A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.

1. According to the petitioner one K.T. Venkatesh son of late K.R. Tukarama Rao was granted occupancy rights on 31.08.1979 in respect of 16 guntas of land in Sy. No. 172/2A of Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli, by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk and a certificate of registration in Form-10 was issued on 17.08.1982. Petitioner claims that K.T. Venkatesh executed an agreement of sale dated 19.06.1996(Annexure-F1) in his favour, agreeing to sell, out of the said property, an extent of 100 ft. east-west and 70 ft. north-south and delivered possession of the property. Petitioner claims that, K.T. Venkatesh also executed a deed of General Power of Attorney dated 19.06.1996 (Annexure-F) in his favour, in respect of the said property and thus, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property by paying the tax to Bommanahalli CMC. According to the petitioner, BDA formed four sites in the said 16 guntas of land, without any authority of law and allotted the same to respondent Nos. 3 to 6. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for a declaration that he is in possession and enjoyment of 16 guntas of land and for quashing the allotment of the sites made by the BDA vide Annexures-O, P, Q & R, in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. Bangalore Development Authority, by filing statement of objections contended that in the land in Sy. No. 172/2A of Bilekahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, after conducting a detailed survey, prepared development scheme, drew-up a preliminary notification dated 19.09.1977 under sub-sections (1) & (3) of S. 17 of the BDA Act, 1976 and published the same in the Official Gazette dated 29.09.1977 and after sanction of the scheme, a final declaration dated 07.02.1978 under S. 19(1) of the Act was issued by the Government and was published in the Official Gazette dated 09.03.1978 and that the said property was acquired for implementation of BTM Layout scheme. BDA further stated that an award dated 27.02.1984 was passed by the SLAO in LAC No. 671/78-79 and thereafter, the possession of the land was taken and delivered to its engineering section. BDA has stated that the challenge put forth to the said preliminary and final notifications i.e., in respect of the land in Sy. No. 172/2A of Bilekahalli village was negated on 13.09.1996 in W.P. No. 11299/1996 and that W.P. No. 26992/2000 filed by Mr. Munnavar Basha and another having been dismissed on 08.03.2002, the order when questioned was upheld in W.A. No. 3515/2002 decided on 20.09.2006. BDA contended that the writ petition is not maintainable; hit by delay and laches and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

2. Mr. Ilyas Hussain, learned advocate contended that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property by virtue of an agreement of sale and also a deed of GPA dated 19.06.1996 executed by K.T. Venkatesh and hence, has the locus standi to maintain the writ petition against the arbitrary and illegal action of BDA, which, without acquisition of the property by issue of notice either to K.T. Venkatesh or to the petitioner, made the allotment of sites illegally formed in the property, in favour of respondent Nos. 3 to 6. He further contended that the petitioner being the person in actual possession, pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 19.06.1996 has an interest in the subject property and therefore, is entitled to question the arbitrary and illegal action of BDA, on all the grounds as are available to K.T. Venkatesh.

3. Mr. M. Karunakaran, learned advocate for the BDA on the other hand vehemently contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition, as he had not or has acquired the title over the subject property and even otherwise, the acquisition notifications being much earlier to the alleged agreement of sale and the deed of GPA dated 19.06.1996, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition and question the action of BDA in the matter of the a