JUDGMENT : V.SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Sri H. Ramachandra, advocate, for Sri H.R. Ananthakrishna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G.A. Gopi, learned counsel for Bengaluru Development Authority. 2. Unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant challenging the decree of dismissal of the suit bearing O.S No.1985/2002 dated 06.11.2006 on the file of the XVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. 3. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their original ranking before the Trial Court. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A suit came to be filed by the appellant/plaintiff, who is the owner of two revenue sites bearing Nos.595 and 596 situated at Gokula I Stage, IV Phase layout, Bengaluru, with the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for a judgment and decree in his favour and against the defendant: (a) directing the defendant to re-convey the two sites acquired by them from the plaintiff viz., site Nos.595 and 596, Gokula First Stage, 4 th Phase Layout, Bengaluru, or alternatively allot alternative site in a well developed layout of equivalent dimension; and (b) for costs and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court might deem meet.” 5. Plaint averments further discloses that father of the plaintiff-B.N. Narayana Rao was the owner in possession of two revenue sites each measuring 45 ft. x 70 ft. (totally measuring 90 ft. x 70 ft.) formed out of Sy.No.24 of Yeshwanthpura village, Bengaluru. 6. After the death of B.N Narayana Rao, plaintiff being the only legal heir of said B.N. Narayana Rao succeeded to the suit property and thereafter he became the owner in possession of those sites. 7. It is further contented that defendant/Bengaluru Development Authority acquired the said sites and renumbered as site Nos.595 and 596, Gokula First Stage, 4 th Phase Layout, Bengaluru. Thereafter, Bengaluru Development Authority resolved to reconvey those sites to the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff gave his consent for reconveyance of the two sites and paid Rs.8,400/- to the Bengaluru Development Authority towards the reconveyance charges. 8. Plaintiff’s two sites were under unauthorised encroachment by slum dwellers and therefore, Bengaluru Development Authority decided to allot alternative site bearing No.5AC-914 of Hennur Banaswani Layout. Alternative site allotted to the plaintiff was too small in size measuring 80 ft x 50 ft. and the area was not fully developed. 9. 8. Plaintiff’s two sites were under unauthorised encroachment by slum dwellers and therefore, Bengaluru Development Authority decided to allot alternative site bearing No.5AC-914 of Hennur Banaswani Layout. Alternative site allotted to the plaintiff was too small in size measuring 80 ft x 50 ft. and the area was not fully developed. 9. Therefore, plaintiff has made several representations to the Bengaluru Development Authority for allotment of a larger site equivalent to his sites bearing Nos.595 and 596. But Bengaluru Development Authority did not consider his request. 10. Plaintiff filed a complaint before the Bengaluru District (Rural) Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum requesting for allotment of sites equivalent to the sites acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority. Said complaint was partly allowed and thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiff as well as Bengaluru Development Authority before the State Consumer Forum. 11. Both the appeals have been dismissed by observing that site bearing No.5AC-914 has been allotted to the plaintiff as a special case and not as reconveyance for the sites which have been acquired by the Bengaluru Development Authority. 12. Further it was observed that the plaintiff was at liberty to proceed against the Bengaluru Development Authority either for compensation or for other reliefs. 13. Therefore legal notice was issued to Bengaluru Development Authority by requesting them to reconvey two sites which have been acquired or alternatively allot sites in well developed layout equivalent to the dimension of Site Nos.595 and 596. 14. But the defendant did not act upon the said notice and therefore, the suit came to be filed. 15. Pursuant to the suit summons, Bengaluru Development Authority appeared before the Court through its advocate and filed written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff either for reconveyance of the said sites or for allotment of two sites of said dimension in a developed area. 16. It also denied plaintiff’s title to his two sites and contended that plaintiff lost his right over the two sites about 30 years earlier and sought for dismissal of the suit. 17. In the light of rival claims, learned Trial Judge raised following issues. (i) Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for reconveyance of site No.595 and 596 of Gokula 1 st Stage, Bengaluru? 17. In the light of rival claims, learned Trial Judge raised following issues. (i) Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for reconveyance of site No.595 and 596 of Gokula 1 st Stage, Bengaluru? (ii) Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitled to have the alternative site in well developed layout of equivalent dimension to that of site No.595 & 596? (iii) Whether the defendant proves that as the site claimed by the plaintiff are not voered under the reconveyance scheme hence the suit is not maintainable? (iv) To what order and decree?” 18. In order to prove the burden cast on the plaintiff, plaintiff got examined himself as P.W-1 and placed on record as many as 28 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to Ex.P-28, comprising of office copy of the legal notice, postal receipt and acknowledgment, paper publication cutting, allotment letter, relevant entry, intimation letter, letter dated 16.12.1980 and acknowledgment, allotment letter, relevant entry, intimation thereof, letter dated 02.06.1986 and letter dated 21.07.1988, intimation letter, draft sale deed, intimation letter dated 24.07.1994 and endorsement, draft sale deed copy, certified copy of the judgment in Appeal No.407/1998 and 440/ 1998 dated 12.04.2001 passed by Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, allotment letter, office copy of the representation, office copy of the letter, office copy of the correspondence, encumbrance certificate, And copy of the gazette dated 21.01.1993. 19. As against the evidence placed on record, Kempanna- Officer of the Bengaluru Development Authority is examined as DW-1 and there was no documentary evidence placed on record on behalf of the Bengaluru Development Authority. 20. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned judgment dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 21. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has filed the present appeal before this Court on following grounds. - “The court below having observed that 2 sites each measuring 45 x 70' totally measuring 90 x 70 formed out of Sy. No.24 at Yeshwanthapura Village, belonging to the father of the appellant, erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to re-conveyance of the sites. - The court below erred in holding that as the plaintiff has not produced the resolution copy or any other document to show that the defendant has resolved. No.24 at Yeshwanthapura Village, belonging to the father of the appellant, erred in holding that the appellant is not entitled to re-conveyance of the sites. - The court below erred in holding that as the plaintiff has not produced the resolution copy or any other document to show that the defendant has resolved. to reconvey the sites and as he has not brought to the notice of the court the provision of law to seek a reconveyance and that BDA is under a legal obligation to reconvey those sites and the court is kept in dark without bringing the specific and relevant provisions of law under BDA Act. - The court below erred in holding that none of the documents are helpful to establish that the BDA has agreed to reconvey the sites. The court below erred in holding that document cannot create any legal obligation to reconvey the sites to appellant. letters written i.e., Ex.P3 dated 17.01.1979 is with regard to the allotment of site No.595 and 596. A relevant portion reads as follows:- "Your request for vacating site No.595 and 596 in Gokul Layout will be considered only after the slum dwellers are shifted to the poorpupur layout or you may apply for site outside Gokul Layout." Ex. P-4 is another letter addressed by BDA and the subject matter is allotment of said 2 sites. Appellant Was called upon to produce original documents. The case of the appellant is that a sum of Rs.8,000/- was recovered for layout charges. Ex. P-6 is the letter dated 28.02.1981 addressed by BDA, which called upon the plaintiff that certain documents are Ex. P7 letter to be produced to take further action. dated 22.1.1985 written by the respondent to the appellant. A sum of Rs.8,400/- was deposited towards site No.595 and 596 on 27.03.1976 under Ex. P8. During the year 1993 under Ex. P11, 12 and 13 another site 118 is block in BRBR Layout was allotted and a sale deed has been executed as per Ex. P14. Earlier to that a lease cum sale was executed as per Ex. P17. Ex.18 is the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Forum. Relevant portion at para 12 of Ex. P11, 12 and 13 another site 118 is block in BRBR Layout was allotted and a sale deed has been executed as per Ex. P14. Earlier to that a lease cum sale was executed as per Ex. P17. Ex.18 is the order passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Forum. Relevant portion at para 12 of Ex. P18 reads as follows:- "Now considering the second point, grievance of the complainant is that two sites belonging to his father have been taken by the BDA and a single site has been allotted to him and hence, he is entitled for another site or the value of it. But we have to mention here that the said site has not been allotted as a reconveyance for the sites which have been acquired by the BDA. It those who sites have been acquired by the BDA, it is altogether different proceeding and the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the BDA either for the compensation or for any other relief. This commission cannot grant any relief for acquiring two sites in view of the fact that the present allotment has been made to the complaint as s special case not in lieu of the sites which have been acquired by the BDA. That being so, the DF was right in not granting the relief of directing the OP to compensate in terms of money for the other sites dispossessed or to direct the OP to allot another site of the equal dimension in a prime locality." Ex.P19 is a letter by the reconveyance/re-allotment section. This is in respect of site No.595 and 596. This establishes that these two sites are to be reconveyed in favour of the appellant. - The court below erred in not noticing that Ex. P19 was in respect of reconveyance. the court below erred significance to Ex.P19. On the other hand, in not attaching due significance to Ex.P.19. - The court below erred in not decreeing the suit. It out to have observed that the BDA has allotted an alternate site cannot be accepted. - The admissions are clear and unequivocal. The admissions are binding on respondent. The witness has admitted that the sites are allotted to the application.” 22. - The court below erred in not decreeing the suit. It out to have observed that the BDA has allotted an alternate site cannot be accepted. - The admissions are clear and unequivocal. The admissions are binding on respondent. The witness has admitted that the sites are allotted to the application.” 22. Sri H. Ramachandra, learned counsel representing the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contented that the lis between the parties is decided before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Certified copy of the said judgment is marked at Ex.P-18 and parties are bound by the same. 23. He further contended that as per the said judgment, Bengaluru Development Authority was required to reconvey the sites and to pay the compensation for the balance of land which did not match with the allotment of the alternate site and therefore, report filed by the Bengaluru Development Authority called by this Court is incorrect and sought for allowing the appeal. 24. He would further contend that what was agreed upon in the resolution by the Bengaluru Development Authority itself is that two sites would be conveyed equivalent to the dimension of Site Nos.595 and 596 Gokula I Stage, Bengaluru. Therefore, the allotment of the alternate site did not match or did not tally with the measurements and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 25. Alternatively, learned counsel would contend that in the event of non-conveying any equivalent site, compensation to be awarded and sought for allowing the appeal to that extent. 26. Per contra, Sri G.A.Gopi, learned counsel for the Bengaluru Development Authority supports the impugned judgment and contends that the alternate site has already been allotted to the plaintiff and he has sold the same to third party. Therefore, the lis between the parties has come to an end by allotting the alternate site and also returning the interest amount that was charged on the belated payment as per the directions issued by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in pursuance of Ex.P-18 and therefore the dismissal of the suit is just and proper. 27. Sri Gopi would further contend that mere granting permission to work out the appropriate remedy by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission would not give a license for the plaintiff to make an unlawful claim against the Bengaluru Development Authority and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 28. 27. Sri Gopi would further contend that mere granting permission to work out the appropriate remedy by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission would not give a license for the plaintiff to make an unlawful claim against the Bengaluru Development Authority and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 28. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 29. On such perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration are- “(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim for additional site or compensation?” (ii) What Order?” 30. REGARDING POINT No.1: In the case on hand, the revenue sites held by father of the plaintiff B.N.Narayana Rao, bearing Nos.595 and 596 at Gokula I Stage, Bengaluru, is not in dispute. 31. Further, Bengaluru Development Authority acquiring those sites is also not in dispute. 32. Based on the representation given by the plaintiff, being the only legal representative of the original owner of the site Nos.595 and 596, Bengaluru Development Authority passed a resolution to allot an alternate site. 33. The alternate site was first shown in the Hennur- Banaswadi Layout which was not acceptable to the plaintiff on account of the fact that slum dwellers had occupied that property. Therefore the plaintiff gave one more representation to Bengaluru Development Authority. 34. Considering his application, an alternate site was allotted to the plaintiff bearing No.5AC- 914, measuring 50 feet into 80 feet. The price was fixed at Rs.44,400/-. Only Rs.8,400/- was paid by the plaintiff towards the said site. 35. Therefore, for the balance amount of Rs.36,000/-, Bengaluru Development Authority charged interest in a sum of Rs.38,060/- and wanted the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed in his favour. 36. Being aggrieved by charging of the interest and also not allotting the proper site, plaintiff approached the Bengaluru District (Rural) Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in complaint No.2449 / 1994 which came to be allowed. 37. Against the said award of the Bengaluru District (Rural) Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, both Bengaluru Development Authority as well as the plaintiff approached the Karnataka State Consumer Redressal Commission. 38. As per the order vide Ex.P-18, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed both the appeals but held that the plaintiff can work out his remedy if permissible in accordance with law. 38. As per the order vide Ex.P-18, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed both the appeals but held that the plaintiff can work out his remedy if permissible in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction, plaintiff has now filed the suit seeking the aforesaid prayer. 39. Sri Ramachandra, learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff would contend that after the allotment of the site No.5AC-914 measuring 50 feet x 80 feet, the plaintiff is entitled for the compensation. 40. Per contra, Sri Gopi, learned counsel contended that the said site has been registered in the name of the plaintiff after returning the interest amount as per the award passed by the Bengaluru District (Rural) Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and therefore, so far as Bengaluru Development Authority is concerned, the matter stands closed inasmuch as, no other compensation is payable in lieu of the allotment of the alternate site. 41. It is pertinent to note that in the resolution passed by the Bengaluru Development Authority, there was no scheme that was made out that exact measurement of the sites acquired will be reconveyed to the plaintiff. 42. Alternatively, a site measuring 50 feet x 80 feet in a developed area as against the revenue site having been allotted by the Bengaluru Development Authority, dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court is just and proper. 43. When the plaintiff has sold the said site, it should not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to seek for further compensation. 44. However, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Alamma and others vs. The Bengaluru Development Authority and Others passed in W.P.Nos.1489-1490/2016 dated 27.03.2019. 45. He invited the attention of this Court to paragraph 6 of the said judgment, wherein it has been held as under: “6. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers, we are of the view that well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither erroneous nor perverse. The learned Single Judge has followed the directions issued by this Court dated 16.09.2014 in W.P. No. 46259 of 2013 and connected matters. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is neither erroneous nor perverse. The learned Single Judge has followed the directions issued by this Court dated 16.09.2014 in W.P. No. 46259 of 2013 and connected matters. This Court, in the above stated order has held that the land owners would be entitled to 100% compensation on the land utilized by BDA and they are entitled for developed land or sites equivalent to the value of land utilized. In the case on hand also the petitioners would be entitled for the value of the lands utilized by the respondent-BDA for formation of road. The contention of the petitioners that they would be entitled for 100% developed land equivalent to the land utilized by the respondent-BDA has no basis. The petitioners would be entitled for full compensation for their lands utilized by the respondents-BDA. The petitioners could seek for compensation or seek for developed land in lieu of compensation. The learned Single Judge rightly following the directions issued in W.P. No. 46259 of 2013 has held that the petitioners would be entitled to developed land equivalent to the value of compensation. Moreover, 4 sites have already been allotted to the petitioners. The respondent will have to evaluate the 4 sites allotted to the petitioners as to whether it is equivalent to value of the petitioner's land utilized by the respondent BDA. On evaluation, if the value is found to be less than the value of petitioners' land utilized, then the petitioners may be entitled for further allotment of developed land upto the value of utilized land.” 46. On careful reading of the above, it is noticed that facts involved in the said case are altogether different to the facts involved in the present case. 47. In the case on hand, in lieu of two revenue sites which have been acquired, a BDA site measuring 50 feet x 80 feet in a well developed area has been allotted by the Bengaluru Development Authority, that too at the nominal price of Rs.44,400/-. 48. Therefore, plea of compensation sought for by the plaintiff relying on the aforesaid judgment would not advance the case of the plaintiff to any extent. 49. No other point is urged on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, point No.1 raised for consideration is answered in the negative and against the appellant. 50. 48. Therefore, plea of compensation sought for by the plaintiff relying on the aforesaid judgment would not advance the case of the plaintiff to any extent. 49. No other point is urged on behalf of the appellant. Therefore, point No.1 raised for consideration is answered in the negative and against the appellant. 50. REGARDING POINT No.2: In view of the answer to point No.1 as above, the following: ORDER Appeal is meritless and is hereby dismissed .