K.A. Swami, J.
1. In these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the second respondent to allot same sites belonging to the petitioners and collect betterment fee or any other charges that they may have to pay as per Rules.
2. The case of the petitioners is that each of them owned a revenue site in Sy. Nos, 10/2, 10/3, 12/1, 12/2, 13/2 and 16/1 of Gangenahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk, Division No. 46 ; that the land comprised in the aforesaid survey numbers were acquired for the purpose of formation of Matadahalli layout by the Bangalore Development Authority ; that at the time of acquisition the Chairman of the B.D.A issued an Notification bearing No. BDA/APM/TA 194/76-77 dated 14-7-1976 representing to the revenue site owners whose sites were acquired for the purpose of the scheme by the B.D.A. that they revenue site owners-would be allotted sites equal to the revenue site acquired as far as possible not exceeding 40'x 60' in any case, that they have to file affidavit within one month from the date of the receipt of the letter to the effect that they or any member of their family do not own any site or house within the Bangalore Metropolitan area. The further case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the said notification they have filed the affidavits and thereafter no site has been allotted to them. Hence they have sought for the aforesaid direction.
3. Before considering these petitions on merits it is also necessary to decide the application filed yesterday during the course of hearing seeking amendment to the Writ Petitions.
Sri Sadashiva, learned Counsel appearing for the B.D.A. and Sri Udaya Shankar, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State oppose the application. By way of this amendment the petitioners want to introduce a prayer for quashing the notifications dated 16-3-1976 and 13-11-1976 issued under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The notification dated 16-3-1976 is issued under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 17 of the Act. It is published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 25-3-76 stating that the lands mentioned therein which include the lands in question are required for the formation and improvement of Matadahalli layout. The notification dated 30-11-1977 is issued under Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act declaring that the State Government has sanctioned the scheme for formation of layout called Matadahalli layout. There is a long delay in seeking the amendment. As already pointed out the notifications were issued in the year 1976 and 1977. It is not as though these petitioners were not aware of the acquisition. In fact in the affidavit dated 31-1-1977 sworn to by one Smt. Hemavathi, the acquisition in question is referred to and it is in pursuance to the acquisition they have filed the affidavit seeking allotment of sites. It is not disputed, and it is the case of the petitioners that similar affidavits are filed by each one of the petitioners. Thus they were aware of the acquisition proceedings as long back as in the year 1977. There is no explanation worth accepting for this long delay. Secondly it is also not possible to hold that the amendment sought for by the petitioners is necessary for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in these petitions or for the purpose of considering the question as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for by them. As it is already pointed out the petitioners have sought for a direction to the B.D.A. to allot the sites formed out of the revenue sites. Such a direction is sought on the basis that the revenue sites have been acquired by the B.D.A. and the layout is formed by them on representing to the revenue sites owners that they would be provided with the sites in the layout. Therefore whether the acquisition is valid or not is not at all relevant for the purpose of considering the prayer made in these Writ Petitions. In fact the prayer made in these Writ Petitions can be considered only on the basis that the lands in question are acquired and the layout is formed. Therefore the amendment sought for is not necessary for the purpose of granting the prayer made in the Writ Petition. Hence I am of the opinion that the application filed by the petitioners seeking amendment cannot at all be granted. Accordingly the application is rejected.
4. I now proceed to consider the case of the petitioners on merits. It is now well established by reason of a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in A. V. Laxman v. B.D.A. and others., WA No. 729 of 1983 DD 14-9-1983 that there is no right in the owner of the land which is acquired for the purpose of scheme under the Act to seek reconveyance of site forming part of the scheme or layout formed by the B.D.A. In para 4 of the Judgment in the aforesaid W. A. 729 of 1983 while considering the contention of the appellant that he is entitled to seek reconveyance, it is held as follows :-
'The Learned Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition, has observed that there is no right vested in the appellant to claim that relief from the BDA. We entirely agree with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge.'
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place reliance on any of the provisions in the Act or on the Rules framed there under which enable the B.D.A. to reconvey the site. Reconveyance in a way is opposed to the scheme itself. Scheme is formed for the purpose of forming site for alloting them as per the Rules. The Rules do not provide for reconveyance. Therefore it is not possible to hold that the petitioners have a right to seek reconveyance.
5. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has tried to take refuge under the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel on the basis of the notification issued by the then Chairman of the B.D.A. dated 14-7-76 as per Annexure-B. The petitioners claim that as per and in pursuance of the notification (Annexure-B) they have filed the affidavits and have not challenged the acquisition and have altered their position to their disadvantage, therefore, it is not now open to the B.D.A. to resile from the notification and deny allotment of sites to the petitioners by way of reconveyance. The Notification (Annexure - B) relied upon by the petitioners is issued by the then Chairman of the B.D.A. That notification is not a direct invitation to the petitioners or persons similarly situated to file an affidavit and seek allotment of sites. The notification only states that the revenue site owners may file the affidavit within one month from the date of receipt of the letter to the effect that they and any of the members of their family do not own any site or house within the Metropolitan area. It is not the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the aforesaid notification they received a communication from the B.D.A. to file the affidavit claiming allotment of sites by reconveyance. Therefore unless each of the petitioners had received the communication from the B.D.A. assuring them to allot a site by way of reconveyance or otherwise and further instructing them to file necessary affidavit or application pursuant thereto, they had no reason to believe that the B.D.A. had promised to a lot or reconvey a site to each one of them. No such claim is made or no such communication is received. In addition to this it is not possible to apply the rule of promissory estoppel in cases where there is no provision contained in the Act, or in the Rules framed thereunder enabling the B.D.A. to allot or reconvey the sites in the manner proposed to be done by the notification (Annexure-B). Therefore I am of the view that the B.D.A. cannot be directed to allot or reconvey a site to each of the petitioners on the ground that it had promised to allot or reconvey a site to each one of the petitioners.
For the reasons stated above the petitioners are not entitled to the relief sought for by them.
Accordingly these Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.