ORDER The petitioner is calling in question the demand notice dated 8-92009, which is impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the respondent to issue title deed to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has purchased the property bearing No. 19/B, Temple Road, Jayalakshmipura Extension, Vani Vilas Mohalla, Mysore under a sale deed dated 23-3-1998: Smt. KC. Lalithamma was the auction purchaser of the property in question. The said Smt. Lalithamma thereafter sold the property to one Sri P.M. Somanna under a sale deed dated 11-6-1965. The children of the said Somanna had subsequently sold the property in question which included a house to the petitioner herein. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The property tax in respect of the said property is also being paid. When this was the position, the petitioner had sought for execution and issue of a title deed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner since he has purchased the property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same throughout. This was sought only for completing the sequence of documentation. At this juncture, the respondent-authority have issued an endorsement dated 3-9-2009 claiming that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 17,93,750/- as transfer fee. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the said endorsement is before this Court. 3. In justification of the action of the respondent, the learned Counsel for the respondent places reliance on the resolution dated 26-12-2009 passed by the respondent-authority. By the said resolution, a decision has been taken that in respect of the properties which were allotted, where the parties have executed general power of attorney prior to 31-12-2007 in respect of the property to overcome the non-alienation clause, in such of those cases when transfer is sought, 50% of the value has to be collected as a levy on the said property before executing the title deeds. Hence, placing reliance on the same, it is contended that in the instant case also, the petitioner is liable to pay the said 50% and therefore, the endorsement has been issued demanding the same. 4. Hence, placing reliance on the same, it is contended that in the instant case also, the petitioner is liable to pay the said 50% and therefore, the endorsement has been issued demanding the same. 4. In the light of the rival contentions put forth by the parties, firstly what is to be considered is as to whether the resolution relied on by the respondent-authority is applicable to the present facts of the case. The perusal of the resolution would indicate that there is a specific category of cases to which the resolution has been made applicable namely to such of those properties regarding which there was non-alienation clause when such allotments were made and prior to 31-12-2007 if a person has held those properties based on the power of attorney executed by the allottee and subsequently if the title deeds are sought, the said levy of 50% is to be made. 5. In the instant case, it is seen that the property in question in fact was allotted more than four decades ago to Smt. Lalithamma. The allottee herself sold the property under a registered sale deed on 11-6-1965 to one Sri Somanna. The aid Somanna and thereafter his L.Rs have been in possession of the said property for more than three decades and subsequently on 23-3-1998, the sons of said Somanna have sold the property in favour of the petitioner herein. Hence, in the instant case, the allottee has neither executed any power of attorney in favour of the subsequent person nor the petitioner has subsequently held the property under a power of attorney. In fact from the year 1965 itself, the property is being held under a registered sale deed by a person who had purchased from the auction purchaser and thereafter the petitioner has also held the property under a sale deed, which were all on record. In fact the property tax in respect of the property was also being paid by the petitioner and his predecessors in title. That apart the demand made from the petitioner is on a date prior to the date of the resolution relied on and there is no other provision enabling such demand is pointed out by the respondents. 6. In fact the property tax in respect of the property was also being paid by the petitioner and his predecessors in title. That apart the demand made from the petitioner is on a date prior to the date of the resolution relied on and there is no other provision enabling such demand is pointed out by the respondents. 6. The present request of the petitioner is only to formalise the sequence of the documentation since the first allotment was by the CITB and therefore the said resolution cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case nor is there any other provision of law justifying such demand. AB such the demand made vide Annexure-E cannot be sustained and on the other hand there is an obligation on the respondent to complete the documentation by executing title deed as sought for by the petitioner by his request dated 12-11-2008. 7. In that view of the matter, the endorsement dated 8-9-2009 as at Annexure-E stands quashed. The respondent-Authority is further directed to consider the request of the petitioner as per his request dated 12-11-2008 and complete the execution of the sale deed as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date on which a certified copy of this order is furnished to the respondent-authority. In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.