KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

1. Petitioner, a Lease Agreement holder of the site in question is before this Court grieving against the endorsement dated 21.07.2016 issued by respondent-BDA at Annexure-N, whereby she has been denied a regular Sale Deed on the ground that the said site is a "Civic Amenity Site."

2. The respondent-BDA having entered appearance through its panel counsel Sri Ashwin C. has filed the Statement of Objections on 09.02.2018 resisting the Writ Petition inter-alia on the ground that the site in question is treated as a Civic Amenity Site, in the BDA records and also in the very aforesaid Lease Agreement.

3. Smt. Kshema Nargund, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the site in question is not a Civic Amenity Site regardless of its description to the contrary in certain records and also in the subject Lease Agreement inasmuch as it does not answer the definition of 'Civic Amenity Site' as given under Rule 2(b) of B.D.A. (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989; had the B.D.A. officials adverted to the Rule position, the impugned endorsement would not have been issued; more particularly when the 'Anoupacharika Tippani' dated 12.12.2012 at Annexure-H issued by the Town Planning Member of the BDA and the clarificatory note dated 11.04.2014 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government at Annexure-K.

4. Per contra, the learned panel counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that the site in question is a Civic Amenity Site; in the Lease Agreement dated 31.07.2003 to which the petitioner is a party, the said site is described as a Civic Amenity Site; that being so the petitioner is estopped from contending to the contrary regardless of the absence of its description in the layout plan as a Civic Amenity Site. So arguing, the learned panel counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned panel counsel for respondent-BDA. I have perused the writ petition and the Statement of Objections.

6. Rule 2(b) of The Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 defines a "Civic Amenity Site" to mean "a site earmarked for civic amenity in a layout formed by the authority or a site earmarked for civic amenity in a private layout approved by the authority and relinquished to it". This is only "a means definition" as contra distinguished from "an inclusive definition". Learned Author Justice G.P.Singh, in his Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 13th edition- 2012 at page-179 writes:-

"The Legislature has power to define a word even artificially. So the definition of a word in the definition section may either be restricted of its ordinary meaning or it may be extensive of the same. When a word is defined to 'mean' such and such, the definition is prima facie restrictive and exhaustive; whereas, where the word defined is declared to 'include' such and such, the definition is prima facie extensive.

7. The text and context of the aforesaid definition leaves no manner of doubt as to what a Civic Amenity Site is. To be a Civic Amenity Site, going by the said definition, earmarking of the said site as such, in the layout, be it formed by the BDA or a private developer, is a sine qua non which is missing in the instant case. A site not so earmarked in the BDA layout plan or the approved private layout plan does not become a civic amenity site merely by usage, not withstanding its description as a civic amenity site in any document other than the approved layout plan. In other words, a site which is not earmarked as a Civic Amenity Site cannot be so treated as a Civic Amenity Site by act of parties post approval of the layout plan. The argument to the contrary cannot be countenanced without manhandling the definition prescribed under Rule 2(b).

8. The last contention of the learned panel counsel for the respondent-BDA, the site in question has been described to be a civic amenity site even in the lease