The central legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner did not have a right to seek reconveyance as there was no provision for reconveyance before the introduction of Section 38-c in 1994. The court emphasized the retrospective effect of the section and the absence of a resolution for reconveyance.

( 1 ) THE petitioner by this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for regularisation and for reallotment of the sites in question and to reallot the sites in question in favour of the petitioner and to issue possession certificates to the petitioners and to cancel or withdraw the sites granted in favour of respondents 2 and 3. Petitioner has further prayed for grant of such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit.

( 2 ) PETITIONER in the writ petition has stated that she has purchased arevenue site bearing No. 3 measuring 40' x 36' formed in sy. No. 15/2 of kathriguppa village under registered sale deed dated 10-4-1974 from her vendor Smt. B. n, suguna for valuable consideration. She has asserted that from the date of purchase of aforementioned site, petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said site. Petitioner's case is that her name was indicated in the revenue records. She has asserted that she had purchased the site in question with the sole intention of constructing a house. Petitioner has further asserted that 1st respondent has acquired the land in sy. No. 15/2 of kathriguppa village including the site in question. She alleged that there were large number of revenue site holders similarly situated like petitioner who do not own any sites or houses and the 1st respondent in the larger interest of the site owners of their own has formed a scheme known as reconveyance scheme so as to reconvey the sites to respective owners after forming of a layout by the 1st respondent. Petitioner has further averred that layout has been formed and the sites were given number. Petitioner's site which is in dispute namely site No. 3 has been renumbered as 477 and 478 measuring 20' x 35' each. Petitioner's case is that respondent called upon applications from the respective revenue site holders for considering their case for the purpose of reconveyance and issued notice dated 15-11-1979 to the petitioner directing the petitioner to produce all the documents in support of her case. Petitioner has annexed the copy of that notice as Annexure-D. Petitioner's case is that she has produced all the documents called for by the 1st respondent for reconveying the revenue site and made several representations for reconveyance. Petitioner further alleged that petitioner's case was considered and approved by the 1st respondent on 11-1-1980 for regularisation. The copy of the said approval along with the list is produced by the petitioner as annexuere-e and e-1. Petitioner has asserted that application of the petitioner was under process which was approved by the 1st respondent on 11-1-1980 itself for regularisation as it is similar to bda site nos. 490, 410, 412, 418, 445 and 476 which have been reallotted to the respective revenue site holders. Petitioner has further stated that at the time of reallotment of bda sites to the petitioner, it was found that the said site has been allotted to respondents 2 and 3 respectively on 15-12-1984 after the approval made by the 1st respondent in favour of the petitioner for regularisation. Petitioner's case is that allotment of site in favour of respondents 2 and 3 is not a regular one and is illegal and on account of communication gap from one Section to another in the office of the Bangalore development authority-1st respondent. She has further asserted that the land in sy. No. 15/2 including the revenue site held by the petitioner was acquired by the 1st respondent and possession is with the 1st respondent and the possession certificates were not issued either to the petitioner or to the respondents 2 and 3. Petitioner's case is that she filed a suit No. 10402 of 1985 in the court of city civil judge, mayo hall, Bangalore for injunction. That suit was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 5-7-1990 and the court had held that the suit