ORDER : 1. Since both writ petitions involve common questions of law and fact concerning the same land (Survey No.286/2 of Subbayyananpalya Village), they are heard together and disposed of by a common order with the consent of both the parties. 2. These writ petitions are filed seeking a limited direction to the respondent, Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for regularisation/reconveyance under Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (‘BDA Act’ for short) and for consequential protection against coercive action, in light of the liberty expressly reserved by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.301/2023 and affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.36475/2024. Brief facts: 3. The lands in question form part of Survey No.263/1 (Re-survey No.286/2) Subbayyananpalya Village, which were acquired by the BDA under the notifications dated 21.03.1977 and 14.05.1980. The petitioners and their predecessors claim long standing possession extending over four decades, during which residential, commercial and educational buildings came to be constructed and remained in existence without objections for several years. 4. Earlier, the validity of acquisition was challenged in W.P. No.10632/2020, which came to be dismissed on 13.02.2023, while granting time bound direction regarding vacation of possession. The said order was affirmed in W.A. No.301/2023, wherein the Division Bench, while sustaining the acquisition, expressly granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the BDA for redressal of their grievance, with a direction that the authority may consider the same, if permissible in law. The Apex Court, by an order dated 06.09.2024, affirmed the said liberty. 5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted representation invoking Section 38D of the BDA Act in W.P. No.19879/2025, the representation pertains to the developed extents with educational institutions, whereas in W.P. No.20735/2025, the petitioner confines the request to residual extent of about 1,490 square feet, it being asserted that the balance 4,000 square feet is already capable of regularisation. Alleging that the representations have not been considered and that coercive steps are being threatened, the present writ petitions are filed. 6. Heard learned senior counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar appearing for Sri Arnav A. Bagalwadi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.19879/2025, Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.20735/2025 and Sri M.V. Charati, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. 6. Heard learned senior counsel Sri. D.R. Ravishankar appearing for Sri Arnav A. Bagalwadi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.19879/2025, Sri H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.20735/2025 and Sri M.V. Charati, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.19879/2025 contends that Section 38D is an enabling statutory provision intended to address cases where the acquired land is not required for implementation of the scheme and while the provision does not confer an automatic right, it nevertheless casts a statutory obligation on the authority to consider a claim when validly raised. It is further contended that though the acquisition of land in Survey No.263/1 (Re-survey No.286/2), has been upheld in W.P. No.10632/2020, the Division Bench in W.A. No.301/2023 while affirming the acquisition, expressly reserved liberty to the petitioners to approach the respondent-BDA for redressal of their grievance, and that said liberty has been affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.36475/2024. It is submitted that pursuant to the liberty so granted, the petitioners have submitted detailed representation invoking Section 38D of the BDA Act, offering to comply with all the statutory requirements including, payment of guideline value/reconveyance/ betterment charges, but the respondent-BDA has failed to consider or decide the same. It is argued that the petitioners and their predecessors have been in long standing settled possession for over four decades, during which substantial constructions including residential, commercial and educational buildings, have existed with civic approvals and without objections from the respondent-BDA for several years. 8. It is submitted that the timelines fixed in W.P. No.10632/2020 do not dispense with the obligation of the authority to consider the representation under Section 38D, especially when such consideration has been expressly permitted by the Division Bench and affirmed by the Apex Court. It is contended that permitting the respondent-BDA to take coercive steps, including demolition or dispossession, without deciding the pending representations would render the liberty granted by the Appellate Court and the Apex Court illusory and meaningless. It is therefore contended that, without seeking any adjudication on merits or a positive direction for regularization, the petitioners are seeking a limited mandamus to compel the respondent-BDA to consider and decide their representations under Section 38D and for interim protection till such consideration is completed. 9. Learned counsel Sri. It is therefore contended that, without seeking any adjudication on merits or a positive direction for regularization, the petitioners are seeking a limited mandamus to compel the respondent-BDA to consider and decide their representations under Section 38D and for interim protection till such consideration is completed. 9. Learned counsel Sri. H.C. Shivaramu for the petitioner in W.P. No.20735/2025, apart from supporting the contention of the learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar, would further submit that the petitioners in the said petition specifically submits that about 4,000 square feet of the constructed area is capable of regularisation under Section 38D and the grievance before this Court would be only to the remaining extent which is of only 1,490 square feet which is a small residential portion forming part of the same property and hence, the BDA be directed to consider and decide the representation positively. 10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA submits that the land in question forms part of the validly acquired area, the acquisition having been upheld by this Court in W.P. No.10632/2020 and the said findings having attained finality upon dismissal of W.A. No.301/2023 and SLP (Civil) Diary No.36475/2024. It is contended that in view of the acquisition attaining finality, the petitioner cannot claim any right, title or interest in the acquired land, nor can they seek to stall delivery of possession by filing successive proceedings. It is submitted that Section 38D of the BDA Act is purely discretionary and does not confer any vested or enforceable right upon the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, even the liberty granted by the Division Bench is conditional, as the authority is required to consider the request only, if permissible in accordance with law. Further, it is submitted that the timelines fixed in W.P. No.10632/2020 govern the question of delivery of possession and that the petitioners are bound by the undertakings contemplated therein. It is contended that the present writ petitions are an attempt to circumvent or delay the consequences flowing from the said order. Further, that the constructions put up by the petitioners are unauthorised and that mere long possession or existence of structures cannot be a ground for regularization, particularly in respect of the land acquired for public purpose. It is contended that the present writ petitions are an attempt to circumvent or delay the consequences flowing from the said order. Further, that the constructions put up by the petitioners are unauthorised and that mere long possession or existence of structures cannot be a ground for regularization, particularly in respect of the land acquired for public purpose. It is further submitted that the respondent-BDA is entitled to resume possession and remove unauthorised structures in accordance with law, and that no blanket protection can be granted merely on the ground that the representations have been submitted. It is further submitted that the writ petitions are not maintainable and that no mandamus can be issued to compel consideration under Section 38D and that the petitioners are not entitled for any protective relief. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the respondent-BDA is required to consider the representations submitted by the petitioners under Section 38D of the BDA Act pursuant to the liberty granted by the Division Bench and affirmed by the Apex Court and whether the limited protection is warranted pending such consideration?” 12. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 13. The validity of acquisition has already been upheld in W.P. No.10632/2020 and the said finding has attained finality. This Court has given its anxious consideration to the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 13. The validity of acquisition has already been upheld in W.P. No.10632/2020 and the said finding has attained finality. The operative portion of the writ petition order is culled out as under: “(i) the Writ petition is dismissed and as a consequence the acquisition of subject land is sustained; (ii) Petitioners are granted a period of two years & three months to quit the subject premises on their own & peaceably subject to they filing an affidavit within four weeks acquiescing in the acquisition and undertaking to quit the property accordingly; (iii) After the period of two years is over, the petitioners shall within three months thereafter demolish/dismantle all structures other than the school & college buildings that exist in the subject premises, at their own cost; (iv) If, the petitioner fail to file the undertaking as stated in the preceding paragraphs, they shall vacate the premises immediately after, the completion of the Academic Term of school/college or three months whichever is earlier, failing which it is open to the Respondent – BDA to use reasonable force with the assistance of Jurisdictional Police to remove them from the occupation of all properties/land; (v) Similarly, if, petitioner after availing the concessions given above do not vacate the premises in terms of their undertaking, the Police shall assist the BDA in removing the petitioners from the land & structures in question” 14. Consequently, the acquisition cannot be opened in the present proceedings. However, the Division Bench in W.A.No.301/2023 while sustaining the acquisition, expressly reserved liberty to the petitioners to approach the BDA for redressal of their grievance, with an observation that the authority may consider the same, if permissible in law. The operative portion of the order in writ appeal is culled out as under: “22. Before parting it may be necessary to mention that after conclusion of the arguments learned Senior Sri.Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the appellants has submitted that notwithstanding the contentions raised in the appeal, the appellants be permitted to make an attempt to seek allotment of an area over which buildings have been constructed from the respondent-BDA. Sri.Murugesh Charati, learned counsel appearing for BDA has fairly submitted if it is permissible under law same would be considered. Sri.Murugesh Charati, learned counsel appearing for BDA has fairly submitted if it is permissible under law same would be considered. It was made clear that such an option granted in favour of appellant shall not be construed or treated as creation of any right or acceptance of the contentions of the appellants. Accordingly, matter was adjourned to 01.08.2023, 31.08.2023 and 01.09.2023 enabling the parties to identify the actual area covered by the construction. It appears after identifying such area, the appellant herein had made representation to the respondent-BDA seeking regularization of certain portion of the land over which the buildings are existing and respondent-BDA has issued an endorsement on 31.08.2023 declined to consider the said representation on the premise that there is no provision under the Act for regularization as sought for by the appellants. It is necessary in this regard to note that the appellants who claimed to have put up the construction of building to accommodate the school and have contended that they have not received any compensation and that they would forego their claim for compensation if the respondent-BDA considers their representation. Without expressing any view on this aspect of the matter it is made clear that notwithstanding dismissal of this writ appeal, the appellant/petitioner is at liberty to approach respondent-BDA to seek redressal of their grievance and respondent-BDA may consider the same if permissible in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied) 15. The Apex Court has affirmed the said liberty which reads thus: “3. As regard to the construction raised by the petitioners at the acquired land, the High Court has already permitted them to approach the competent Authority. The petitioners are, thus, at liberty to pursue that claim before the prescribed Authority accordance with law.” 16. Section 38D of the BDA Act is an enabling provision, which empowers the authority to consider reconveyance or regularisation of land not required for implementation of the said scheme, subject to the statutory conditions. Though the provision does not confer any automatic or vested right, once a representation invoking the provision is made pursuant to a judicial liberty, the authority is duty bound to consider the same in accordance with law. 17. In the present cases, the grievance of the petitioner is not that regularisation must be granted by this Court, but that the representations under Section 38D have not been considered at all. 17. In the present cases, the grievance of the petitioner is not that regularisation must be granted by this Court, but that the representations under Section 38D have not been considered at all. In W.P. No.20735/2025, the request is further confined only to the small residual extent of 1,490 square feet, the balance extent being asserted as already capable of regularisation. This aspect justifies a limited supervisory intervention to ensure that the statutory authority exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. 18. The timelines regarding delivery of possession continue to be governed by W.P. No.10632/2020, which have not been modified either in appeal or by the Apex Court in appeal. Nevertheless, permitting coercive action without first considering the representation would render the liberty granted in writ appeal and affirmed by the Apex Court, illusory. Therefore, a time bound direction for consideration coupled with limited protection till such consideration is warranted. This Court, however makes it clear that it expresses no opinion on the merits of the claims under Section 38D and the decision shall rest entirely with the competent authority. 19. For the foregoing reasons, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER: i. The writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent-BDA to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioners strictly in terms of Section 38D of the BDA Act, and only within the parameters of the said provision, and in light of the liberty reserved by the Division Bench in W.A. No.301/2023 and affirmed by the Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.36475/2024. ii. In W.P. No.19879/2025, the respondents-BDA shall consider the representations dated 14.12.2023, 29.05.2025 and 03.07.2025 seeking reconveyance/ regularization of the developed extent, to the extent permissible under Section 38D, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned and speaking order. iii. In W.P. No.20735/2025, it is recorded that the remaining extent of 1490 square feet be very meager shall be considered by the respondent-BDA in accordance with Section 38D. iv. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of regularization of reconveyance and that Section 38D does not confer any automatic or vested right upon the petitioner. iv. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims of regularization of reconveyance and that Section 38D does not confer any automatic or vested right upon the petitioner. v. It is further clarified that these directions are issued in furtherance of and not in derogation of the orders passed in W.P. No.10632/2020, W.A. No.301/2023 and SLP (Civil) Diary No.36475/2024 and that they do not reopen, dilute or modify the findings recorded therein. vi. Until the representations are considered and disposed of under Section 38D, the respondent-BDA shall not take any coercive steps, including demolition or dispossession in respect of the subject properties except in accordance with due process of law. vii. The above exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.