ALLABAKASH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement at Annexure-'D' dtd. 18/12/2008, whereby the request of petitioners has been rejected, while observing that during the relevant period of time, there were no Rules for allotment of alternative sites. The petitioners have sought for consequential relief of issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to allot alternative sites to the petitioners.

(2.) It is to be noticed that during an earlier point of time, W.P.No.10420/2006 (BDA) came to be filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondent- Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to carve a layout in the existing 30 guntas of land at Syed Sab Palya and to allot sites to the petitioners and to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.20.00 lakhs to each of the petitioners towards compensation for having illegally demolished the houses of the petitioners. Said matter was considered and the Writ Petition was disposed off as per the order dtd. 5/12/2006. The Court has observed unambiguously that the prayer relating to carving out of layout in the existing 30 guntas of Syed Sab layout and allotting sites to the petitioners and the prayer relating to direction to the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.20.00 lakh each towards the illegal demolition were rejected. The Court has observed that, as the entire 10 acres of land was put to use and the layout had already come about in the acquired land, the question of considering the prayers referred to above in the said Writ Petition did not arise.

(3.) The Court has also observed that the question of granting compensation in the form of damages could not be granted in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as it would require evidence. However, the Court as regards prayer (a) relating to issuance of direction to the respondent-BDA to allot alternative sites to the petitioners had considered the same and an order was passed directing the respondent- BDA to consider the representation in accordance with law.