( 1 ) THE first petitioner is a Housing Co-operative Society and petitioners 2 to 7 are its members. Petitioners are seeking a direction to the Bangalore Development Authority to deliver 66 sites formed in Sy. No. 5 of Saneguruvanahalli Village in terms of the agreement dated 27-11-1991. The further prayer of the petitioners is to quash the notification at Annexure-F, dated 12-12-1991 issued by the 3rd respondent-Special Deputy Commissioner proposing to declare an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas in the aforesaid land as 'slum area'. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that an extent of 10 acres 22 guntas of land in Sy. No. 5 of saneguruvanahalli was purchased by the first petitioner-Society for allotting sites to its members. The 4th respondent approved the layout plan and it undertook civil works pursuant to an agreement in that regard. After completing majority of the work, the 4th respondent released 65 sites to the first petitioner and another 76 sites on 22-4-1989 and 6-4-1990 respectively. Since there was encroachers upon the land, the society filed suit in O. S. No. 1276 of 1983 for their eviction. The said suit was challenged. The challenge made to the judgment and decree upto this court has resulted in dismissals. Thereafter, those encroachers filed suit in O. S. No. 4528 of 1989 and obtained temporary injunction. Subsequently it was vacated and the society took delivery of the portions in occupation of the unauthorised occupants in Ex. No. 1120 of 1990. The grievance of the petitioners is that the total number of sites to be formed by the 4th respondent was 165 and so far it has released only [99] sites as stated above and the remaining 66 sites have not been released and hence a direction is sought in that regard to the 4th respondent. ( 3 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, the prayers of the petitioners have been opposed. The release of 99 sites is admitted and in respect of the remaining 66 sites, it is stated that the same could not he released because the area has been encroached by indiranagar Slum Dwellers and the said area has been declared as "slum Area" and hence question of releasing the remaining sites does not arise. The release of 99 sites is admitted and in respect of the remaining 66 sites, it is stated that the same could not he released because the area has been encroached by indiranagar Slum Dwellers and the said area has been declared as "slum Area" and hence question of releasing the remaining sites does not arise. ( 4 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent narrating in detail all the facts and the earlier challenge made by the petitioner to the notification at Annexure-F in W. P. No. 17225 of 1992 and the dismissal of the said writ petition have been mentioned. ( 5 ) SO far as the second prayer sought in the writ petition to quash Annexure-F is concerned, permission was sought by filing a memo on 24-7-1998 stating that in view of the order passed in w. P. No. 17225 of 1992, to delete the said prayer. Accordingly, permission was granted on 24-7-1998 to delete the second prayer. ( 6 ) AS regards the first prayer of mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to deliver 66 sites formed in Sy. No. 5 of Saneguruvanahalli to the petitioner-Society is concerned, the same cannot be granted for the foregoing reasons. The encroachment made by Indiranagar Slum Dwellers and the proposal to declare the said area as "slum Area" is not in dispute. The challenge made earlier to the said notification by the petitioner in W. P. No. 17225 of 1992 ended in failure. Pursuant to the said order, the second prayer has been deleted in this writ petition. Thereafter, it is not known as to whether further notification has been issued or not declaring the said area as "slum Area". When the area is admittedly encroached and notification has been issued to declare it as slum area, petitioner is not justified in seeking release of 66 sites in the said land. Such a prayer cannot be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 7 ) APART from the above, petitioner-Society itself has admitted in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that it took possession of the portions unauthorisedly occupied by others by taking out execution proceedings in Execution No. 1120 of 1990. Having admitted so, in the opening of paragraph 4 the petitioner states that the 4th respondent had taken possession of entire 10. Having admitted so, in the opening of paragraph 4 the petitioner states that the 4th respondent had taken possession of entire 10. 22 acres of land pursuant to the agreement dated 28-11-1986. Thus, the petition averments are conflicting. If the petitioner had taken possession from the unauthorised encroachers during the year 1990, the averment that 4th respondent took possession of 10. 22 acres pursuant to the agreement dated 28-11-1986 cannot be accepted. It is also pertinent to observe that the petitioner has not stated that after obtaining possession pursuant to the execution proceedings, it has handed over such portions to the 4th respondent. ( 8 ) THE petitioners themselves admitted in paragraph 3 of the writ petition about the civil litigation started in the year 1983 and ended somewhere in the year 1990. In the first suit filed by the first petitioner, the prayers were to declare demolition of unauthorised sheds on the land in question and to restrain the defendants therein from entering into or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit schedule property. If the possession of 10. 22 acres had been handed over to the 4th respondent pursuant to the agreement dated 28-11-1986, there was no necessity for the first petitioner to continue the litigation upto the year 1990 and question of taking possession by taking execution would not have arisen. All these facts disentitle the petitioners for the first prayer. ( 9 ) IN view of the admitted position that possession from unauthorised occupants was taken over by the first petitioner pursuant to execution proceeding resulting in the civil litigations concluded in favour of the first petitioner and since no material is placed to show that thereafter the possession of such area had been handed over to the 4th respondent and in view of the specific stand taken by respondents 2 and 4 in their respective counter, coupled with the fact that the facts narrated in the writ petition go against the petitioners, the first prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. ( 10 ) WRIT petition is misconceived and devoid of merits. ( 11 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.