ORDER S. Abdul Nazeer, J.—. In this case, petitioners have sought for a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to allot a site measuring 20 ft. X 50 ft. and to execute necessary documents in respect of the said site in favour of the petitioners and for certain other reliefs. 2. First petitioner is the wife of one M. Subramanyam and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are his sons. It is the case of the petitioners 210 that M. Subramanyam had made an application to the first respondent on 23.8.1975 for allotment of a vacant site bearing No. 924-A measuring 20 ft. X 50 ft. situated at 3rd Stage Rajajinagar, Bangalore, bounded on the east by road, west by site No. 927, north by site No. 925 and south by site No. 924. It is further contended that on the basis of the said application, the first respondent issued a memo dated 26-8-1975 to the 4th respondent to furnish the correct measurement with boundaries of the site in question, the 4th respondent submitted his correct dimension report to the first respondent on 22-9-1975. Thereafter, the first respondent has issued a provisional endorsement to Subramanyam. On 5-12-1975, the 4th respondent had issued a possession certificate in respect of the said property in favour of Sri. Subramanyam. It is further contended that the said Subramanyam had obtained sanctioned plan from the competent authorities to construct the building thereon and that he was accordingly granted a sanctioned plan. The first respondent had executed a lease-cum-sale agreement on 11-11-1976 in favour of Subramanyam. Copy of the said lease-cum-sale agreement in produced at Annexure 'J'. Thereafter, the first respondent had executed a sale deed on 15-7-1989 in favour of M. Subramanyam in respect of the site in question. Copy of the said sale deed is marked at Annexure 'K'. Petitioners have produced several other documents in respect of the said property in support of their contention that Subramanyam had been in possession of the said property and after his death, petitioners being wife and children of Mr. Subramanyam have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. 3. Petitioners have produced several other documents in respect of the said property in support of their contention that Subramanyam had been in possession of the said property and after his death, petitioners being wife and children of Mr. Subramanyam have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. 3. It is further contended that Smt. Tirumalamma and Smt. Shakunthala filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 5151/1980 against the said Subramanyam for injunction contending that the site in question bears CITB No. 924 and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the said site. Subramanyam had contested the said suit. The said suit was decreed on 30-3-2000 and the defendant therein (M. Subramanyam) was directed to demolish the construction made on the said site. M. Subramanyam was permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The copy of the judgment in the said suit is at Annexure 'Q' and the decree is at Annexure 'R'. Thereafter, the petitioners got issued a notice dated 7-11-2005 (Annexure 'S') through their Advocate calling upon the respondents to allot a vacant site in the same locality of the same measurement in lieu of site No. 924-A. Since the respondents have not acceded to the request of the petitioners, petitioners have filed this Writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondents to allot a vacant site measuring 20 ft. X 50 ft. in their favour. 4. The respondents have filed their statement of objections. It is contended that M. Subramanyam was not an applicant for an allotment of a site as is being made out in the writ petition. The authorities have only confirmed the site in his favour on formation of a layout. It is contended that M. Subramanyam had made an application as per Annexure 'A' stating that he wishes to purchase a building site No. 924-A measuring 20 ft. X 50 ft. situated at III Stage, Rajajinagar Extension, Bangalore. On obtaining the correct dimension report from the Engineering Section, he was informed that his case for re-allotment would be considered on payment of Rs. 1,556/- on or before dated 30-8-1975 under the re-allotment of sites scheme. On his complying with the same, the CITB issued possession certificate dated 5-12-1975 in respect of site No. 924-A measuring east to west 50 ft. and north to south 20 ft. with specific boundaries stated therein. 1,556/- on or before dated 30-8-1975 under the re-allotment of sites scheme. On his complying with the same, the CITB issued possession certificate dated 5-12-1975 in respect of site No. 924-A measuring east to west 50 ft. and north to south 20 ft. with specific boundaries stated therein. Thereafter, Lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in his favour on 15-11 -1975. It is further contended that there was a inter-se dispute between Smt. Thirumalamma and Smt. Shakuntalamma on the one hand and Sri M. Subramanyam on the other hand in respect fo site in question. Smt. Thirumalamma and Smt. Shakuntalamma filed suit in O.S. No. 5151/1980 against the said Subramanyam for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. Sri M. Subramanyam resisted the claim of Smt. Thirumalamma and Smt. Shakuntalamma by contending that he was the owner of the site No. 924-A and that CITB had re-allotted the said site in his favour on payment of valuable consideration and that BDA has also executed title deeds in his favour. The said suit has been decreed. The BDA being the successor of the CITB was not made a party in the said suit. The respondents are in no way responsible for the said dispute or identity of the site in question. Sri M. Subramanyam was not an applicant or an allottee of a site by CITB or the BDA. What had been done was to re-allot the site of which he claimed as the owner. It is further contended that reallotment of site was on the representation of M. Subramanyam. Though the decree in O.S. No. 5151/1980 was passed on 30-3-2000, petitioners have filed the representation as per Annexure-'S' dated 7-11-2005 and the writ petition is filed in the year 2006. Petitioners have not challenged the decree in O.S. No. 5151/1980. Therefore, they cannot seek directions for allotment of an alternative site. 5. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contended that the then CITB had re-allotted the site No. 924-A situated at III Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Lease-cum-sale deed was executed in respect of the said site in favour of Subramanyam, the predecessor in title of the petitioners followed by a sale deed as per Annexure 'K'. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would contended that the then CITB had re-allotted the site No. 924-A situated at III Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Lease-cum-sale deed was executed in respect of the said site in favour of Subramanyam, the predecessor in title of the petitioners followed by a sale deed as per Annexure 'K'. Since there was a dispute with regard to the site in question between Smt. Thirumalamma and Smt. Shakuntalamma on one hand and M. Subramanyam on the other hand, they filed the suit in O.S. No. 5151/1980. M. Subramanyam had contested the said suit. However, the Trial Court has held that the site belongs to Smt. Tirumalamma and Smt. Shakuntalamma and accordingly, the suit was decreed. Therefore, petitioners are entitled for allotment of an alternative site from the first respondent. 7. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the first respondent had not allotted the site as such. It was only on the representation of M. Subramanyam, site No. 924-A has been re-allotted in his favour. BDA is not a party to the suit in O.S. No. 5151/1980. The petitioners have not challenged the decree in O.S. No. 5151/1980. Petitioners are not entitled for allotment of any alternative site, as there is no provision in the BDA Act or the Rules empowering the BDA to allot an alternative site. 8. On the basis of the rival contentions of the parties, the only question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the petitioners are entitled for allotment of an alternative site as sought for in the writ petition? 9. It is clear from the material on record that the CITB had passed a provisional allotment order for re-allotment of the site in question in favour of M. Subramanyam as per Annexure 'D'. It is not a case of regular allotment of the sites. Thereafter, lease-cum-sale deed was executed by the CITB in favour of M. Subramanyam as per Annexure 'J' on 1-11-1976 followed by absolute sale deed as per Annexure 'K' dated 15-7-1989. It is also evident that Smt. Thirumalamma and Smt. Shakunthalamma filed a suit against M. Subramanyam in O.S. No. 5151/1980 for injunction contending that the land in question bears site No. 924 which was already re-conveyed to the first plaintiff and possession was delivered to her on 10-3-1971. It is also evident that Smt. Thirumalamma and Smt. Shakunthalamma filed a suit against M. Subramanyam in O.S. No. 5151/1980 for injunction contending that the land in question bears site No. 924 which was already re-conveyed to the first plaintiff and possession was delivered to her on 10-3-1971. It was further contended that there was no site bearing site No. 924-A in between site Nos. 924 and 925 and that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant has contended that the CITB has allotted the site in question in his favour and that he has paid the sital value to the CITB and that CITB has executed the title deeds in respect of the said site in his favour. The Trial Court framed the following issues in the said suit: (i) Whether the plaintiffs prove the identity of suit schedule site? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendant is trying to encroach on the suit site as alleged by them? (iii) Is the plaintiffs entitled for permanent injunction relief as prayed for? Addl. Issue: Whether the plaintiffs prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule property on the date of suit? 10. The Trial Court has held that the plaintiffs were in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and that they have further proved the identity of the suit schedule property and that on 25-5-1977, the defendant (M. Subramanyam) started laying foundation on the suit schedule property and attempted to encroach upon the said property. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 30-3-2000 in the following terms: The suit is decreed with costs as follows: The defendant is directed to demolish the building constructed by him in the suit site. After demolition of the building, the defendant is permanently restrained from interfering with plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 11. BDA, the successor in interest of the CITB was not made a party to the said suit. M. Subramanyam has not challenged the decree in the aforesaid suit. On the other hand, petitioners herein who are none other than the wife and children of M. Subramanyam have sent a notice to the respondents as per Annexure 'S' dated 7-11-2005 requesting the respondents to allot an alternative site. M. Subramanyam has not challenged the decree in the aforesaid suit. On the other hand, petitioners herein who are none other than the wife and children of M. Subramanyam have sent a notice to the respondents as per Annexure 'S' dated 7-11-2005 requesting the respondents to allot an alternative site. As noticed above, the site in question was provisionally re-allotted under Annexure 'D' on 30-7-1975 and the defect in title was discovered in the year 2000 after the disposal of the suit and the representation/notice for allotment of an alternative site was made on 7-11-2005, after a long lapse of five years from the date of disposal of the suit. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has not pointed out any statutory provision under which petitioners are entitled for allotment of an alternative site. BDA being a creation of a Statue, its powers are circumscribed by the Statute. It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers has to take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must be within the limits of the authority committed to it. The Act has not conferred upon the BDA any inherent powers much less any discretionary powers to allot an alternative site in favour of the petitioners. Allotment of the sites are governed by the BDA Act and the rules made thereunder and that the allotment of site has to be made strictly in accordance with the provisions of the BDA Act or the Rules made thereunder. The power conferred by Articles 226/227 being designated to effectuate the law, to enforce the rule of law and to ensure the several authorities and organs of the State act in accordance with law, it cannot be invoked for directing the authorities to act contrary to law. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled for allotment of site as has been sought for in the writ petition. 12. It is no doubt true that under a sale deed at Annexure 'K', the CITB had transferred the ownership of the site in question in favour of M. Subramanyam. 'Sale' is defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'TP Act') as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised. Section 55 of the TP Act deals with the rights and liabilities of the buyer and seller. 'Sale' is defined in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short 'TP Act') as a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised. Section 55 of the TP Act deals with the rights and liabilities of the buyer and seller. Sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the TP Act, which is relevant for the purpose of this case states that the seller shall be deemed to contract with the buyer that the interest which the seller professes to transfer to the buyer subsits and that he has power to transfer the same. The implied covenant for title has nothing to do with the question whether the buyer has or has no notice of the defect of the title. Even if the buyer was aware of the defect at the time of the contract, he may, under this covenant, hold the seller responsible for damages in accordance with law and claim a return of the purchase money if he is dispossessed by reason of a defect in title as held by this Court in Basappa v. Kodliah AIR 1959 Mys 46. Therefore, if there was any defect of the title in the property in question, the petitioners have to work out their remedy against the BDA for appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. They cannot seek for a direction to the BDA to allot an alternative site because a defect was found in the title to the property, which was sold by the CITB in favour of M. Subramanyam, the predecessor in title of the petitioners that too after a passage of about 30 years from the date of allotment. 13. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed subject to the observations made above. No costs.