Judgment :- K.N. Keshavanarayana, J. These appeals are directed against the common order dated 2-8-2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.7555, 7943 and 8092 of 2005, dismissing the said petitions filed by the appellants herein. 2. The appellant in W.A.No.1749 of 2007 was the petitioner in W.P.No.7943 of 2005. The appellants in W.A.No.1750 of 2005 were the petitioners in W.P.No.8092 of 2005. The appellant in W.A.No.1751 of 2007 was the petitioner in W.P.No.7555 of 2005. As the common order passed in the above said writ petitions is challenged in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The appellants filed the writ petitions seeking quashing of the auction notification dated 18-2-2005 issued by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, ‘BDA’') proposing to auction the sites mentioned in the said notification. 4. Case of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7555 and 7943 of 2005 in brief is as under: .Land bearing Survey No.28 of Agrahara Dasarahalli, Yashwanthpura Hobli, originally belonged to one Narasegowda who along with his son sold an area measuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 160 feet in the said survey number to one Narayanappa under a registered sale deed dated 17-12-1956. Subsequently, under the registered sale deed dated 23-9-1970, the sons of Narayanappa sold the aforesaid extent of the land in favour of one Srinivas. By the year 1997, on account of construction of road and drainage by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, ‘BMP’) and encroachment by neighbours, the measurement of the land was reduced to East to West 78 feet on the Northern side, 80 feet on the Southern side and North to South 58 feet on the Eastern side and 57½ feet on the Western side. As, by then the said property was within the limits of BMP, the said Srinivas paid developmental charges to the BMP on 28-5-1997 and thereafter the said property was assigned Corporation No.9/1, 2nd Main Road, Timmenahalli, and khata was made out in the name of said Srinivas. Subsequently, under a registered sale deed dated 3-5-2001, the said Srinivas sold site measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 58 feet in property bearing No.9/1, to Smt. P.R. Vasanthi, the petitioner in W.P.No.7555 of 2005. Subsequently, under a registered sale deed dated 3-5-2001, the said Srinivas sold site measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 58 feet in property bearing No.9/1, to Smt. P.R. Vasanthi, the petitioner in W.P.No.7555 of 2005. Under a registered sale deed dated 29-11-2001, the remaining portion of the land in property No.9/1 measuring East to West 38+40/2 North to South 58+57/2 feet was sold by said Srinivas to Smt. Sudha S. Patil, the petitioner in W.P.No.7943 of 2005. Ever since the date of respective sale deeds, the petitioners are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by them, and they have been regularly paying the taxes to the BMP. 5. The case of the petitioners in W.P.No.8092 of 2005 in brief is as under: Land bearing Survey No.199 of Kempapura Agrahara was the ancestral property of one Dalappa S/o. Hobalappa. Under a registered sale deed dated 30-5-1961 Dalappa sold an extent of 15 guntas in Survey No.199 to one Doddakempaiah and his brothers who are the fathers of the petitioners. Subsequently, the said property was divided into sites and they were assigned Site Numbers 1190, 1191, 1192 and 1193 situated in 4th Main Road and Site Numbers 1166, 1167, 1168 and 1169 situated in 4th A Main, MRCR Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore and the petitioners are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the above sites and have been regularly paying taxes to BMP. 6. It was commonly stated in all the writ petitions that the Government of Karnataka for formation of a layout called Magadi-Chord Road Layout issued Notifications dated 6-4-1961 and 19-12-1961 under Sections 16(1) and 18(1) of CITB Act, 1945 read with provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in respect of several lands including Survey Nos.28 and 199 in which the petitioner's properties are situated and formed the said layout. However, the erstwhile CITB or later BDA did not take possession of the sites in question either from the erstwhile owners or from the petitioners after they purchased them as such the possession of the sites remained with the vendors of the petitioners till the date of sale and subsequently with the petitioners and thus the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the sites in question. However, the BDA by the impugned notification proposed to auction the sites owned by the petitioners. 7. However, the BDA by the impugned notification proposed to auction the sites owned by the petitioners. 7. The BDA opposed the petitions inter alia contending that land bearing Survey Nos.28 and 199 along with other lands were notified for acquisition vide preliminary notification dated 6-4-1961 which was gazetted on 18-5-1961 and the final notification dated 19-12-1961 which was gazetted on 4-1-1962. After the passing of the awards, possession of acquired lands was taken over by the Government vide notification issued under Section 16(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the layout called MRCR layout was formed and sites were allotted to the eligible persons. It was further contended that as all these petitioners have purchased the properties subsequent to preliminary notification dated 6-4-1961, they have not acquired any right or title to the property notified for auction as such they have no right to challenge the said auction. 8. While entertaining the writ petitions as the proposed auction was not stayed and only confirmation of the auction was stayed, the BDA proceeded with the auction on the date fixed. The successful bidders in the public auction in respect of the sites in question were impleaded as parties to the writ petitions on their applications and all of them filed their objections. 9. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, by the order under appeal dismissed the writ petitions holding that as all the petitioners claims to have purchased the properties subsequent to the preliminary notification issued for acquiring the properties, they have not acquired any right or title over the sites in question and therefore they have no right to question the legality and correctness of the notification issued for auctioning the sites. In this regard, the learned Single Judge placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v Shivkumar Bhargava and Others AIR 1995 SC 812 : (1995) 2 SCC 427 : JT 1995 (6) SC 274 and also the Full Bench decision of this Court in Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society, Bangalore v Bailamma alias Dodda Bailamma and Others 1998(3) Kar. L.J. 304 (FB): ILR 1998 Kar. 1441 (FB), which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court (Smt. Bailamma (dead) by L.Rs and Others Vs Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society and Others 2006(2) Kar. L.J. 304 (FB): ILR 1998 Kar. 1441 (FB), which has been affirmed by the Supreme Court (Smt. Bailamma (dead) by L.Rs and Others Vs Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society and Others 2006(2) Kar. L.J. 129 (SC): AIR 2006 SC 1132 : (2006)2 SCC 416 : 2006 AIR SCW 689). Being aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions, the appellants have presented these appeals. 10. After the disposal of the writ petitions, BDA appears to have confirmed auction and upon the successful bidders depositing the bid amount, absolute sale deeds have been executed in their favour and the auction purchasers are stated to have been placed in possession of the sites. Some of the auction purchasers submitted before this Court that they after obtaining licence and sanctioned plan have put up construction by investing huge amount. 11. We have heard the learned Senior Advocate and other Advocates appearing for the parties. 12. Sri G.V. Shantaraju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the materials on record clearly show that the Government has not taken possession of the sites in question at any time as such, the vendors of the appellants continued in possession of sites in question till the dates of sale deeds and later the appellants are in possession of these sites, therefore, until the BDA takes possession of the sites in accordance with law the appellants are entitled to question the action initiated by BDA in putting up these sites for auction, to protect their possession and right and title acquired upon the sites. He further contended that only corner and commercial sites are required to be disposed of by public auction as per Bangalore Development Authority (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984 and as the sites in question are neither commercial nor corner sites and they being intermediary sites, BDA has no authority to dispose of them by public auction as such the act of BDA in putting up these sites for auction was without authority of law and is illegal. He further contended that the learned Single Judge in exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction ought to have directed the BDA to allot these sites to the respective petitioners at the prevailing rates as otherwise the petitioners would be dispossessed from the properties exposing them to great hardship, loss and injustice. 13. He further contended that the learned Single Judge in exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction ought to have directed the BDA to allot these sites to the respective petitioners at the prevailing rates as otherwise the petitioners would be dispossessed from the properties exposing them to great hardship, loss and injustice. 13. Learned Counsel and Additional Government Advocate appearing for the BDA and State Government sought to support the order of the learned Single Judge and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. They contended that since all the appellants claimed to have purchased the sites in question subsequent to issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, the sales in their favour are void and they have not derived any title to the property in question. They further contended that even if, it is assumed that the appellants have paid betterment charges to BMP and khatas have been made in their names in respect of the sites the same does not confer any right on them. They have further contended that as admittedly layout has been formed including the disputed area, it is clear that possession of the acquired properties was taken over long back by the State Government and handed over the same to the CITB, which has formed layout, therefore the petitioners have no right to question the notification issued by the BDA for public auction of the sites. It is their further submission that out of ten sites in question four are corner sites. It is their submission that there is no bar or prohibition for the BDA to dispose off intermediary sites by public auction and in any case the appellants have no right to challenge the public auction on that ground. They further contended that as they are not eligible for allotment of sites, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for a direction to allot the sites in their favour. 14. They further contended that as they are not eligible for allotment of sites, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the prayer for a direction to allot the sites in their favour. 14. Learned Counsel for auction purchasers contended that as they were successful bidders in the public auction, and on deposit of entire bid amount, BDA has executed sale deeds in their favour and they have been placed in possession of their respective sites and after obtaining necessary licence and plan they have been constructing houses by investing huge amount as such if, at this stage the auction is set aside they will be put irreparable loss, injury and hardship and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 15. Admittedly, preliminary notification for acquisition of the lands of which the sites in question forms part was issued on 6-4-1961. The sale deeds under which the appellants claims to have purchased the sites, have been executed after the date of preliminary notification. In fact, the sale deeds in favour of petitioners in W.P.Nos.7555 and 7943 of 2005 have come into existence after four decades from the date of both preliminary and final notifications published by the erstwhile CITB and the State Government, respectively. In the light of these admitted facts what is required to be considered is whether the appellants have derived any right over the sites in question and whether they could challenge the act of BDA in putting up these sites for auction. 16. The position of law in this regard is now well-settled. In Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and Another v Kalra Properties (Private) Limited, Lucknow and Others AIR 1996 SC 1170 : (1996)3 SCC 124 , the Supreme Court has stated thus: "3 . ……….It is well-settled law that after the notification under Section 4(1) is published in the Gazette any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property. In Smt. Sneha Prabha and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another AIR 1996 SC 540 : (1996)7 SCC 426 , it is stated as under: “5. ………..It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. In Smt. Sneha Prabha and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh and Another AIR 1996 SC 540 : (1996)7 SCC 426 , it is stated as under: “5. ………..It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is to give notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out an impediment to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorises the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries, etc. Therefore, any alienation of the land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the Government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, title and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder”. Full Bench of this Court in Poornaprajna House Building Co-operative Society’s case, referred to by the learned Single Judge has held thus in para 28: “ ……. Now it is a well-settled proposition of law that a person who purchases the land subsequent to the issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, cannot be said to be the owner. Such a purchaser has no right to challenge the acquisition itself, although he is entitled to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his favour i.e., of right, title and interest of his predecessor", In this decision the observation of the Supreme Court in Shivkumar Bhargava's case which is extracted in the order of the learned Single Judge has been relied upon. In a recent decision in the case of Meera Sahni v Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008)9 SCC 177 : 2008 AIR SCW 5807, the Supreme Court has reiterated the above principle. In a recent decision in the case of Meera Sahni v Lt. Governor of Delhi (2008)9 SCC 177 : 2008 AIR SCW 5807, the Supreme Court has reiterated the above principle. The prime issue that fell for consideration of the Court has been noted as under: "The prime issue that falls for our consideration in these appeals is whether in view of the provisions of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Delhi Lands Act’), read with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Land Acquisition Act”), transfer of land made by the original owner by registering a sale deed on the basis of which mutation was also granted would and could be accepted as legal and valid transfer despite the fact that such land was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for public purpose”. Considering the said issue the Supreme Court in para 17 held thus: "When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State Government strictly in accordance with law. The said notification is also required to be followed by a declaration to be made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a notification any encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of such a notification would be deemed to be void and would not He binding on the Government. A number of decisions of this Court have recognised the aforesaid proposition of law wherein it was held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act”. 17. In the light of the above well-settled principle of law, since the sales in favour of all the appellants were long after the issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, the sales in their favour are void and they have not acquired any title to the property by virtue of such void sales. Therefore, they have no right to question the Act of BDA in putting up the sites for auction. Therefore, they have no right to question the Act of BDA in putting up the sites for auction. In fact, perusal of copy of sale deed dated 17-12-1956 in favour of Narayanappa and sale deed dated 23-9-1970 in favour of Srinivas, do not indicate the property number conveyed thereunder as the property number is not mentioned therein. Therefore, it is not clear as to whether those sale deeds relate to Sy. No.28 as sought to be claimed. Even if, it is assumed that those sale deeds relate to Sy.No.28, the sale deeds in favour of the appellants are subsequent to issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellants have not derived any title over the sites in question. 18. The learned Single Judge after noticing the contention of the appellants that the BMP has received betterment charges in respect of these sites, khata have been made out in their names and they have paid taxes to BMP, has rejected these contentions holding that mere payment of betterment charges and taxes to BMP do not confer any right on them. We are in respectful agreement with the observation of learned Single Judge in this regard. Admittedly, the appellants in W.P.No.1750 of 2005 have not paid any betterment charges either to CITB or to BDA at any time. It is also not their case that they have got the land converted to non-agricultural use by paying required charges nor it is their case that they at any time applied to the planning authority for approval of a layout of the house sites and obtained permission by paying betterment charges. Therefore, there is nothing to show that they are in possession of the sites in question. The perusal of approved layout plan produced by respondent 2 indicates that sites have been formed even on the disputed area. Therefore, it is clear that possession of the property vested with CITB and then with BDA. 19. As could be seen from the auction notification, out of ten sites put up for auction, four sites namely, Site Nos.1166, 1169, 1190 and 1193 are residential corner sites, therefore they are required to be disposed of only by public auction as per the provisions of BDA (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984. 19. As could be seen from the auction notification, out of ten sites put up for auction, four sites namely, Site Nos.1166, 1169, 1190 and 1193 are residential corner sites, therefore they are required to be disposed of only by public auction as per the provisions of BDA (Disposal of Corner Sites and Commercial Sites) Rules, 1984. As per the notification, the other sites are residential intermediary sites. As per Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984, after formation of extension or layout in pursuance of a scheme, the sites should be offered for allotment to the eligible persons. No doubt, as per Rule 5 of the Allotment Rules stray sites should be disposed in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government. The term ‘stray sites’ is defined under clause (j) of Section 2. According to this definition, ‘stray sites’ means, a site which was once allotted but subsequently the allotment was either cancelled by the Authority or surrendered by the allottee or a site which has been formed on account of readjustment in the plan subsequent to the issue of notification inviting applications for allotment of sites. In the cases on hand, it is not the contention of the BDA that the six intermediary sites proposed for auction were stray sites as defined by Section 2(j) of the Rules. It is not the case of the BDA that these six intermediary sites were at any time allotted to any persons and subsequently such allotment was cancelled nor that the allottees surrendered sites. It is also not the case of BDA that these intermediary sits were, formed on account of readjustment in the plan subsequent to issue of notification inviting applications for allotment of sites. Therefore, these intermediary sites cannot be construed as stray sites so that they could be disposed off by public auction as per Rule 5 of the Rules. In view of the above, these intermediary sites are required to be offered for allotment to eligible persons as per Rule 3 of the Rules. These intermediary sites cannot be disposed of by public auction. Therefore, the act on the part of BDA in putting up six intermediary sites for public auction is not in accordance with the statutory rules framed under the BDA Act. These intermediary sites cannot be disposed of by public auction. Therefore, the act on the part of BDA in putting up six intermediary sites for public auction is not in accordance with the statutory rules framed under the BDA Act. In view of the above, if six intermediary sites are disposed of by public auction pursuant to the impugned notification, such disposal is illegal and contrary to the rules as such it cannot be sustained. BDA should offer these six intermediary sites for allotment to the eligible persons only as per the Rules. As sites will have to be allotted to only eligible persons, by inviting applications, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the prayer of the appellants for a direction to BDA to allot these sites to them at the prevailing allotment price. In view of the above, there are no grounds to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. The appellants are not entitled for any of the reliefs sought. However, as discussed above, disposal of six intermediary sites by public auction is illegal and BDA should be directed to offer them for allotment to eligible persons, as per Rules, by inviting applications. 20. Before parting with this case, having regard to the fact that repeatedly these type of cases are coming up before Courts, in public interest, we deem it fit to make certain suggestions to the Government so that in future these kind of litigations could at least be reduced if not totally prevented. 21. It is highly unfortunate that inspite of provisions of Section 16(2) of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Act and inspite of the Apex Court as well as this Court laying down the law in clear terms that transfer of any immovable property subsequent to the issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act is void and that the transferee does not derive any title to the property so transferred, number of transfers are taking place subsequent to the notification under Section 4(1). There are several instances of such sales having taken place even after the issuance of the final notification under Section 6 or even after issuance of notification under Section 16(2) of the Act, regarding taking over the possession of the acquired property. There are several instances of such sales having taken place even after the issuance of the final notification under Section 6 or even after issuance of notification under Section 16(2) of the Act, regarding taking over the possession of the acquired property. There are also instances of sales even after landowners participating in the award proceedings and receiving the compensation amount awarded from the acquiring authority. It is possible that such purchasers in some cases may be ignorant of acquisition proceedings and in some cases, it may be deliberate also. In majority of cases, the landowners would not have disclosed the pendency of acquisition proceedings regarding the property. No doubt acquisition proceedings are initiated by issuing the preliminary notifications published in the Official Gazette bringing into the notice of the general public about the proposed acquisition of the property. However, it is common knowledge of everyone that these Gazette publications are not easily accessible to the common man. Even if such Gazette publications are made available, rarely such publications are read by common man. In a country like ours where nearly about 50% of the population is illiterate, ignorant and rustic villagers, it is highly difficult to expect such persons to gain knowledge of the contents of such publications. It is our experience that even if, a prospective buyer would like to verify as to whether any acquisition proceeding is pending or not, it is not easy for him to get such information as there are several agencies in the State which is authorised to acquire properties for public purpose. Thus the information as to whether any property is covered under acquisition or any acquisition proceeding is pending in respect of such property is not easily available. There is no process by which such information are secured easily. As a result, illiterate, ignorant and honest persons are becoming prey to the greed of the erstwhile landowners. It is our experience that at least for the last two decades, in and around Bangalore and other major cities in the State, thousands of sale transactions have been taking place in respect of the lands covered under the acquisition proceedings. This has contributed a major share in the spurt of litigation in the State of Karnataka in general and in Bangalore in particular. This has contributed a major share in the spurt of litigation in the State of Karnataka in general and in Bangalore in particular. Therefore, we feel that some method should be evolved by which common man could easily secure information as to whether any acquisition proceeding is pending in respect of any property or whether any particular land is covered by acquisition proceedings. 22. To tackle this problem, one possible method would be to see that moment acquisition proceeding is initiated by issuance of the preliminary notification proposing to acquire any property, it should be reflected in the concerned registers maintained in the office of the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar. The information regarding issuance of final notification and also notification regarding taking over the possession of the acquired land should also be intimated to the jurisdictional Sub-registrar for being entered in the concerned registers. By insisting compulsory production of certified extracts from the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deeds, and other transfer deeds, the registration of documents in respect of the lands covered under the acquisition proceedings could be stalled. If this process is evolved and made mandatory, litigation of this nature if not completely prevented, could at least be reduced. To implement this process, it may not be difficult for the concerned authorities as, we now understand that all the Sub-Registrar's Office in the major cities are all computerised. The information from the acquiring bodies could be transferred to the Sub-Registrar's Office by means of hard and soft computerised copies, so that the same could be fed into the computers at the concerned Sub-Registrar's Office, and thereby the information get updated at their level and whenever a computerised encumbrance certificate is generated it should reflect the pendency of acquisition proceedings and this gives a note of caution to the prospective buyer before he/she could proceed further and purchase either proposed or acquired property for public purpose. Transferring and entering of such information should also be made mandatory and officer failing to comply the same should be made personally liable for any damage or loss that may be caused to any person or statutory authority to ensure proper implementation of the process. 23. Transferring and entering of such information should also be made mandatory and officer failing to comply the same should be made personally liable for any damage or loss that may be caused to any person or statutory authority to ensure proper implementation of the process. 23. In the light of the above, we direct the State Government to consider the following guidelines/suggestions and to issue necessary instructions in this regard to all the concerned by suitably amending the statutes if, necessary so that gullible people do not fall prey to the greed of landowners, real estate agents/brokers, and entangle themselves in long drawn litigation: (1) Soon after the acquiring body issues notification under Section 4(1) and/or under Section 6(1) and under Section 16(2) of the L.A. Act or under the provisions of any other statute, to acquire lands, the details of the property covered under the notifications should be sent to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrars; (2) Immediately one receipt of such informations from the acquiring bodies, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrars should enter such informations in book maintained in his office as per Section 51 of the Registration Act, 1908, as instruments falling under clause (a) of Section 18 of the Registration Act; (3) Whenever sale/transfer deeds are presented for registration, it should be accompanied by a certified copy of entry from Book No.1 issued by the jurisdictional Sub-registrar as per Section 57(1) of the Registration Act and if, such certificate reflects the pendency of any acquisition proceedings or property sought to be conveyed under the document is already covered by acquisition proceedings, the concerned Sub-Registrar shall refuse to register the document as provided under Section 71 of the Registration Act; (4) Officers/officials failing to comply with the above, are personally liable for any damages or loss that may be caused to any person or authority, an account of such failure on their part. 24. Registry is directed to send copies of this judgment to the Chief Secretary; Principal Secretary, Parliamentary Affairs; Secretary, Department of Law; Principal Secretary, Revenue Department for needful action. We trust and hope that the State Government would take necessary steps in this regard at the earliest. 25. The appeals are dismissed. 24. Registry is directed to send copies of this judgment to the Chief Secretary; Principal Secretary, Parliamentary Affairs; Secretary, Department of Law; Principal Secretary, Revenue Department for needful action. We trust and hope that the State Government would take necessary steps in this regard at the earliest. 25. The appeals are dismissed. However, BDA is directed to dispose of six intermediary sites bearing Nos.973, 974, 1167, 1168, 1191 and 1192 as per Rule 3 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 by offering them for allotment to the eligible persons by inviting applications. No order as to cost.