the gross illegality committed by BDA and directed BDA to allot 31,613 sq. feet of developed land to the respondent. The fact that even such order has been challenged by BDA shows that it is neither willing to acquire the schedule land in accordance with law nor is willing to allot the developed land to the extent agreed in the year 2002. Therefore, the respondent has filed cross objections praying for the grant of relief as prayed for in the writ petition. In the Cross-objections filed by the respondent, naturally the prayer is that reliefs sought in the writ petition be granted. 23. Thus, this is a clear case of gross violation of the right of the respondent guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the conduct of BDA shows gross arbitrariness which violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, after noticing that the respondent has been deprived of such a large extent of land from the year 2002 without paying any compensation, the only course open for this Court is to direct restoration of the schedule land to the respondent. However, as it is the claim of BDA that the schedule land is already utilized for public purposes, we propose to direct that the order directing restoration of possession will not be acted upon if proceedings for compulsory acquisition are initiated within the time fixed by this Court, with a rider that if BDA or the State Government fail to complete the acquisition process and to make payment of compensation to the respondent within a reasonable time, a fresh petition can be filed by the respondent for seeking possession. 24. There is one more prayer made in the writ petition filed by the respondent. That is regarding grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores only) on account of illegal utilization of the schedule land from 2002 onwards by BDA. The learned Single Judge has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.1, 00,000/- per year from 7th February, 2002. 25. There is one more prayer made in the writ petition filed by the respondent. That is regarding grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees five crores only) on account of illegal utilization of the schedule land from 2002 onwards by BDA. The learned Single Judge has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.1, 00,000/- per year from 7th February, 2002. 25. Even if BDA initiates acquisition proceedings starting with the publication of preliminary notification under Section 11 of the said Act of 2013, as per the provisions of Section 26 (1) (a) thereof, the respondent will be entitled to the market value of the land on the date on which such notification is issued under Section 11. The respondent will not get compensation under the said Act of 2013 on account of illegal deprivation of the property from the year 2002 onwards. The law on this aspect has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of R.L.JAIN (DEAD BY L.Rs.) .v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS, [2004] 4 SCC 79. Paragraphs 17 and 18 are material which read thus: “17. Shri Dave, learned counsel for the appellant has also placed strong reliance on Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh [ AIR 1961 SC 908 ] wherein the question of payment of interest in the matter of award of compensation was considered by this Court. In this case the initial notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the proceedings for acquisition were completed under East Punjab Act 48 of 1948. The High Court negatived the claim for interest on the ground that the 1948 Act made no provision for award of interest. After quoting with approval the following observations of the Privy Council in Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. The High Court negatived the claim for interest on the ground that the 1948 Act made no provision for award of interest. After quoting with approval the following observations of the Privy Council in Inglewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. v. New Brunswick Electric Power Commission [ AIR 1928 PC 287 ] “upon the expropriation of land under statutory power, whether for the purpose of private gain or of good to the public at large, the owner is entitled to interest upon the principal sum awarded from the date when possession was taken, unless the statute clearly shows a contrary intention” The Bench held as under: “… when a claim for payment of interest is made by a person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily he is not making claim for damages properly or technically so-called; he is basing his claim on the general rule that if he is deprived of his land he should be put in possession of compensation immediately; if not, in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition interest should be paid to him on the said amount of compensation”. 17.1. The normal rule, therefore, is that if on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith he would be entitled to interest thereon from the date of dispossession till the date of payment thereof. But here the land has been acquired only after the preliminary notification was issued on 9-9-1992 as earlier acquisition proceedings were declared to be null and void in the suit instituted by the landowner himself and consequently, he was not entitled to compensation or interest thereon for the anterior period. 18. In a case where the landowner is dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Act the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the landowner. It is fully open for the landowner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. It is fully open for the landowner to recover the possession of his land by taking appropriate legal proceedings. He is therefore only entitled to get rent or damages for use and occupation for the period the Government retains possession of the property. Where possession is taken prior to the issuance of the preliminary notification, in our opinion, it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. The provisions of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded.” (Emphasis added) Hence, the Apex Court held that in such a case, the owner is entitled to rent or damages for the use of the acquired land prior to the date of publication of the preliminary notification. 26. Useful reference will have to be made to another decision of the Apex Court in the case of MADISHETTI BALA RAMUL (DEAD) BY L.Rs. .v. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, [2007] 9 SCC 650. This was a case where the possession of the land notified for acquisition was taken over on the basis of such notification which was not acted upon. Therefore, another notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. It was a case where, considering these facts, the Apex Court remanded the case to the Collector to determine the amount of compensation to which the appellants would be entitled to for the period for which they were out of possession. In fact, additional interest at the rate of 15% p.a. on the amount awarded under Section 11 of the said Act was ordered to be paid from the date of dispossession. 27. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that in case BDA takes recourse to acquisition proceedings under the said Act of 2013, the respondent will have to be compensated for the period from 7th February, 2002 till the date on which the notification under Section 11 of the said Act of 2013 will be issued. Therefore, the direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per year will have to be set aside as there is no basis for the said amount. 28. Therefore, the direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per year will have to be set aside as there is no basis for the said amount. 28. In the event the respondent gets possession of the schedule land, there will not be any necessity of directing payment of compensation, as the respondent will get back his valuable property. We are taking this view as we are exercising the discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 29. This is not the only case which has come before this Court where BDA has taken over valuable properties without taking recourse to compulsory acquisition and without payment of compensation. There are many cases where BDA has made the owner run from pillar to post for securing compensation. Therefore, this is a fit case where BDA should be penalized by directing payment of the costs quantified at Rs.1, 00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) payable to the respondent. 30. There are many cases where BDA has made the owner run from pillar to post for securing compensation. Therefore, this is a fit case where BDA should be penalized by directing payment of the costs quantified at Rs.1, 00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) payable to the respondent. 30. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeal and Cross-objections by passing the following order: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 1st March, 2019 is modified; (ii) We direct the appellant-BDA to place the respondent in vacant and peaceful possession of the schedule land more particularly described in paragraph 1 of the writ petition within a period of three months from the date on which a copy of the judgment is made available on the official website of this Court; (iii) Notwithstanding the above directions, it will be always open for BDA to take recourse to acquisition proceedings under the said Act of 2013 by ensuring that a preliminary notification under Section 11 of the said Act of 2013 is issued within the aforesaid period of three months; (iv) If such a notification is issued within the aforesaid period of three months, the direction issued to place the respondent in possession of the schedule land will become inoperative, provided the acquisition proceedings are completed and compensation is paid within a reasonable time; (v) In the event the acquisition proceedings are not completed and compensation is not paid within a reasonable time, we grant liberty to the respondent to file a fresh petition seeking possession of the schedule land; (vi) As held in the case of R.L.JAIN (supra), we direct an officer of the Government of Karnataka exercising the power of a Collector under the said Act of 2013 to determine the compensation/rent payable to the respondent from 7th February, 2002 till the date of publication of the notification under Section 11 of the said Act of 2013. The same shall be paid along with the compensation payable under the said Act of 2013; (vii) We make it clear that in the event the respondent is placed in possession of the schedule land in terms of the aforesaid direction, he will not be entitled to compensation as directed above; (viii) We direct the appellant-BDA to pay the costs quantified at Rs.1, 00,000/-(rupees one lakh only) to the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date on which a copy of the judgment is made available no the website of this Court; (ix) The appeal and cross objections are disposed of on the above terms.