S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants in these appeals filed writ petitions seeking for a declaration that the plan issued by the first respondent to the respective respondents who are owners of sites in the 5th main Road, Defence Colony, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore, as illegal and void. Each of the appellants and the Society under which the respondents got the allotment of sites made are contending that the Bangalore City Municipal Corporation and the Bangalore Development authority have no power to sanction plan for multi-dwelling units. e. , construction of apartments in the Defence Colony Layout formed by the said Society. The layout is formed with the approval of the then CITB, predecessor of BDA. ( 2 ) THE principal contention putforth before the Court is based on the ratio of the decision in Pee kay Constructions and Another v K. Chandrashekhara Hegde and Others to the effect that in any layout formed in the City of Bangalore approved by the CITB/bda the purchasers of sites in such layout are not entitled to exploit commercially by building multi-dwelling units thereon. ( 3 ) THE Society had been granted land in the year 1966 under a registered sale deed to which we will advert to at an appropriate stage. The appellants submit that a dichotomy is sought to be noticed that insofar as the application of the regulations, building laws and restrictive conditions imposed on the sites allotted or formed in the layouts by the CITB/bda on the one hand and the layout formed by private parties like the appellant-Society with the approval of CITB/bda on the other. ( 4 ) THE stand of the respondents is that, in the sale deeds there are no covenants prohibiting the construction of multi-dwelling units and Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act would not be attracted. The original bye-laws on which reliance has been placed in Pee Kay Constructions case, supra, namely Bye-law 19 would not be applicable after the rules came into effect in the year 1964 and the bye-law which was enforced prior to coming into effect the force of the rules do not form part of the said rules. The original bye-laws on which reliance has been placed in Pee Kay Constructions case, supra, namely Bye-law 19 would not be applicable after the rules came into effect in the year 1964 and the bye-law which was enforced prior to coming into effect the force of the rules do not form part of the said rules. The decision in Pee Kay Constructions case, supra, would not be applicable for yet another reason namely, that there are no clauses similar to clause (4) in the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into in the aforesaid case in respect of the documents executed by the respondents or by their predecessors in title. Therefore, Section 11 of the Transfer of property Act also would be out of place. Above all, it is submitted that, the sale has been effected without reference to the rules framed under the Act and therefore, rules also would not be applicable to the case on hand. Conditions in clause (3) of the sale deed by the CITB in favour of the Society have been fulfilled. Bye-law 12 of the Building Bye-laws framed by the Municipal corporation are also fulfilled and in the comprehensive development plan, definition of Group housing has been referred to under Table 25 and there is compliance with the aforesaid provisions. ( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge has shown his utmost concern for maintaining the beauty of the bangalore City. He has adverted to certain observations made in Sachidanand Pandey and another v State of West Bengal and Others and in B. K. Srinivasan v State of Karnataka and others. In the former decision there is reference to the aesthetic values in general and how man has played havoc with nature, while in the latter decision there is lamentation of the falling glory of old Bangalore City known for its modest bungalows with vast areas surrounded by sprawling gardens with no idea of commercial exploitation. The learned Judge after an emotionally surcharged reverie is almost poetic in his description of the past and the present Bangalore City. However, that concern or his regard for old values in maintaining the buildings or the manner of construction or town planning or the luxurious ambience has not deterred him in dismissing the claims of the appellants on the facts and law arising in the case. However, that concern or his regard for old values in maintaining the buildings or the manner of construction or town planning or the luxurious ambience has not deterred him in dismissing the claims of the appellants on the facts and law arising in the case. Appellants case had the most sympathetic consideration in the hands of the learned Judge and could not have been in better hands. ( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge in the writ petitions held that, the layout which is formed is a private layout and therefore, law applicable to the allottees of BDA and CITB sites would not be applicable to the construction to be made in the layout formed by the appellant-Society and therefore, the law laid down by this Court in Pee Kay Constructions case, supra, would not be applicable. ( 7 ) ON examination of the sale deed executed by the Society or the statutory agreement between citb and BDA and the Society the learned Single Judge held that there are no restrictive covenants in the sale deed between the Society and its Members who have purchased the sites requiring them to put up only one dwelling house on the site purchased by them. On the argument that Clause 4 (c) thereof provides for construction of a residential building would enable every purchaser to put up only one dwelling house on each site, he held that more than one dwelling unit could be constructed and no restrictive meaning could be given to the same after examination of the Building bye-laws and other attendant features. He held that the construction is carried on within the framework of the law and therefore, he cannot interfere with the action. He held that the construction is carried on within the framework of the law and therefore, he cannot interfere with the action. ( 8 ) ON the basis of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and arguments advanced before us in the light of the pleadings raised either in the writ petitions or in the appeals, the principal questions that arise for consideration is- (i) whether under the CITB Act, rules, standing orders prohibiting the construction of the building having multi-dwelling apartments, houses on the sites formed by the Society in HAL II Stage Layout out of which the Defence colony is legitimately carried on and (ii) whether the owners of adjacent buildings are entitled to prevent the change of land use by putting up construction on the ground that the same is not contemplated by the scheme governing the Society. ( 9 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the parties, it is necessary to refer to the documents in some detail under which the Society got the land and the proforma document under which various persons purchased the land from the Society. The indenture of sale was made on 15-7-1966 between CITB and the Mysore Sub-area House Building Co-operative Society. It was stated therein that, the Vendor thereto has agreed to sell the land to the purchaser for the purpose of forming the Defence Officers' Housing Colony and the deed set out the conveyance of the vendor to the purchaser free from encumbrances. The land was conveyed described therein as per measurements together with all rights, title and interest claimed and equities whatsoever of the vendor into and upon the same and to have and to hold the said land absolutely forever and free of all encumbrances. The land was conveyed described therein as per measurements together with all rights, title and interest claimed and equities whatsoever of the vendor into and upon the same and to have and to hold the said land absolutely forever and free of all encumbrances. The conditions imposed are only three and they are as follows:- (1) The land hereby granted shall be used by the purchaser wholly for the formation of the defence Officers' Housing Colony; (2) That the purchaser shall transfer the ownership of the roads, drains, water supply mains and open spaces and civic amenity sites in the layout to the Vendor permanently without claiming any compensation therefor; and (3) That the purchaser shall follow all rules, bye-laws and standing orders relating to obtaining all licences and construction of buildings on the sites to be formed in the layout prescribed by the corporation of the City of Bangalore or the City Improvement Trust Board, as the case may be. ( 10 ) A perusal of the document and the terms and conditions incorporated in the sale deed would indicate, it is an absolute conveyance free of all encumbrances and any person claiming under them would have all rights, title and interest, claims and equities which are independent of the provisions of the Bangalore City Improvement Act, because there is no reference to the sale of the land subject to the conditions prescribed under the City Improvement Trust Act in regard to the construction to be made by them. The document clearly indicates that, it is an absolute conveyance without any restrictions in the enjoyment of the property conveyed under the sale deed. The relevant clauses relating to the conditions imposed in the sale deed between the society and the purchasers are as follows:-" 4. The document clearly indicates that, it is an absolute conveyance without any restrictions in the enjoyment of the property conveyed under the sale deed. The relevant clauses relating to the conditions imposed in the sale deed between the society and the purchasers are as follows:-" 4. To the intent that these covenants shall run with the land the purchaser hereby covenants with the vendors as follows:- (a) for himself and his successors-in-title that the said site shall be used exclusively for residential purposes and (b) that within FIVE years from the date hereof he will not sell, transfer, assign or in any otherwise part with the said site without giving to the Vendors or their nominee or nominees the first option to purchase or take over the same together with all buildings, structures or constructions thereon and for such purchase or taking over the Vendors or their nominee or nominees shall make payment to the Purchaser as follows:- ( i) in the case of the site, the cost price thereof and simple interest thereon at 5% per annum calculated from the date of its purchase by the purchaser, and (ii) in the case of any building, the cost of the site plus the cost of construction of the building thereon together with simple interest at 5% per annum calculated on the price of the site as in sub-clause (i) hereof and on the cost of construction of the building from the date of completion of the construction. (c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, the purchaser shall be at liberty with the consent in writing of the Vendors first had and obtained to raise a loan bona fide for the purpose of construction of a residential building on the site from any Bank, Co-operative or house Building society or other like institution". These clauses also do not indicate that there are any restrictive covenants as to the mode of enjoyment of the property. The argument advanced, that the construction of a residential building at Clause 4 (c) should be understood as restrictive covenant cannot be accepted for the very reasons given by the learned Single Judge and we respectfully accept with the view expressed by him. The argument advanced, that the construction of a residential building at Clause 4 (c) should be understood as restrictive covenant cannot be accepted for the very reasons given by the learned Single Judge and we respectfully accept with the view expressed by him. ( 11 ) IT is next contended that, all rules, bye-laws, standing orders relating to obtaining all licences and construction of buildings on the sites to be formed in the layout prescribed by the corporation of the City of Bangalore or the City Improvement Trust Board, as the case may be could not necessarily be construed to be construction of one single dwelling unit. The condition requires that, the buildings have to be constructed in accordance with the building rules, bye-laws and it would not mean that the construction to be confined only to one dwelling unit. ( 12 ) AT one stage, the whole argument in these cases have been advanced on the basis of the decision of this Court in Pee Kay Constructions case, supra. It is stated therein that the concept of a dwelling house has to be understood in the background of the rules available therein. Sites were allotted or sold in auction only to eligible persons; alienation of the site to a third party is prohibited, unless the conditions are strictly complied with and sites were allotted in compliance with a scheme formed to develop the City and it was not possible therefore, to hold that a dwelling house would mean a building comprising several units or apartments. Inasmuch as when a building with several apartment houses have been referred to as 'multiple dwelling houses'. It is also noticed therein that, the sites were formed and owned by the Board. The nature of the sites referred embedded in the statutory rules governing their allotment or sale. The nature of the use of the sites cannot get altered by any mode other than the mode prescribed by law. The restrictions and limitations as to the uses are statutory. The sites should not be used as articles of commerce. This view arose in the said decision because in Allotment of Sites Rules, framed under the CITB Act and the BDA Act imposed the restriction on the allottees requiring them to construct only one dwelling house on each site and it is also made clear that the sites should not be sub-divided. This view arose in the said decision because in Allotment of Sites Rules, framed under the CITB Act and the BDA Act imposed the restriction on the allottees requiring them to construct only one dwelling house on each site and it is also made clear that the sites should not be sub-divided. This restriction was found in the bye-laws framed on 8-1-1954 by the CITB in terms of Section 43 (i) (f) of the CITB Act read with Section 29 (2) of the CBIA Act. ( 13 ) SRI N. Kumar, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that, the said bye-laws stood repealed under Rule 19 which came into effect when the rules are framed under the Bangalore Improvement Act, in the year 1964 and the bye-law that was prevailing and enforced at the relevant time was not carried to the rules. Learned Counsel appearing for either side drew our attention to several provisions of the Transfer of Property Act such as Section 11 of the Act. But the provision thereof have no effect particularly in the light of interpretation of the very documents in question under which the parties have derived title. When the CITB sold the land in favour of the Society and the Society when in turn sold the land to the purchasers, there are no restrictive covenants imposed as to the construction for a single dwelling units. No material has been placed before us though the layout plan approving the formation of the layout is produced before the Court in condition thereto which restricts the construction to a single dwelling unit in each of the site. In the absence of the same, it becomes extremely difficult for the appellants to contend that the ratio of the decision in Pee Kay Constructions case, supra, could be made applicable to the facts of the case. In that case, the allotment had been made or sites have been sold in auction subject to the condition of constructing a single dwelling unit which became part of the sale deed and thereby restrictive covenant arose which may or may not run with the land. In that case, the allotment had been made or sites have been sold in auction subject to the condition of constructing a single dwelling unit which became part of the sale deed and thereby restrictive covenant arose which may or may not run with the land. In the present case, when there are no such covenants question of examining whether such restrictive covenants would run with the land or not or would cease to be operative immediately on the sale of the land by the first purchaser to the successive purchaser does not really arise for consideration. ( 14 ) NEITHER the sale deed executed in favour of the Society nor the conveyance made in favour of the purchasers of the site contain any restrictive covenants as to the mode of enjoyment in particular of putting up only a single dwelling unit. What needs to be examined is the effect of law as contained in enactments such as (1) City of Bangalore Improvement Act, (2) Bangalore development Authority Act, (3) Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act or any of the enactments repealed by these enactments or any of the rules or bye-laws relating to Building or Construction thereof. ( 15 ) UNDER the building bye-laws it cannot be termed to be Group Housing when it would mean a building or group of buildings constructed with one or more floors each consisting one or more dwelling units and having common service facilities like staircase, lift, balcony, verandah etc. and this aspect was considered by this Court in Dattatreya and Others v State of Karnataka and others and the Group Housing was understood to mean a building or group of buildings constructed with one or more floors each consisting of more than one dwelling unit and having common service facilities like staircase, lift, balcony etc. We do not find either under the comprehensive Development Plan or any of the provisions made under the Karnataka Town and country Planning Act or under the Karnataka Municipalities Act have been violated. ( 16 ) NO violation of such provisions in the matter of construction have been brought to our notice as was done in the Pee Kay Constructions case, supra, to which we have already adverted to. ( 16 ) NO violation of such provisions in the matter of construction have been brought to our notice as was done in the Pee Kay Constructions case, supra, to which we have already adverted to. In the present case, the purchasers can carry on construction without confining each site to single dwelling unit, since there is no specific bar to such construction either in the contract or in the law. We cannot therefore restrict the same as long as there is compliance with other provisions of law. In the absence of any violation of the rules, provisions of law, rules or bye-laws thereof, we find no merit in any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants. Therefore, we agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismiss these appeals and writ petitions.