ORDER : The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 01-09-2014 issued by the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’ for short) declining to accept the claim of the petitioner that she is entitled to Transferable Development Rights (‘TDR’ for short) in lieu of what was claimed to be her property and sought a consequential direction to the BBMP to restore the property of the petitioner to its original condition apart from formation of roads and drainage by the BBMP. 2. Heard Sri Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows :- The petitioner claims to be the owner of certain extent of lands in Sy.Nos.34/1 and 48 of Devarajeevanahalli, Ward No.47, Bangalore. It is her claim that the lands initially belonged to her father Mr. Munimarappa who died in the year 1984. A suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the members of the family of Mr. Munimarappa in O.S.No.10099 of 1989. The said suit has been decreed partially. The petitioner challenges the said judgment and decree before this Court in R.F.A.No.791 of 2000. The appeal came to be allowed by the judgment dated 04.06.2008 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was modified to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share in plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. It is claimed that the subject matter of the lis is concerning schedule ‘B’ property, which portion had fallen to the share of the petitioner pursuant to the judgment passed in the aforesaid regular first appeal. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent/BBMP framed a scheme by amending the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, inserting Section 14B. Pursuant thereto, a notification was issued on 18.01.2005 providing for grant of TDR by the Municipal Corporation under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The entire scheme provided for acquisition of private property by consent and for such surrender of the private property to the Planning Authority free from all encumbrances, the Planning Authority would permit development rights in the form of additional floor area which shall be equal to 1½ times the area surrendered. The entire scheme provided for acquisition of private property by consent and for such surrender of the private property to the Planning Authority free from all encumbrances, the Planning Authority would permit development rights in the form of additional floor area which shall be equal to 1½ times the area surrendered. On such notification, the contention of the petitioner is that if an owner refuses to surrender the land, the only way to secure the land was by way of acquiring it under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or 2013, as the case would be. 5. In the year 2002-03, the respondents appear to have made an attempt to make roads, lay drainages and water pipes in the property of the petitioner against which, the petitioner approached the civil Court instituting a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.4303 of 2003. The Court granted an interim order of status quo against the BBMP. Therefore, upto 2008 the respondents never tried to make roads and drainages in the property of the petitioner as the suit was pending adjudication before the competent Court. The suit ultimately came to be dismissed for default in the year 2008 and the BBMP again attempted / started forming roads and drainages in the property which allegedly belonged to the petitioner. It is the contention of the petitioner that taking advantage of dismissal of the suit, the 7th respondent / Executive Engineer of BBMP started to execute the work in the petitioner’s property by issuance of work orders to contractors for formation of roads. 6. The petitioner represented to the BBMP and others not to carry out any work in Sy.Nos.34/1 and 48 situated at D.J.Halli. Even then, it transpires that the BBMP never stopped work of making roads and laying drainages, which drove the petitioner to give several representations to all the respondents herein. On 29-05-2009, the 7th respondent/Executive Engineer of the BBMP addresses a letter to the petitioner to the effect that BBMP would give compensation as per law after verification of documents and receiving report from the Revenue Department. In furtherance thereto, the petitioner replied along with all the documents and an affidavit that she should be granted TDR as per the scheme. In furtherance thereto, the petitioner replied along with all the documents and an affidavit that she should be granted TDR as per the scheme. On 01-01-2010, the BBMP drew up proceedings to issue TDR to the petitioner on the ground that BBMP has utilized the land of the petitioner for public purpose but did not implement it. 7. On failure of the BBMP to grant any compensation, the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.8061 of 2010, which came to be disposed of on 18-03-2010, directing the BBMP to consider the representation given by the petitioner for grant of such TDR. The petitioner gave another representation on 29-03-2010 as was directed by this Court in the aforesaid petition. Proceedings were drawn up at all levels in the BBMP with regard to the property of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court and it appears that the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected in the second meeting of the BBMP on 02-01-2014, holding that the BBMP has only upgraded the existing public roads and not utilized any property of the petitioner and the property of the petitioner remains the same as it is on either side of the road and accordingly, declined to grant any TDR. The specific endorsement to that effect was issued on 18-03-2014, wherein it was made clear that BBMP would not grant any TDR or make payment of any compensation on the ground that the property had already been acquired by the authorities invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and award amount was already deposited in the civil Court. After receipt of the said endorsement, the petitioner causes a legal notice on 11-07-2014, clearing out the doubts that led to issuance of an endorsement. Despite this, again the BBMP issues the very endorsement on 01.09.2014 declining to grant TDR. It is at that juncture the petitioner calling in question the aforesaid endorsement dated 01.09.2014, files the subject petition. 8. After receipt of the said endorsement, the petitioner causes a legal notice on 11-07-2014, clearing out the doubts that led to issuance of an endorsement. Despite this, again the BBMP issues the very endorsement on 01.09.2014 declining to grant TDR. It is at that juncture the petitioner calling in question the aforesaid endorsement dated 01.09.2014, files the subject petition. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that the BBMP on a mistaken notion that the property of the petitioner has been acquired; issues the endorsement that the property of the petitioner was already subject matter of acquisition by the authorities under the Land Acquisition Act and would submit that the BBMP has formed road in the entire Schedule ‘B’ property belonging to the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner is entitled to TDR or the BBMP has to pay compensation for having utilized the property of the petitioner by formation of roads and drainages. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the BBMP would contend that the BBMP has only maintained the roads and not formed any new road in the property of the petitioner. The roads existed from times immemorial and only drainages were laid later as a part of the development plan of the BBMP of maintenance of roads in the city. No portion of the land of the petitioner was used to claim that TDR should be granted or compensation has to be paid for acquisition of land. He would submit that the petition is misconceived and should be dismissed with exemplary costs. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. 11. The genesis of the right of the petitioner as per her claim is from a partition suit filed in O.S.No.10099 of 1989 which was allowed partially. The challenge against the said judgment before this Court for additional claim of the petitioner came to be allowed as is found in the judgment rendered in R.F.A.No.791 of 2000 disposed of on 04-06-2008. The order so passed in the R.F.A. reads as follows : “The appeal is accepted. The judgment and decree dated 31-07-2000, passed in O.S.No.10099/1989, on the file of XXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall at Bangalore is modified. The order so passed in the R.F.A. reads as follows : “The appeal is accepted. The judgment and decree dated 31-07-2000, passed in O.S.No.10099/1989, on the file of XXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall at Bangalore is modified. The plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. Having regard to relationship of parties, they are directed to bear their costs.” In terms of the order, the petitioner claims to have been granted 1/4th share in both ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties of the suit. It is Schedule ‘B’ property that the petitioner claims to be hers in which the BBMP wants to upgrade the existing roads. It is the case of the petitioner that an attempt by the BBMP was made in the year 2003, for formation of roads in her property, which led to filing of a suit by the petitioner in O.S.No.4303 of 2003, wherein interim injunction was initially granted but the suit itself came to be dismissed later. On dismissal of the suit, the BBMP issued work orders for upgradation of road and laying of drainages in the said property at which point in time, the petitioner represented to the BBMP complaining that in spite of judgment and decree in the regular first appeal, the BBMP is forming road without grant of TDR or compensation on acquisition of lands. The representation of the petitioner dated 06-08-2009 appears to have been met its consideration by directing the petitioner to produce all the documents in her possession to claim that she is the owner of the property. Entire documents along with an affidavit were placed before the competent authority by the petitioner, after which, on 01-01-2010, it appears that the BBMP on acceptance of the representation issued a communication to the petitioner. The said communication reads as follows: As could be seen from the communication, it is issued by the Executive Engineer who according to the learned counsel for the BBMP had no power whatsoever to issue such communication on 01-01-2010 as it is the Commissioner alone who was competent to issue such communication or with his previous approval. Pursuant to the said communication, proceedings were drawn up in the BBMP for grant of such compensation or TDR. When no action was taken upon the said correspondence, the petitioner went on representing the BBMP for grant of TDR or payment of compensation. Pursuant to the said communication, proceedings were drawn up in the BBMP for grant of such compensation or TDR. When no action was taken upon the said correspondence, the petitioner went on representing the BBMP for grant of TDR or payment of compensation. The BBMP has filed its statement of objections to the petition refuting the claim of the petitioner. Certain paragraphs of the objections which are germane to be noticed read as follows: “6. It is submitted that the petitioner made representations to these respondents on 18-03-2009 (Annexure-H) and 6-08-2009 (Annexure-M) making false allegations that illegal construction work in Sy.No.4 measuring 4 acres 11 guntas Sy.NO.34/1 measuring 5 acres 14 guntas and Sy.No.48 measuring 34 guntas of Devarajeevanahalli Village, Bangalore. The photographs produced by the petitioner at Annexure-J, K and L itself shows that the houses were constructed on either side of the road and the improvement of existing roads and road side drains are taken up by these respondents. After receipt of the said representations, the BBMP wrote a Letter dated 29-05-2009 (Annexure-N) to the petitioner specifically mentioning that BBMP is not forming any new roads, but it is improving the existing road and drains and the photographs clearly show that the BBMP has not acquired any land of the petitioner for formation of roads and drains. Inspite of issuing such a letter, the petitioner went on making representations one after another for reasons best known to her without having any valid documents to prove her title. 7. It is submitted that mere production of correspondence letters between the BBMP and the petitioner will not prove the title of properties of the petitioner. All the note sheets and endorsements issued by BBMP clearly establish that illegal, unauthorized, haphazardly developed revenue layout roads which are situated at Sy.No.34/1 and 48 of Devarajeevanahalli were formed much earlier to the area included into the limits of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and presently, BBMP has continued the improvement of existing roads and it has not formed any new road or drain. Hence, the question of giving TDR or paying any compensation to the petitioner as claimed by her in the writ petition does not arise. Hence, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. …… …… 12. Hence, the question of giving TDR or paying any compensation to the petitioner as claimed by her in the writ petition does not arise. Hence, on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. …… …… 12. The averments made in paragraph 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.34/1 and 48 of Devarajeevanahalli, Ward-47, Bangalore belongs to her father Sri Munimarappa who died on the year 1984 leaving behind his children and that the petitioner filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.NHo.10099 of 1989 and the same came to be decreed partly and without satisfying the said decree, the petitioner preferred R.F.A.No.791 of 2000 and the same came to be allowed and later modified the judgment and decree dated 4-06-2008 and by virtue of the same, the petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share in the plaint A and B schedule properties and the property fell to the share of the petitioner in B schedule was the subject of the writ petition was not within the knowledge of these respondents as they were not the parties to the said proceedings. Hence, the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same.” The BBMP in terms of what is afore-quoted seeks to contend that mere production of correspondences between the BBMP and the petitioner will not prove title of the petitioner to the property. All the note sheets and the endorsements issued by the BBMP clearly establish that an illegal, unauthorized and haphazardly developed revenue lay-out in Devarajeevanahalli was formed much earlier to the area getting included in the limits of BBMP. The BBMP has only continued the improvements of existing roads and has not formed any new road or drain. 12. The learned counsel further adds that photographs appended to the petition by the petitioner herself would clearly demonstrate that it is only repair of road or asphalting of already existing roads was carried out by the BBMP. If the formation of new road was the issue, then the petitioner had some semblance of right to claim what she is now wants to claim. Taking those objections, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner or people behind her want to claim TDR or payment of huge compensation for a road, which the BBMP is undertaking for repair. If the formation of new road was the issue, then the petitioner had some semblance of right to claim what she is now wants to claim. Taking those objections, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioner or people behind her want to claim TDR or payment of huge compensation for a road, which the BBMP is undertaking for repair. There was no formation of a new road but for the benefit of already existing residents on both sides of the road drainage system was put in place. The objections and the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the BBMP would sound acceptance as the explanation offered is plausible. 13. The correspondences that the petitioner relies on, according to the BBMP, had emanated from an Officer who had no authority to communicate grant of TDR or taking over of the alleged land of the petitioner for formation of road. Any further correspondences on the strength of the said communication by the Executive Engineer would not come to the rescue of the petitioner to claim TDR or any compensation for a road that the BBMP contends that it has never formed roads in a private layout. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that compensation has to be paid by initiating acquisition proceedings in accordance with law or TDR should be granted for usage of the roads in the land allegedly belonging to the petitioner cannot be allowed. The petitioner does not demonstrate any such rights in her favour for issuance of a mandamus to either acquire the property in a manner known to law or TDR or even quashment of impugned endorsement. 14. This Court is not considering the submissions made with regard to the title of the petitioner. The issue is only with regard to grant of TDR or compensation for asphalting or development of the existing road in the land. In terms of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the BBMP is obliged to maintain roads in the city which are already in existence as the contention of the petitioner is that, the area which the petitioner claims to be belonging to her came within the ambit of the Bangalore City Corporation in the year 1995, which was earlier within the limits of D.J. Halli Gram Panchayat and then came into the ambit of BBMP. The roads that the petitioner now speaks of, were existing even when the area came under the D.J.Halli Gram Panchayat. It cannot be gainsaid by the petitioner that BBMP is obliged to grant TDR or compensation for improvement of an already existing road or habilitation conditions of the citizens in that area unless new road is formed by the BBMP in the private lands of the citizens where there exists none. It is trite that any entry into private properties for any public purpose by the State or its wings, can only by acquisition in a manner known to law. It is not the case of the petitioner even that there existed no road earlier. It is the contention that the BBMP has formed the road and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to TDR or compensation. Therefore, none of the grounds urged by the petitioner merit acceptance. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.