JUDGMENT : KRISHNA S.DIXIT, J. 1. Petitioner, a senior citizen is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court complaining against a callous and grossly culpable act of the respondent BDA in un-authorizedly and high handedly appropriating his land ad measuring 63162 Sq. Ft. in site No.19 of Jettagararahalli Village, Hemmigepura Grama, Kengeri Hobli, Banashankari 6th Stage, Bengaluru, without any acquisition process. 2. The respondent BDA after service of notice, has entered appearance and filed a Statement of Objections has specifically admitted at Para No.5 thereof that it has "utilized petitioner's land ad measuring 63000 Sq. Ft. for the formation of roads, parks and sites without acquiring the said lands" for the purpose of Banashankari 6th Stage Layout. In the Statement of Objections at para No.7 the respondent BDA states that it would give 50% of the developed land i.e., 17296 Sq. Ft. to the petitioner in terms of Government Order dated 09.10.2018 in the same layout subject to availability or in the alternative, in some other layout. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that utilization of citizen's land by the respondent BDA, a statutory authority sans acquisition according to law is nothing but robbery of the citizen and despite repeated request, not paying the compensation is grossly violative of petitioner's constitutional Right to property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The violation is aggravated because of enormous delay of about 16 years in not giving the recompense to the citizen that too without any justification whatsoever and therefore, a direction be issued to the respondent BDA to restore the land and further, to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rupees Five Crore for illegal utilization of the petition land for decades without paying one single rupee till date. He also brought to the notice of Court certain assurances given by the BDA by passing the Resolutions for giving 50% of the utilized land to the petitioner. 4. The learned Panel Counsel for the respondent BDA having made vociferous arguments opposing the claim of the petitioner for some time, later submitted that the BDA would give to the petitioner 50% of the developed land which works out to 63000 Sq. Ft. 4. The learned Panel Counsel for the respondent BDA having made vociferous arguments opposing the claim of the petitioner for some time, later submitted that the BDA would give to the petitioner 50% of the developed land which works out to 63000 Sq. Ft. preferably in the same layout on availability, and in the alternative, in some other layout of petitioner's choice, in terms of Policy Decision of the Government of Karnataka dated 09.10.2018 at Annexure-R1 and BDA Office Order dated 10.10.2018 at Annexure-R2. However, he opposed grant of any other relief to the petitioner contending that the land is used for public purpose. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Panel Counsel for the respondent BDA. I have perused the Writ Petition Papers and also the Statement of Objections. 6. The fact that petitioner's land in all, ad measuring 63162 Sq. Ft. in prime area of Bengaluru City has been utilized by the respondent BDA for the formation of Banashankari 6th Stage Layout way back in the year 2002 without resorting to lawful acquisition process is admitted by the respondent BDA; there is no dispute that the BDA vide Resolution dated 07.02.2002 (Subject No. 53/02) had a greed to give 50% of the sital area; BDA vide Endorsement dated 10.04.2006 had identified as many as eight sites in all ad measuring 31613.50 Sq. Ft. 7. The petitioner vide representations dated 07.06.2012, 22.04.2013, 14.06.2013 & 26.12.2014 at Annexures F, G, H & J respectively has been repeatedly requesting the BDA to grant him the sites in terms of the 2002 Resolution mentioned above and in the alternative to pay him the compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Act, 2013. He has also grieved in the subsequent representations as well against the criminal brooking of delay. 8. The respondent BDA vide Resolution dated 11.09.2015 (Subject No. 104/15) had reiterated its stand to give the petitioner 50% of the sital area in terms of aforesaid Resolution dated 07.02.2002. This Resolution too has not been implemented despite repeated request of the petitioner vide representations dated 18.06.2017 & 15.03.2018 at Annexures L & M respectively. 9. 8. The respondent BDA vide Resolution dated 11.09.2015 (Subject No. 104/15) had reiterated its stand to give the petitioner 50% of the sital area in terms of aforesaid Resolution dated 07.02.2002. This Resolution too has not been implemented despite repeated request of the petitioner vide representations dated 18.06.2017 & 15.03.2018 at Annexures L & M respectively. 9. Strangely, instead of taking steps for the implementation of the Resolution dated 07.02.2002 as reiterated in the Resolution dated 11.09.2015, the respondent BDA has turned around and passed another Resolution dated 27.03.2018 vide Subject No.91/2018 at Annexure-N to the effect that in view of the Government Order dated 15.04.2016, it is not possible to give 50% of the sital area i.e., 31500 Sq. Ft. and therefore, petitioner would be granted 50% of the developed area which approximately comes to 17296 Sq. Ft. qua the utilized area of 63000 Sq. Ft. This is on the yardstick of the Government that for unauthorized utilization of private property of the citizen, he would be given 11959 Sq. Ft. of developed area per acre of land. Even this too has not been done. However, petitioner who has suffered at the hands of the bureaucracy of the BDA is justifiably not agreeable to this unconscionable proposal. 10. Jeremy Bentham, an acclaimed Jurist of yester centuries in his 'Theory of Legislation & Morals' stresses the importance of institution of property as a precondition for social order by stating: "The savage who has killed a deer may hope to keep it for himself, so long as his cave is undiscovered; so long as he watches to defend it, and is stronger than his rival; but that is all. How miserable and precarious is such a possession! If we suppose the least agreement among savages to respect the acquisitions of each other, we see the introduction of a principle to which no name can be given but that of law. " The institution of private property is also at the focal point of our constitutional jurisprudence, the Fundamental Right to Property having been relegated to a lesser status of a Constitutional Right, notwithstanding. 11. Forcible or non-consensual taking away of private property by the State or its instrumentalities, sans lawful acquisition process offends the pith and substance of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection of private property from the State interference, subject to exceptional. 11. Forcible or non-consensual taking away of private property by the State or its instrumentalities, sans lawful acquisition process offends the pith and substance of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection of private property from the State interference, subject to exceptional. In such circumstances State and its instrumentalities cannot be heard to say that the private property usurped is put to public use, although without legal process. An argument to the contrary offends rule of law which is recognized by the Apex Court as a basic feature of the Constitution. This apart, the stand taken up by the State or its instrumentalities seeking to justify the usurpation of private property on the ground of its being used for public purpose, if accepted would rob of the glamour and efficacy of public law as a deliverance and thereby law will lose gradually its great mission and its sense of adventure of doing justice. The right thinking members of the Society should not feel that they are living in an age of Eclipse of Law. 12. In the instant case admittedly, the property of the petitioner has been utilized by the respondent-BDA which is a statutory authority having been established by the provisions of B.D.A. Act, 1976. It undoubtedly answers the inclusive definition of 'State' given under Article 12 of the Constitution. The BDA Act provides for acquisition of private property. Without resorting to the acquisition process as provided under the said Act, the respondent-BDA has misappropriated the property of the petitioner, although such act does not fall within the Macaulayin idea of 'theft' or 'robbery' merely because the subject involved is immovable. But atleast it is a criminal trespass, if not anything more. 13. The property admittedly is utilized in the year 2002 arguably for the public purpose; the BDA vide Resolution dated 07.02.2002 and reiterated on 11.09.2015 had promised/assured the citizen-petitioner of giving 50% of the sital area (not of developed area) to which proposal the petitioner, with no joy in heart, had inevitably agreed as can be construed by his repeated representations. Nothing had come in their way to keep up the said promise, made more than decade and a half, ago. Nothing had come in their way to keep up the said promise, made more than decade and a half, ago. Now BDA cannot be permitted to go back from its assurance/representation held out to the petitioner, merely because now the Government has come out with some guidelines, which are not shown to be binding or applicable. A Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs. INDO-AFGHAN AGENCIES LTD, (1968) AIR SC 718 at para 35 has observed as under: "35. Under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex parte appraisement of the circumstances in which the obligation has arisen. " 14. The BDA having passed a subsequent resolution on 27.03.2018 had decided to give the petitioner an area of 17,296 sq.ft. as compensation for the utilized land of more than 63,000 sq.ft., cannot turn around and disown its assurance, that too at this length of time when the property prices in Bengaluru have gone up sky high. The reliance by BDA on the Government Letter dated 09.10.2018 at Annexure-R1 to resist the writ petition is misplaced. This letter is not a Government Order laying down a binding rule of conduct by force of law. Secondly, the Government Order dated 15.04.2016 referred to in the latest Resolution cannot take away the binding effect of the promise/assurance given to the petitioner way back in February 2002 and reiterated in September 2015, both by way of lawful resolutions passed long before the issuance of the said Government Order. Countenancing the contention of the respondent-BDA that petitioner's property admeasuring 63,000 sq.ft. is utilized for public purpose and in terms of the aforesaid Government Order the petitioner would be given only 50% of the developed area only as against the assured extent of 50% of all the land taken, that too after a long lapse of 17 years virtually amounts to placing premium on illegality and rewarding the incongruity. 15. is utilized for public purpose and in terms of the aforesaid Government Order the petitioner would be given only 50% of the developed area only as against the assured extent of 50% of all the land taken, that too after a long lapse of 17 years virtually amounts to placing premium on illegality and rewarding the incongruity. 15. This incongruity on the part of the respondent- BDA is compounded inasmuch the assurance to give the now reduced extent of 11,979 sq.ft., is subject to the approval of the Government and that this land would be given either in the very same layout or in a layout to be formed in future. It is pertinent to mention that there is no assurance as to the time frame within which, (a) the Government would accord approval, if at all it decides to accord, and (b) the land would be given after such approval. Thus the predicament of the petitioner, a senior citizen is marked by its enormity and for all this none other than the BDA is responsible. The conduct of the respondent-BDA shakes the conscience of the Court, to say the least. 16. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a Writ of Mandamus issues to the respondent- BDA: (i) to give to the petitioner on ownership and possession basis, an area of 31,613 sq.ft. (Thirty one thousand six hundred and thirteen) of developed land in the Banashankari VI Stage Layout, by way of re-compense for the land lost by him for the unauthorized utilization by the BDA; (ii) in the alternative to give to the petitioner such extent of the developed land in any other nearest layout, as would approximate to the market value of 31,613 sq.ft. of developed land in the Banashankari VI Stage Layout, subject to value adjustment; and (iii) the above apart, to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh) only by way of damages, for each year of unauthorized deprivation of his land measuring 63000 sq.ft. of developed land in the Banashankari VI Stage Layout, subject to value adjustment; and (iii) the above apart, to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh) only by way of damages, for each year of unauthorized deprivation of his land measuring 63000 sq.ft. and deferment of assured recompense for all these years, to be reckoned from 07.02.2002 ie., the first Resolution of the BDA aforementioned till land as above directed is given to him; the said amount after payment to the petitioner, shall be recovered from the erring officials of the BDA as are responsible for the unauthorized utilization of the land and for inordinately delaying/deferring the grant of recompense to the petitioner despite BDA Resolution dated 07.02.2002 (vide Subject No.53/02); further an adverse entry shall be made in the Service Registers of such erring officials after giving an opportunity of hearing. Compliance within eight weeks.