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