ORDER : S SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J. The petitions are taken up together and disposed off vide common order, as the impugned notification of the respondent Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) pertains to sites located in Jhansi Enclave, Prakruthi Nagar, Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. 2. The petitioners are stated to be the owners of individual sites situated at Jhansi Enclave, Prakruthi Nagar morefully described in the Schedule and have filed the present Writ Petitions seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the Notification [at Annexure-'E' in W.P. No.13362/2025; at Annexure-'F' in W.P.No.13364/2025; at Annexure-'H' in W.P. No.13366/2025; at Annexure-'G' in W.P.No.13367/2025; at Annexure-'E' in W.P. No.13368/2025, at Annexure-'K' in W.P.No.13371/2025; at Annexure-'H' in W.P.No.13373/2025; at Annexure-'E' in W.P.No.13375/2025; at Annexure-'K in W.P. No.13377/2025; at Annexure-'G' in W.P.No.13379/2025]issued in exercise of power under Section 14-B of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to form road from existing Main Road from Prakruthi Nagar to Gastikempanahalli. Further, to declare any action taken pursuant to the impugned Notification would be of no consequence in the eye of law. 3. It is submitted that the respondent BBMP in exercise of the power under Section 14-B of the Act, has issued notification No.BBMP/CC/PSR(G)/2906/2024-25 dated 08.01.2025 for formation of a proposed 18 meter wide road from Kogilu Main Road to Sampige Halli (Jakkur) via Gastikempanahalli and the Transferable Development Rights ('TDR') is proposed to be issued to the petitioners as compensation for the land acquired. 4. The petitioners are stated to have made out representations [at Annexure-'J' in W.P.No.13362/2025; at Annexure-'K' in W.P.No.13364/2025; at Annexure-'J' in W.P.No.13366/2025; at Annexure-'L' in W.P. No.13367/2025; at Annexure-'J' in W.P. No.13368/2025, at Annexure-'P' in W.P.No.13371/2025; at Annexure-'L' in W.P.No.13373/2025; at Annexure-'H' in W.P.No. 13375/2025; at Annexure-'P' in W.P.No.13377/2025; at Annexure-'K' in W.P.No.13379/2025] to the Revenue Minister, Government of Karnataka/Land Acquisition Officer and TDR Officer, objecting to the acquisition that it would affect their residential property. The petitioners have also raised other contentions, including; the existence of alternate road, no prior individual notice has been issued, no acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act have been initiated and that no monetary compensation is given. . The petitioners have also raised other contentions, including; the existence of alternate road, no prior individual notice has been issued, no acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act have been initiated and that no monetary compensation is given. . At the time of oral arguments, it is further contended that the petitioners are not interested in accepting the TDR being offered for giving up rights in their property. 4. Taking into consideration the contentions raised and the impugned notification of the respondent BBMP, it would be relevant to note the observations made by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in similar factual context in W.P.No.1166/2019 vide order dated 10.04.2019. The relevant observations made by the Co-ordinate Bench are extracted below: "7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is clear that the notification under Section 14-B of the Act that has been made by the respondent-BBMP is only an offer made to the property owners to give up their properties voluntarily in return for grant of TDR Certificates, which would be in lieu of monetary compensation. In fact, Section 14-B(6) of the Act would clarify the said position. The said provision reads as follows:- “14-B. Benefit of development rights.- (6) If the owner does not agree to surrender his ‘Area’ required by a Public Authority for any public purpose, for the Development Rights and demands for monetary compensation, then the Public Authority may acquire such ‘Area’ by providing compensation as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing.” 8. In light of the provisions of Section 14-B(6) of the Act, it is clear that, if the petitioner was unwilling to accept the ‘Development Rights Certificates,’ which was being offered in lieu of monetary compensation, the respondent-BBMP would have to resort to acquisition under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing. 9. Hence, it is made clear that in light of the rejection of offer made by the respondent- BBMP, the BBMP would not interfere with the rights of the properties of petitioner. 9. Hence, it is made clear that in light of the rejection of offer made by the respondent- BBMP, the BBMP would not interfere with the rights of the properties of petitioner. However, the respondent-BBMP is entitled to:- (a) Initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of properties of the petitioner as may be required for the purpose of implementing their project under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing; (b) They are entitled to obtain transfer of property of the petitioner to the extent as may be required for the purpose of implementation of the project by negotiations after obtaining the Deed of Conveyance. (c) All other contentions of the parties are kept open and without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner." 5. In light of the above, the present petitions are required to be allowed, while the impugned Notification dated 08.01.2025 under Section 14-B of the Act does not require to be set aside. 6. Hence, it is made clear that in light of the rejection of offer made by the respondent-BBMP, the BBMP cannot interfere with the rights of the properties of petitioners till appropriate steps are taken to deprive property of the petitioners as prescribed under law. However, the respondent-BBMP is entitled to:- (i) Initiate appropriate proceedings for acquisition of properties of the petitioners as may be required for the purpose of implementing their project under the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 or any other law prevailing; (ii) They are entitled to obtain transfer of property of the petitioners to the extent as may be required for the purpose of implementation of the project by negotiations after obtaining the Deed of Conveyance. (ii) All other contentions of the parties are kept open to be raised appropriately and direction is passed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed off.