ORDER Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.-Sri B.V. Raju was allotted site bearing No. 1-3 formed by the then CITB/BDA in Magadi road. Chord Road Industrial layout, Bangalore in the year 1978. The lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in favour of the allottee on 17.10.1979 as per Annexure-A. The allottee Sri B.V. Raju expired on 18.10.1980 leaving behind his mother viz., Ammayamma and wife viz., Smt. Hamsavani. Smt. Ammayamma, the mother of the deceased Raju executed registered Will in favour of the petitioner on 13.11.1984 bequeathing her right over the property in question in favour of the petitioner. Ammayamma expired on 30.11.1999. Thus the petitioner as well as the wife of Raju viz., Hamsaveni succeeded to the interest of Sri B.V. Raju and consequently are entitled to the property in question to an extent of 50% each. Smt. Hamsaveni approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 20436/2005 praying for a direction to the BDA for getting the sale deed executed in her favour. The petitioner herein made an application to implead himself as one of the party respondent. The writ petition came to be disposed of on 2.12.2005 as per the order Annexure-C, by observing thus: Admittedly, applicant -- Lakshmipathi is claiming right through a will said to have been executed by late Ammayamma, which is disputed by the petitioner. Therefore, until and unless the claims are settled by the competent Civil Court, this Court cannot direct the Bangalore Development Authority to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, the applicant Lakshimpathi or the petitioner herein have to approach the Civil Court and get a suitable decree. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the petitioner herein filed O.S. No. 4438/2008 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore city (CCH-10) for partition and separate possession of the property in question. The suit ended in compromise and a final decree was passed for partition under Order 20 Rule 18 of CPC. The copy of the compromise decree is produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition. The compromise decree clarifies that the petitioner herein i.e. plaintiff in the suit is entitled to get absolute sale deed from BDA exclusively in his name, at his cost and thereafter, to get transfer of khatha etc. The defendant in the suit i.e. Hamsaveni has no objection to get the sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein from BDA. The compromise decree clarifies that the petitioner herein i.e. plaintiff in the suit is entitled to get absolute sale deed from BDA exclusively in his name, at his cost and thereafter, to get transfer of khatha etc. The defendant in the suit i.e. Hamsaveni has no objection to get the sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein from BDA. It is also directed that Smt. Hamsaveni should co-operate if required to furnish any kind of deeds, writings, affidavits etc. From the aforementioned facts, it is very much clear that the petitioner is entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour. Hence he made number of representations for getting the sale deed. But, till this date the sale deed is not executed in his favour. However, a letter came to be issued in favour of the petitioner on 22.3.2011 directing the petitioner to furnish all the records and consequently the petitioner has furnished all the records along with the representation Annexure-F dated 28.4.2011. But, no further action is taken by the BDA in favour of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the BDA to execute necessary sale deed in respect of the schedule property in favour of the petitioner. 2. The aforementioned facts clearly reveal that the petitioner is entitled to get the sale deed in his favour inasmuch as the right, title and interest over the property vests in him. The co-owner of the allotted site Smt. Hamsaveni has agreed for the same before the Civil Court in Q.S. No. 4438/2008 and a compromise decree is filed. If it is so, there is no hurdle for the BDA to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, who is the rightful person to get the sale deed. 3. Accordingly, respondent is directed to execute the sale deed in respect of the aforementioned property in favour of the petitioner by collecting all necessary fee/charges if they are in arrears as per law as early as possible,, but not later than the outer limit of four months form the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that the property in question should not be allotted in favour of anybody atleast from hereinafter. Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.