ORDER 1. After Shri Altaf Ahmad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Bangalore Development Authority (for short "BDA") completed his arguments, Shri Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel for the State of Karnataka stated that he would adopt the argument of Shri Altaf Ahmad. 2. Thereafter, Shri Dushyant Dave, Senior Counsel appearing for the Bank Officers' and Official Houses Building Society, who is the respondent in one of the appeals, commenced his arguments. Shri Dave pointed out that BDA has collected a sum of Rs 300 crores (approximately) from those who applied for sanction of private layouts and submitted that this by itself is conclusive evidence of the arbitrary exercise of power by the appellant under Section 32(5-A) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short "the 1976 Act"). 3. To substantiate his assertion, Shri Dave invited our attention to the averments contained in paras 3 and 7 of WP No. 11144 of 1993, Aircraft Employees Coop. Society Ltd. v. Bangalore Development Authority. He pointed out that the counter-affidavit filed before the High Court is absolutely silent on the issue of collection of wholly disproportionate amount by BDA vis-a-vis its estimated share of Rs 30 crores in Cauvery Water Supply Scheme Stage III. Shri Dave also submitted that Cauvery Water Supply Scheme Stage III was sanctioned in 1984 and between 1984 and 1992, BDA must have collected huge sums from the allottees of the sites in the layouts developed by it. 4. We have carefully scrutinised the pleadings of the parties and are convinced that it is necessary and proper to require the Commissioner and/or Secretary of BDA to file a detailed and specific affidavit stating therein the total contribution made by BDA towards Cauvery Water Supply Scheme Stage III and the amount demanded and/or collected from those who applied for sanction of private layouts as also the allottees of the sites in the layouts prepared by BOA itself. 5. The required affidavit be filed within six weeks. The supplementary affidavit, if any, on behalf of the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) may be filed within next two weeks. List the case after eight weeks for further hearing. 6. This appeal has been listed with other appeals in which the question relating to vires of Section 32(5-A) of the 1976 Act has been raised. The supplementary affidavit, if any, on behalf of the writ petitioners (the respondents herein) may be filed within next two weeks. List the case after eight weeks for further hearing. 6. This appeal has been listed with other appeals in which the question relating to vires of Section 32(5-A) of the 1976 Act has been raised. After going through the records of the case, we are satisfied that the issue raised in this appeal has nothing to do with the vires of Section 32(5-A) of the 1976 Act. Hence, we direct that this case shall be de-tagged from the batch of other appeals and listed after four weeks.