The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioners are engaged in the business of Real Estate Development and have jointly preferred these writ petitions raising several common questions of law.

The petitioners have furnished details of their unquestionable presence in the business and their track record. The petitioners claim that during the period 2006 to 2010, they had developed five residential group housing projects namely, a) Sobha Althea & Azalea, b) Sobha Adamus & Amethyst, c) Sobha Chrysanthemum and d) Sobha Ruby & Ruby Platinum, and had developed a layout project, namely, e) Sobha Lotus. This was as per the plans sanctioned by the second respondent, the Bangalore Development Authority.

It is stated that after such sanction of plans, as required under law the petitioners had executed Relinquishment deeds in respect of civic amenity sites, open spaces and park areas in respect of the above projects as per the sanctioned plan, in favour of the second respondent. The second respondent is the Planning Authority under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KTCP Act' for brevity). In terms of Section 67 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BDA Act' for brevity), it has framed the Revised Master Plan 2015, (hereinafter referred to as the 'RMP 2015' for brevity) which was duly approved by the State Government on 22.06.2007. That under the RMP 2015, the BDA incorporated a mode of disposal of Civic amenity sites, open spaces and park areas for the purpose of development by the owner or developer, which ultimately was to be handed over to the Local Residents Association or group, for maintenance. The petitioners contend that after completion of the construction in the above said five residential projects, they had requested the BDA on several occasions, the last of which was on 9.7.2010, for re-allotment of the civic amenity sites out of the area relinquished to it for providing amenities for the benefit of residents, while abiding by the process and procedures in terms of RMP 2015. The said representation was kept pending without any response. Therefore, the petitioners were constrained to file a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.31663-667/2011 which was ultimately disposed of by an order dated 8.9.2011, in terms of an order passed in W.P.No.12689/2011, dated 13.07.2011. This Court had held in those petitions, that the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1989 Rules', for brevity), were not applicable in considering the representation of the petitioners and directed the BDA to consider the representation made by the petitioners for allotment of the civic amenity sites in terms of Regulation 7 of the RMP 2015. Therefore, the petitioners had again made a request on 16.09.2011 to the BDA to comply with the directions issued by this Court. The BDA had issued allotment letters on 3.1.2012, and on other dates, and allotted 11 civic amenity sites, however, contrary to the mandate of RMP 2015 and the specific direction issued by this Court. The BDA had invoked the 1989 Rules and incorporated certain conditions such as a fixed period of lease for 30 years, payment of lease amount in a lumpsum or in yearly installments and fixation of annual rents, etc., which are not at all contemplated in RMP 2015.

The petitioners claim that they have completed the residential projects. The BDA has also issued occupation certificates in respect of the various apartments and other units and the petitioners have also executed sale deeds in favour of third party purchasers of such units from 27.08.2010 onwards and in those sale deeds and other agreements, the petitioners have committed themselves to certain contractual obligations for providing certain civic amenities on sites which were to be allotted by Respondent No.2 and have also agreed to develop the same at their own c