IN THE I IIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS TIlE 22\D & 23’ DAY OF AUGUST. 2011 BEFORE THE IIONI3LE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATIINA W.P.NOs.12276-80/2011 (LA-BDA) C/W. W.P.NOS.21541- 43/2011, 7497/2011 & 9639-41/2011, 17889-894/2011 W.P.NOs. 12276-80/2011 BETWEEN: 1. SMT RAMAKKA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS 2. SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 3. SRI NARSIMHA SWAMY S/0 LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 4. SRI RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 5. SMT SATYAVATH I D/O LATE MUNTYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS ALL ARE R/A NO.328 GOVT. SCHOOL ROAD JAKKUR VILLAGE BANGALORE 560 064 PETITIONERS (By Sri: P NVI’ARAJ, ADV ) AND: I. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF I lOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 13Y ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MULTISTORED BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 2. BANGALORE I)EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMAR PARK WEST BANGALORE BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMAR PARK WEST BANGALORE 4. THE METROPOLITAN CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD NO.21, GROUND FLOOR VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE- I BY ITS SECRETARY RESPONDENTS (By Sri: K.S.MALLIKARJUNA1AEI. HCGP FOR Ri, SRI.V.B.SIIIVA KUMAR, ADV. FOR P2 & R3. SRI.V.Y.KUMAR. ADV. FOR C/R4) THESE W.Ps ARE FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 19.12.2003 ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-C. SET ASIDE ALLOTMENT OF THE LANI) OF TIlE PETITIONERS IN TERMS OF TI IF ELTl’ER OF’ ALLOTMENT I)ATEI) 1 .6.2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN RESPECT . OF PROPERTIES DESCRIBEI) IN THE SCFIEDULE, WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE D W.P.NOS.21541-43/2011 BETWEEN: 1. SRI DODDAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE ANJINAPPA 2. SRI CHIKKAIIANUMAIAII AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/0 LATE ANJINAPPA 3. JRKUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/0 LATE D RAMAIATI ALL ARE R/O JAKKUR VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTH TALUK BANGALORE PETITIONERS (By Sri: R.NATARAJ, ADV.) AND: 1. TIlE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. MULTISTORIED BUILDING, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHJ BANGALORE 560 001 2. THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTI IORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK \VEST BAN GALORE 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER TI I E BANGALORE I )EVELOPMENT Al. JTI I ORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BAN( ALORE t TIlE METROPOLITAN CO OPERATIVE FIC)I SfNG SOCIETY LTD BY ITS SECRETAkY VIDHANA SOUDHA I3ANGALORE 560 001 RESPONDENTS (By Sri: K.S.MALLIKARJUNAIAH. HCGP FOR Ri, SRI.V.B.SFIIVA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3. SRI.V.Y. KUMAR. ADV. FOR R4) ThESE W.Ps ARE FILED PRAYING TO SET ASII)E THE ORDER PASSEI) BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BANGALORE DATED 19.12.2003 ENCLOSED AS ANNEX.B. SET ASIDE ALLOTMENT OF THE LAND OF THE PETITIONERS IN TERMS OF THE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT DATED 1.6.2007 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES DESCRIBEL) IN THE SCHEDULE, WHICH IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEX.C. W.P.NOS.7497/2011 & 9639-41/2011 BETWEEN: SRI J M KRISFINAPPA S/O MUNINANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA FIOBLI BANGALORE NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK BANGALORE-560 064 PETITIONER (By Sri: PAVAN.R. ADV.) AND: 1. TIlE STATE OF KARNATARA REP BY ITS SECRETARY Ii RI3AN DEVELOPMEN]’ L) EPARTM ENT M S BIJILI)ING DR AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGAL( )RE THE COMMISSIONIk BAN GALORE DEVELOPMEN I Al 1’HORlTY r -5- SANKEY ROAD ‘- ‘- BANGALORE 847L 3. THE LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE D EVELO PMENT AUTI- 10RITY BANGALORE 4 71 Ncf •.. RESPONDENTS s (By Sri: K.S.MALLIKARJUNAIAH. HCGP FOR Ri. SRI.V.1-3.SI-IIVA KUMAR. ADV. FOR R2 & R3. SRI.V.Y.KUMAR. ADV. FOR R4) THESE W,Ps ARE FILED PRAYING TO QUASh ANNEX-F DTD 31.12.10. QUASH ANENX-G DTD 31.12.2010. QUASH ANNEX-Il DTD 31.12.2010. QUASH ANNEX-J DTD 31.12.2010. IT IS JUST EXPEDIENT THAT WRIT OF MANDAMUS MAY BE ISSUED DIRECTING THE BDA TO DELETE LANDS OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NOs. 19/5. 1/8. 20/3 AND 94/1 MEASURING 1 ACRE 35 GUNTAS, 1 ACRE 23 GUNTAS, 30 GUNTAS ANT) 2 ACRES 23 GUNTAS RESPECTIVELY OF JAKKUR VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE AND FURTHER DIRECT THE BDA TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE IIONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CA NO. 4097/2010 IN ORDER DTD 5.5.10 AND ALSO TIlE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN WRIT APPEAL ORDER REPORTED IN ILR 2006 AT PAGES 316. W.P.NOS. 17889-89412011 BETWEEN: 1. SRICSRIRAMA AGEI) ABOUT 49 YEARS. 5/0 LATE Cf IANNARAVANNA . C.SRINIVAS AGED AT-3OIJT 17 YEARS S/fl LATE CHANNARAYAPPA 3. CPAPANNA AGEI) ABOUT 15 YEARS S/O LATE CHANNAPAYAPPA ALL ARE RESIDING AT JAKKUR VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI BANGALORE NORTI I TALUK BANGALORE PETITIONERS (By Sri: RNATARAJ. ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ANI) URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MULTISTORIED BUILDING DRRR.AMBEDKAR VEEDITI BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE BANGALORE I)EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 3. THE LANI) ACQUISITION OFFICER THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 4. THE METROPOLITAN COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD BY ITS SECRETARY. ROOM NO.21 GROUND FLOOR. VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 RESPONDENTS (By Sri: K.S.MALLIKARJUNALAH, IICGP FOR Ri. SRI.V.B.SHIVA KUMAR. ADV. FOR R2 & R3. SRLV.Y.KU MAR. ADV. FOR R4) THESE WPs ARE FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORI)ER PASSED BY THE R1DT.19.12.03 ENCLoSED AS ANN C. SET ASII)E ALLOTMENT OF THE LAND OF TIlE PETITIONERS iN TERMS OF TIlE LETFER OF ALLOTMENT I)L 1 07 ISSUED BY TIlE Ri EQ TIlE R4 IN RESPECT OF PROPER lIES DESCRIBE!) IN FIlE SCIIEDI LE OF WI’. WHICI I IS ENCLOSED AS AiNN-1). These petitions coming on for dictating orders this day. the court macic the following: ORDER In these writ petitions. the petitioners have assailed the endorsement issued to them by the respondent Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I3DA). They have also challenged the allotment of certain Survey Numbers by the respondent-authorities to the Metropolitan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.. (hereinafter referred to as the society’). Since the issues raised in these writ petitions are similar, they have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The gist of the pleadings in the W.P.Nos, 12276- 80/20 1 1 Writ Petitions are as follows: ( (i) The petilioners in W.P.Nos.12276-80/2011 state that they are the owners of land bearing Sy.Nos.94/5 and 94/6 of Jakkur Village. Bangalore North Taluk. which is a subject matter of acquisition 1r the formation of Arkavat Iii Layout. The petitioners had challented (lie acquisition before this court and a learned single judge of this court had quashed the entire acquisition by order dated 15. 1.2005 reported in ILk 2005 Karnataka 37 1 0. The BDA had Illed -8- W.A.No.2625/2004 assailing the order of the learned single judge. The Division Bench of this court while upholding the acquisiliorl has granted certain reliefs to the site-holders and land-owners. The said order is reported in ILR 2006 Karnataka 318. At this stage. it would be relevant to mention that as against the order of Division BeHch. certain land owners filed Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court. The Special Leave Petitions were heard as civil appeals and by order dated 5.5.2010, the civil appeals have been disposed of. The acquisition has been upheld. However, reliefs granted by the Division Bench of this Court have been further clarified by the Apex Court. The said order of the Apex Court is reported in 2010 (7) SCC (ii) The petitioners have stated that pursuant to the relief granted by the Division Bench, they made their representation before the BDA contending that land bearing Sy.Nos.94/5 and 94/6 of Jakkur Village were developed lands and that the adjacent land bearing Sy.No.92/1 neasuring 1 acre 7 guntas located on the eastern side of I he petitioners property and Sy.Nos.92/2 and 92/3 have not been ilOtiIiC(l [or icquisiI ion even 1hou&h those lands were shnilarlv situated The Bl)A considei ed the said FeJ)resclllation and rjec’ted 11w saiiic. The said rejeel iou was — ( -9- assailed by the petitioners in W.P.No.7183/2008 and the same was aflowed by order dated 30.6.2009 and the matter was remanded back to the BDA. After remand, the BDA once again rejected the representation of the petitioners which was once again challenged before this court in W.P.No.38746/2009. Though the writ petition was allowed by order dated 24.6.2010. since there was no protection of the petitioners’ possession. W.A.No.2900-904/2010 was filed before the Division Bench of this court. The Division Bench by order dated 18.10.2010 granted protection of the petitioners’ property. Thereafter, the BDA issued notice dated 29.10.2010 to the petitioners to appear before them. The petitioners appeared and ified their representation. A copy of which is produced as Annexure-M. Thereafter, there has been inspection of the lands in question and the inspection report is produced at Annexure-N. Subsequently. the resolution at Annexure-P and the endorsement at Anncxure-Q have been passed and the same are issued to the petitioners. The said resolution and the endorsement are assailed In these writ petitions. (iii) The petitioners in these writ petitions have alsn acsailed the bulk allotment inside b the State and the BI)A a A ( -10- in favour of the 41h respondent society. Since Sy.Nos.94/5 and 94/6 of Jakkur Village i.e., the lands belonging to these petitioners are also part of the bulk allotment. The petitioners have assailed the manner in which the bulk allotment was made and also the competence of the respondent authorities to make the said allotment to the respondent-society. (iv) The BDA has ified statement of objections admitting the fact that Sy.Nos.94/5 and 94/6 of Jakkur Vifiage belonging to these petitioners are subject matter of acquisition and the acquisition has been upheld by the Apex Court subject to certain reliefs granted to the petitioners. In their statement of objections, the BDA has stated that the representation made by the petitioners have been considered having regard to the decision of the DMsion Bench of this court as well as the order of the Apex Court and pursuant to making an inspection of the lands In question that the petitioners’ lands do not come within the guidelines prescribed by the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, they have stated that the resolution passed as well as the endorsement Issued are in aceordanec with law and the %anw would not call for any interference hi these writ S pt(l1ions r new —Il— (v) The 4th respondent society has also filed statement of objections contending that the bulk allotment Is in accordance with law and that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the same since their lands have been acquired by the BDA and the acquisition has been upheld. They contend that when once the acquisition of the lands have been upheld subject to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this court and as clarified by the Apex Court the right of the petitioners Is only with regard to the consideration of their representations. That in the Instant case, the BDA has considered their representations in accordance with law and the same have been rejected. which order would not call for any interference In these writ petitions. The 4th respondent-society has also contended that with the leave of this court, the society is carrying on developmental activity on the lands allotted to the society. including the lands In question and that these petitioners who had earlier filed writ petitions had not pursued their reliefs with regard to the legality and validity of the bulk allotment cannot now be pennitted to once again assail the ‘same in these will petitions. — a t r (b) WJ&Nos21541543/201F. (1) The petitioners In V.P..Nos.2l541-21543/2Ol 1 have stated that they are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.92/1 of Jakkur Village. measuring 3 acres 18 guntas. That the said land has been acquired for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout. the petitioners had challenged the said acquisition before this Court and ultimately the acquisition has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court subject to certain reliefs granted to the petitioners. The said reliefs have been clarified by the Apex Court In Bondu Ramaswamy’s case while upholding the acquisition. That the petitioners had also challenged the allotment of land in bulk to the 4th respondent-society in W.P.No.7653/2008. The said writ petition was disposed of on 3.6.2009 resentIng liberty to the petitioners to make a representation before the BDA. Accordingly. the petitioners made their representation insofar as Sy.No.92/l is concerned by contending that a portion of the said survey number on the western side, measuring 1 acre 1 gunta and Sy.Nos.92/2 and 93/2 lying on the southern side had been excluded from acquisition. Therelore. the petiuoners lands have also to be excluded from acquisition. They have staled that they had challenged the order passed by t he DiiIsion Bern h of this court in SI P p I -13- Nos.14459-14463/2009. The said SUP was disposed of on 30.8.2010 following the judgment in Bonctu Ramaswamifs case. That pursuant to the directions issued by this court. BI)A made a spot Inspection of the lands in question. Thereafter the recommendation has been made as per Annexure-M and by resolution dated 28.11.2010 (Subject No.432/2010). the recommendations with regard to these lands have been blindly accepted. Hence, the resolution dated 28.11.2010 (Annexure-N) and the final report dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure-M) have been assailed In these writ petitions. ii. The respondent-society has filed statement of objections reiteratIng what has been stated In W.P.Nos. 12276-280/2011. (e) W.P.No.7497/ 11 & 9639-41/11’ — aa a s a a aa — — (I). The petitioner In W.P.Nos.7497/1 1 and 9639-41/11 have stated that he Is the owner of land bearing Sy.Nos. 19/5. 1/8. 20/3. 94/1 measuring various extents and that the said lands are situated at Jakkur Village. Yalahanka Hobli. Bangalorc. According to the pelitionex the said lands are garden and Imrsery lands. This petitioner had also assailed the acquisition of these lands br the 5 — S 1’ -‘4- formatIon of Arkavathi Layout which has ultimately been upheld by the Division Bench of this court as well as the Apex Court subject to certain reliefs which have been granted to the land owners. It is pursuant to the said direction issued by this court that the petitioner made a representation seeking exclusion of his lands by contending that the southern side of Sy.No. 19/5 has been left out from the final notification. That various survey numb 9 have been included in the said notification. Sy.No. 1/8 is a huge garden and nursenj land, and the southern side of Sy.No.20/3 has not been acquired. That Sy.No.94/ 1 has also been excluded as ft is a garden land. That Sy.No.94/l is a subject matter of bulk allotment to the 4” respondent- society. That on the representation made by the petitioner. notice was issued to him by the BDA. Thereafter, endorsements at Annexures-F, 0, H and J have been issued dated 31.12.2010. That the said endorsements are issued without maldng any spot inspection and without there being any repayment with regard to the status of the lands in question. Therefore, the same are assailed in these writ petitions. (Ii). Respondent No.4 hn% filed statement of ohjection reiterating its contentions as stated in the aforesaid writ — ( petitions and has sought dismissal of these writ petitions also. Respondent No.4 has also stated that the petitioner had earlier filed W,P.No. 10923/08 assailing the resolution passed in Resolution No. 144/06 dated 7.1 1.2006 as well as the bulk allotment made to the respondent-society. The sai(l 4 writ petition was disposed of by order dated 31.8.2009. Thereafter W.A.No.3695/2009 was filed assailing the order of the learned single judge in W.P.No. 10923/08. The said writ appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 8.6.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner once again assailed the endorsement dated 7.1 1.2006. That initially W.P.No.1175/06 was filed by the petitioner assailing the endorsement dated 17.6.2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 23.8.2006. Thereafter, the petitioner once again assailed the endorsement dated 17.6.2006 in W.P.No.31020/09. The said writ petitions was dismissed by order dated 30.10.2009. The 4t1 respondent has, therefore, contended that the petitioner has repeatedly filed writ petitions assailing the very same endorsement and that no relief can he granted to the petitioiicr in these writ c prtitions. a -16- (ifi) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the BDA ified a memo dated 11.8.2011 stating that insofar as Sy.Nos.19/5. 1/8, 20/3 are concerned, the matter would be reconsidered by the BDA and therefore, no orders need be passed ith regard to the said survey numbers and that the writ petition could be considered insofar as Sy.No.94/ I is concerned. Therefore, the said writ petitions would be restricted to Sy.No.94/ 1 measuring 2 acres 23 guntas of Jakkur Village, Bangalore North Taluk. (d) W.P.No. 17889-894/11 (I) The petitioners in W.P.Nos. 17889-894/11 have stated that they are the owners of land bearing Sy.Nos.76/5, 76/5A. 76/6, 76/7, 76/7A and 94/3 of Jakkur Village. The said lands have been acquired for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi Layout. The said acquisition has been upheld subject to certain reliefs granted by the I)ivlsion Bench of this Court which have been affinned and further clarified by the Apex Court In Bondu Raniczswamy’s case. That Sy.Nos.94/3A and 94/313 are subject matter of bulk allotinent of respondent society. Thai pursuant to the guidelines Issued by the 1)ivisloii Bench. the petitioners made a representation dated 23 12.2005. The said represelitat Ion is rejected by the F3DA by is’uaiice of an Sb, I ‘7.. endorsement at Annexure L. The same was challenged in W.P.No.38747/2009. The said writ petition was allowed and the endorsement was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the BDA for reconsideration. That since the learned single judge of this court had not protected the possession of the petitioners vis-ä-vis the lands in question. W.A.Nos.2897-99/2010 was filed. The Division Bench disposed of the writ appeals on 28.9.2010 protecting the possession of the petitioners till their representations were considered by the BDA. Pursuant to the remand made by this court in W.P.No.38747/20l0 to consider the representation of the petitloners in the light of the guidelines issued by this court as well as the order of the Apex Court in Bondu Ramaswamy’s casa BDA has considered the said representation and has passed a resolution dated 23.11.2010 in subject No.432/2010 (Annexure-R) and endorsement dated 3 1.12.2010 which are produced as Annexures-S, Si to S3. The same are challenged in these writ petitions. The 4th respondent society has filed statement of objections questioning the locus standi of the petitioners to ifie these writ petitions since the lands acquired have stood vested with the 13flA and that the petitioners cannot assail 11w same in the%e writ petitions 4 ( -IS- The society has also stated that the BOA has rightly rejectcd the representations made by the petitioners, which do not call for any interference in these writ petitions. Therefore. the society has sought dismissal of these writ petitions also. The 4th respondent-society has also contended that since these petitioners have assailed the eariler endorsement issued by the BOA dated 17.6.2006 in W.P.No.7185/2008 and also challenged the order of bulk allotment made in favour of the society and having regard to the order dated 30.6.2009 passed In the said writ petition, it is clear that the petitioners have given up their challenge to the bulk allotment and have restricted their right to seek reconsideration of their representations. Therefore, the petitioners are estopped from once signIn challenging the bulk allotment In these writ petitions. Hence, the 4th respondent has sought dismissal of these writ petitions. 3. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the BOA has stated that though objections are filet? only hi W.P.Nos. 12276 12280/2011 and not in other writ petitions. the said objections could be considered vic ft us 9ie oilier writ pet llion% also. - I 9- 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. lean ied counsel for the Bangalore I)evelopnlent Authority. learned Government Pleader for the State and learned counSel for the 4 th respondent-society. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have drawn my attention to the location of the various survey numbers, which are involved in these writ petitions. Their main contention is that despite the acquisition being upheld by this court as well as by the Apex Court, certain reliefs have been granted to the land owners by the Division Bench of this Court which have been upheld by the Apex Court in Bondu Rarnaswarntfs case. The said directions have been clarified and amplified by the Apex Court. Having regard to the said reliefs/directions issued by this court as well as by the Apex Court, the representations made by the petitioners insofar as each petitioner’s survey numbers are concerned had to be considered squarely in accordance with the said direction. I lowever, the same has not been clone in the present case. Mv attention has been drawii to paragrahs 146 and 147 of the judtment of the Apex Court to contend that insofar as these survey numbers arc concerned. ii the adjacent or the surroundint survey iiiimber’-, have fbi been 11(31 ilied fiM acquisitiol i or have been (\( ‘IL i(led %oni r Ia acquisition at the stage of final notification or subsequent thereto. then the common factor or the reason for deleting such lands had to be made known by the BDA and unless a reference is made to the common factor which has persuaded the BDA to delete the survey numbers adjacent to or surrounding the lands In insofar as these survey numbers are concerned. there has been aEbttrarv consideration of the representations made by the petitioners. No doubt, there has been a spot inspection of the lands In question but the report pursuant to the spot Inspection has been blindly accepted by the BDA. The resolution passed Is also bald land without taking Into consideration the nature of the lands in question. It Is also further contended that there has been non-application of mind insofar as these lands are concerned having regard to the fad that the adjacent and surroui%ding lands have been deleted or excluded from acquisition. It Is, therefore, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the resolution and the endorsements issued by the BDA are not in accordance with law and they are contrary to the directions issued by thc Division Bench of this court as well as the Apex (‘otin and therefore, the said resolutloys and endorsements have to be quashed. 11w spe’ellic submission S. - — 0 -21- made In regard to each of the sun’ey numbers would be considered during the course of this order. 6. The petitioners have also assailed the bulk allotment made by the State Infavour of the 4th respondent-society and it is their contention that on account of the bulk allotment being made insofar as certain survey numbers Involved In these writ petitions are concerned, there has been no Impartial consideration of the representations made by the petitioners. The rejection of the representations is only to sustain the bulk allotment that Is made by the State. particularly. In respect of certain survey numbers at Jakkur Village are concerned. Therefore, the petitioners have also assailed the bulk allotment of certain survey numbers made to the respondent-society. It Is also brought to my notice. the fact that the Apex court at paragraph 160(lv) of Its judgment has stated that any allotment made lw the BDA either by forming layouts or by hulk allotments Is subject to the other directions which have been issued and therefore. If the petitioners succeed lii establishing the illegality In the consideration of the representations. (lien aid omatleally I lie bulk allotment would also 1w qLiashed to th extent of their lands. a F -22- 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the BDA while making reference to the original records submitted in these cases. has contended that it is not for the first time the representations have been considered insofar as these petitioners are concerned. Earlier the representations made by the petitioners were concerned and rejected pursuant to the directions issued by the Division Bench of this court. The said rejection order/endorsements were quashed. The matters were remanded for a fresh reconsideration, having regard to the fact that the Apex Court had given certain