The court upheld the validity of the allotment under the Bangalore Development Authority Act and rejected the petitioners' contentions.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS are the residents of mico colony which was formed by the mico employees' house building co-operative society limited, Bangalore. The challenge in this writ petition is the allotment of c. a. 2 site to the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent has sanctioned a layout plan viz. , mico layout, submitted by the society as per annexure-b. The said society formed the layout as required under Bangalore development authority act and rules and regulations and also according to comprehensive development plan (c. d. p. ). It is their case that the society has earmarked 2 c. a. sites for play ground for the use of the residents of the layout which are identified as c. a. 2 and c. a. 3 in the sanction plan. These 2 c. a. sites constitute 166900 sq. Ft. Which is about 12. 83% of the total land of 29 acres and 34 guntas or 1300266 sq. Ft. It is their specific case that a major portion of c. a. 2 is earmarked as play ground for the use of the residents of the layout and the portion abutting the 15th main road is for college as per the sanctioned plan. It is their further case that the 2nd respondent has allotted the entire c. a. 2 site measuring 450' x 250' to the 1st respondent in gross violation of the Provisions of the c. d. p. the 1st respondent has now laid the foundation stone on c. a. 2 site on 19-6-1995 and the 1st respondent has commenced civil construction activity and the work is in progress. It is also their case that the society has so far not relinquished the c. a. site to the 2nd respondent to allot the land to anybody of its choice. Therefore, the action of the 2nd respondent is not in accordance with law and is not sustainable. It is on this ground the writ petitioners pray this court to declare the allotment of c. a. 2 site in favour of the 1st respondent as illegal and without authority of law and to declare that the 1st respondent has no right to put up any construction on the c. a. site.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have filed statement of objections denying the claim of the writ petitioners. The 1st respondent in particular, has questioned the locus standi of the petitioners in filing this petition in public interest as no public interest is involved. It is further contended that the site in question is c. a. site which is reserved for playground and college and the site is now allotted to an institution to start an educational institution. It is also contended that the petition is liable to be rejected on account of delay and laches and the petitioners have approached this court five years after the site is leased in favour of the 1st respondent. It is also contended that the b. d. a. has leased all the sites in favour of the society and the 1st respondent has taken possession of c. a. sites. It is further contended that the 2nd respondent has issued notification on 14-6-1990 for allotment of c. a. site as in annexure-r-1. The 1st respondent submitted an application on 20-7-1990 for allotment of c. a. site No. 4 in b. t. m. ii stage. The said site was allotted on lease basis as in Annexure r-2. The 1st respondent has remitted a sum of Rs. 28,57,305/- towards lease consideration in addition to remittance of Rs. 3,32,715/- towards initial deposit. The 1st respondent has started construction and at this stage, these petitioners have approached this court and stopped further construction.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS produced certain photographs marked at Annexure-D series.

( 4 ) IT is undisputed that the society in question has formed the layout called 'b. t. m. layout ii stage' and the original layout plan is produced by the b. d. a. for perusal of the court. There is also no dispute that the c. a. site in question is reserved for a specific purpose of college and playground. The writ petitioners have not disputed this aspect. The 2nd respondent-b. d. a. has issued notification as in Annexure r-l for allotment of this c. a. site, detailed therein. The 1st respondent had applied for allotmen