In this petition, petitioner has sought for the following

reliefs:

a. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ

directing the Respondents / Bangalore Development

Authority to issue rectified sale deed, incorporating the

changes as Site No:36, Instead of existing Site No:37,

and with corresponding changes in the boundaries, in

substitution to the sale deed dated 15.02.2001 vide

Annexure – A already issued forthwith to the petitioner,

by considering the representation of the Petitioner

dated 17.12.2019 vide Annexure- B.

b. Pass any other order/s or direction as this Hon’ble

Court deems fit and proper under the facts and

circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and

equity.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the

material on record.

3.

In

addition

to

reiterating

the

various

contentions urged in the petition and referring to the

documents produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner is allottee of site

³

bearing No.37 described as the petition schedule property

carved out of Sy.No.25 of RMV II Stage Further Extension,

Bhoopasandra, Bengaluru, having been allotted the same

by the respondent-BDA in the year 2000 and the said

allotment was made in terms of the original layout plan,

pursuant to which, sale deed in favour of petitioner was

executed by the respondent-BDA. Subsequently, pursuant

to the Resolution No.256/2011 of the respondent-BDA

dated 13.12.2011, the layout plan was modified and

approved on 30.03.2012 by the BDA. As per the modified

layout plan, there were certain changes in the site number

of the site allotted in favour of the petitioner. Under these

circumstances,

petitioner

submitted

repeated

representations to the respondent-BDA from 2019 onwards

up to 09.03.2020 requesting the BDA to execute rectified

sale deed in favour of the petitioner and absolute sale deed

in favour of petitioner in terms of the modified layout plan

dated 30.03.2012.

3.1 It is further submitted that in the meanwhile,

several litigations by the land owners were pending in

relation to Sy.Nos.17, 25 and 28 and the BDA used the

⁴

said litigations as an excuse not to execute the rectified

sale deed / absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in

terms of the modified layout plan dated 30.03.2012. It is

the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid

facts and circumstances and the said litigations having

come to an end on 12.09.2022 upon dismissal of

R.P.No.159/2020 before this Court, the respondent-BDA is

not taking any steps to execute the rectified sale deed /

absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the

modified layout plan dated 30.03.2012 and as such, the

petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

4.

Per

contra,

learned

counsel

for

the

respondent-BDA submits that since the original records

were misplaced and not available, vide resolution

No.62/2022 dated 08.07.2022, the respondent-BDA has

constituted a Committee for the purpose of examining the

available records and execution of rectified sale deed /

absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the

modified layout plan dated 30.03.2012. He further submits

⁵

that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to

be dismissed.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival

submissions and perused the material on record.

6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the undisputed material on record clearly

establishes that subsequent to the allotment and execution

of sale deed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the

original layout plan, the layout plan was subsequently

modified on 30.03.2012 pursuant to the resolution

No.256/2011 dated 13.12.2011, on account of which, there

are certain changes in the number of the site allotted in

favour of the petitioner, thereby warranting execution of

rectified sale deed / absolute sale deed in favour of