ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking several prayers: "[a] Issue a writ in the nature of Declaration to declare that the acquisition of the petitioners property bearing BBMP No. 303/304/225/71/14/1/3 carved out of formerly bearing survey no. 14/1 situated at Malagala Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, ward no. 129 measuring 80 feet x 62 feet with RCC Roofing house, vide preliminary notification No. A6.HR.SLAO(S) 201/82-3 dated 15-7-1982, final notification No. HUD 206 MNX 86 dated 5-8-1986 followed by Award passed by as per Annexure E, E1 and G has lapsed by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. [b] Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to enforce the scheme called Nagarbhavi Layout II Stage as against the petitioners property bearing BBMP No. 303/304/225/71/14/1/3 carved out of Sy.no. 14/1 measuring 80 feet x 62 feet of Malagala Village, Yeshwantpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, morefully described in the schedule below in view of Section 27 of Bangalore Development Act 1976 read with Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in offshore Holdings Private Limited Vs Bangalore Development Authority, reported in 2011 (3) SCC 139 para 124. [c] To issue writ in the nature of declaration to declare that the acquisition proceedings initiated under the provisions of BDA Act, 1976 for the scheme called "Nagarbhavi Layout 11 State" has lapsed under section 27 of the Bangalore Development Act 1976 in view of the fact that there is no vesting of the property and property is free from all encumbrances. [d] Issue a writ of mandamus in form of a directions to the Respondents one to three or any person, workmen, concerned officials, task force or any other persons not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of property involved in this writ petition. [e] To issue such other Writ or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the interest and justice and equity." 2. Heard Shri N.S. Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.; Shri Kiran C.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Shri H. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Heard Shri N.S. Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Rashmi Rao, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.; Shri Kiran C.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Shri H. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 3. At the time of hearing the petition, Shri N.S. Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would restrict his prayer for consideration of his representation in terms of Section 38D of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). 4. The issue in the lis dates back to the preliminary notification so issued on 15.07.1982 and the final notification thereafter, on 05.08.1986. Award is passed on 02.01.1988, determining compensation. On 02.08.2012, it transpires that one Shri N. Krishnamurthy executes a sale deed in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of one Smt. B.G. Shivakumari, predecessors in title of the petitioners. The katha and other statutory necessities is said to have been in favour of the petitioners. On 09.04.2014, Smt. B.G. Shivakumari executes the sale deed in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of the petitioners. Encumbrance is also appended to the petition. On 06.01.2016, the portion of the property is sought to be advertised in the newspaper with regard to it belonging to the BDA and the task force began to interfere with the peaceful possession of the property. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. The coordinate bench of this Court had passed several orders protecting the rights of the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would now restrict his prayer for regularization of the property in terms of Section 38D of the Act. Section 38D of the Act reads as follows: 38D. Allotment of Bangalore Development Authority Land in favour of original owner or purchaser or unauthorized occupant etc . 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would now restrict his prayer for regularization of the property in terms of Section 38D of the Act. Section 38D of the Act reads as follows: 38D. Allotment of Bangalore Development Authority Land in favour of original owner or purchaser or unauthorized occupant etc . (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law or any development scheme made under this Act, but without prejudice to section 38-C where the Authority after holding such enquiry as it deems fit, is of the opinion that any land vested in, or acquired by it cannot be used by it on account of existing building thereon and it is not practicable to include such land for the purpose of development scheme or formation of sites, the Authority may, subject to such rules after holding such enquiry as may be prescribed, allot such land by sale in favour of the original owner of the land or purchaser from its original owner or any other person in unauthorized occupation of the land for some reason or other who has put up the building on the land and is in settled possession of such land but does not include a tenant, licencee or permissive user subject to the conditions that - (i) the building was in existence on such land and in settled possession for not less than twelve years prior to the date of commencement of the Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020; (ii) the allotee makes payment towards the allotment of land at rates specified in the table below - S. No. Extent of Land with building, other than corner site Amount to be levied and collected 01 Up to 20' X 30' Ten percent of the Guidance value 02 More than 20' X 30' and upto 30' X 40' Twenty five percent of the Guidance value 03 More than 30' X 40' up to 40' X 60' Forty percent of the Guidance value 04 More than 40' X 60' and upto 50' X 80' Fifty percent of the Guidance value and penalty as may be prescribed Provided that, in respect of corner site with building twice the rate specified above. (iii) total extent of land allotted to any person under this sub-section shall not exceed 4000 square feet and no other member of his family shall be entitled to apply for or seek benefit of allotment of any other land on any ground whatsoever; (iv) such original possessor of the land, purchaser from its original possessor or the person who is in unauthorized occupation of the land for one reason or other and is in possession of such land with building for more than twelve years prior to the date of commencement of the Bangalore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2020 seeking an allotment makes an application to the Authority containing such particulars, within such time and along with such fee as may be prescribed and also produces copy of any of the following supporting documents to establish his settled possession and construction of Building thereon like sale deed, approved plan and permission for construction of building, order for permanent supply of electricity, sanction for connection of supply of water and underground drainage for such building, property tax receipt given or issued by the competent authority for being paid the tax for such building or any such other document to establish his settled possession and construction of any building as may be prescribed: Provided that no such land shall be allotted if - (a) it is reserved for parks, playground, open space or for providing civic amenities; (b) it affects alignment of any road or proposed ring road, National Highways, by-pass road or mass rapid transit system (rail) projects; (c) it is abutting to or upon a storm water drain, tank bed area, river course or beds or below high tension electric lines; (d) the possession for more than twelve years is litigious or interrupted possession by virtue of interim order of court. Explanation: for the purpose of this section - Section 38D of the Act permits regularization of the occupation of a particular person up to a maximum of 4,000 square feet. The petitioners' property as depicted in the schedule is about 5,800 square feet. The whole thing if the petitioners' prayer is restricted to 38D of the Act, cannot be regularized. Explanation: for the purpose of this section - Section 38D of the Act permits regularization of the occupation of a particular person up to a maximum of 4,000 square feet. The petitioners' property as depicted in the schedule is about 5,800 square feet. The whole thing if the petitioners' prayer is restricted to 38D of the Act, cannot be regularized. Therefore, the restrictive regularization to the maximum available under Section 38D of the Act is the only relief now the petitioners seek, to which the respondent - BDA submits that the representation would be considered in accordance with Section 38D of the Act and redress the grievance of the petitioners upto a maximum of 4,000 square feet of the property. 6. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the respondent - BDA to consider the representation of the petitioner in consonance with Section 38D of the Act to regularize 4000 square feet and pass necessary orders, in accordance with law and communicate the order so passed to the petitioners. 7. It is open for the BDA to solicit any necessary documents for the purpose of consideration of the representation, from the hands of the petitioners. The exercise of consideration of the representation shall conclude within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.