CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a House Building co-operative Society duly registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). It acquired by purchase about 300 acres of land in Avalahalli and Hosakerehalli of Bangalore south Taluk, Gerehally in Bangalore North taluk. It proposes to develop such land in an orderly manner and therefore plans to develop the same in more than one phase. In that behalf, the Society applied to the bangalore Development Authority (successor to the City Improvement Trust board) for permission to form a private residential layout. It is alleged that in the Board meeting held on 31-1-1973, the Board recommended that No Objection Certificate may be granted for conversion of the agricultural land to develop it for non-agricultural purpose. Thereafter it is not disputed the lands in question have been converted and a private layout was permitted to be formed conforming to the plan approved by the City improvement Trust Board, the predecessor to Bangalore Development Authority, the respondent in this petition. That approval was granted on 13-8-1975 through a letter bearing that date. Similarly, different phases of development have been approved by the respondent - Bangalore Development authority permitting the petitioner - Society to form private layouts in accordance with the powers vested in the authority under Section 32 of the bangalore Development authority Act. That the layouts in question have been formed is not in dispute. Petitioner is aggrieved that after permitting the layouts to be laid out by the Society itself, the respondent has called upon the Society to execute an agreement the terms of which are wholly unreasonable and beyond the competence of the authority to impose those conditions to defeat the very purpose for which Section 32 is enacted in the Bangalore development Authority Act. The Pro-forma agreement is produced at Annexure-D to the petition and the conditions complained of are conditions 1,2,8 and 9. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for are for a declaration that the authority has no competence to impose those conditions and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to enter into an agreement de hors the conditions complained of. ( 2 ) IT may not be necessary to advert to the other reliefs prayed for. Therefore, the reliefs prayed for are for a declaration that the authority has no competence to impose those conditions and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to enter into an agreement de hors the conditions complained of. ( 2 ) IT may not be necessary to advert to the other reliefs prayed for. ( 3 ) THE Act is an updated version of the earlier City of Bangalore Improvement Act and the authority under the Act is the successor to the former Trust Board. By the repealing provisions, the acts done under the old Act are saved and deemed to have been done under the Act. Therefore, in this petition, we need not concern ourselves in regard to the permission granted under the erstwhile Act for forming private layouts by the Society. The object of Section 32 of the act is clear and it is in conformity with the object of the rest of the Act. Section 32 enables private owners of land to assist the development of the City of Bangalore in an orderly fashion by obtaining the permission of the authority to form the layout. Similar provisions were available under the previous act for the development of the City of bangalore. This would reduce 33% of the work of the erstwhile Trust Board or the present authority from taking up all developmental work exclusively by itself. In fact, this may be described as the trend of privatisation of public work. ( 4 ) IT is in this sense that Section 32 must be understood, that is, to promote and ensure the objects of the Act as a whole. The conditions complained of by the petitioner are as follows :-"1. To all the Second Party to form a layout in conformity with the plan approved or modified from time to time as per policy or rules by the Second Party and handed over the above land to the second Party to form the layout. 2. To hand over such portions of the lands as is required for the roads and civic amenities etc. , as per approved plan to the second Party free of cost, before release of sites, by executing a relinquishment deed duly registered at the cost of Society. 8. Allotment of Sites shall be as per bangalore Development Authority allotment of Sites Rules, 1982. 9. , as per approved plan to the second Party free of cost, before release of sites, by executing a relinquishment deed duly registered at the cost of Society. 8. Allotment of Sites shall be as per bangalore Development Authority allotment of Sites Rules, 1982. 9. Before allotment of sites, list shall be submitted to the Bangalore Development authority and got approved. " ( 5 ) SRI T. S. Ramachandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that condition No. 1 is not attracted to the facts of the case because the land has been developed by the petitioner- Society in accordance with the plan approved for the layout and therefore question of allowing the second Party, namely the respondent to take possession of the land and carry out the layout work does not arise. On the admitted facts, the contention must be upheld because question of taking possession of the land for the purpose of forming the layout is long over. Under the provisions contained in Section 32, private land may be laid out by the owner himself in accordance with the specifications of a layout as laid down by the respondent- authority or it may take charge of land and make the layout itself if charges in that behalf are paid by the owner of the land. In this case, layouts have been formed, therefore, the question of taking possession of the land and handing over the possession to the Second Party for that purpose does not arise. Therefore, condition No. 1 is certain alien to the agreement proposed with the petitioner-Society and is not in any way germane to the object of the Act at this stage. ( 6 ) FOR the same reason, condition No. 2 is equally inapplicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner-Society as that stage is long over. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, this Court has to consider whether any rights of the petitioner, legal or otherwise, are affected by conditions 8 and 9. Condition No. 8 directs that allotment shall be as per the Allotment Rules framed by the bangalore Development Authority Allotment of Sites Rules, 1982. Now that the owner of the layout is the petitioner-Society is not disputed; that it is owner of a private layout is also not disputed. Condition No. 8 directs that allotment shall be as per the Allotment Rules framed by the bangalore Development Authority Allotment of Sites Rules, 1982. Now that the owner of the layout is the petitioner-Society is not disputed; that it is owner of a private layout is also not disputed. Therefore, condition No. 8 is beyond the competence of the authority, the rules are made applicable for allotment of sites by the Bangalore Development Authority. Allottee under Rule 2 (b) of the said Rules is defined to be a person to whom a site is allotted under those rules. Rule 3 (1) specifically provides, whenever the authority forms an extension or layout in pursuance of any scheme, the authority may subject to the general and special orders of the government offer any or all the sites in such extension or layout with permission for allotment of sites under those rules. Therefore, it is only the scheme formulated by the Bangalore Development Authority under Section 16 which are governed by the Allotment rules and not private layouts found by persons other than the authority under the Act in accordance with the permission obtained under Section 32 of the Act. Therefore, to interfere with the internal affairs of a House building Co-operative Society which by itself from its incorporation, the aims and objects in terms of its Bye-laws is meant for the benefit of the members that has developed and undertaken by the Society cannot be controlled by the rules made for totally different purpose. In that view of the matter, condition No. 8 in the agreement is not a condition which the Bangalore Development authority is competent to impose affecting the constitutional rights in the case of individuals, if they are owners of the private layout and the legal rights of incorporated bodies like society or a company which is the owner of the private layout. Therefore, it is clearly impermissible and appropriate directions in that behalf are necessary to oe issued. ( 8 ) IN so far as condition No. 9 is concerned, this Court does not feel that in any way infringes any of the rights of the petitioner rrentioned above. In support of his contention against condition No. 9, Mr. T. S. Ramachandra drew my attention to a passage in H. W. R. Wade's Administrative law, 4th edition at page 350, under Caption the Unreasonable planning conditions. In support of his contention against condition No. 9, Mr. T. S. Ramachandra drew my attention to a passage in H. W. R. Wade's Administrative law, 4th edition at page 350, under Caption the Unreasonable planning conditions. The learned author has expressed as follows :-"the importance of the statutory background and context, for the purpose of setting the standard of reasonableness, is well illustrated by a group of planning cases. A local planning authority may grant permission 'subject to such conditions as they think fit', and the Court is disposed to construe such conditions benevolently. But it has been repeatedly held that such conditions are invalid unless they 'fairly and reasonably relate to the permitted development. "that these are reflected in the judicial decisions is not to be disputed. Considering the scope of the Act and having regard to the duties and functions of the Bangalore development Authority under the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, eligibility is an important aspect in order to acquire a developed site in Bangalore City which is particularly meant for Indian citizens, domiciled in Karnataka to the exclusion of others with such exceptions as the state may make in that behalf. Therefore, in order to satisfy that that object of the Act is not defeated, Bangalore Development authority has a right to impose condition no. 9 to know to which of the members the sites in the private layout are allotted by the house Building Co-operative Society, the petitioner herein, and they are in terms eligible for such allotment. Therefore, it is a formality which is not unreasonable and which is not alien to the objects sought to be achieved by the Act or the planned development of the City. If this condition is held to be unreasonable, it will give room for numerous forms of malpractices which may ultimately defeat the very object of the Act. Non-residents of Karnataka State may by this method become members of the co-operative Society and obtain sites which they otherwise would not have got. I therefore feel that there is no need to read unreasonableness to condition No. 9. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons I have given above, this petition is allowed partly. Conditions 1 and 2 in the case of the petitioner are nor relevant and may not be imposed. I therefore feel that there is no need to read unreasonableness to condition No. 9. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons I have given above, this petition is allowed partly. Conditions 1 and 2 in the case of the petitioner are nor relevant and may not be imposed. Condition No. 8 is totally unreasonable and affects the legal rights of the petitioner, therefore, it may not be imposed on the petitioner. A mandamus shall issue for deletion of conditions 1, 2 and 8 in Annexure 'd' and for execution of the agreement without those conditions by the respondent Bangalore Development Authority. Rule is made absolute in terms above. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .