ORDER 1. Although this matter is listed for hearing on I.A., I have taken it up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Advocates. Sri Hanumanthappa B. Haravi Gowdar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an allottee of the site bearing No. 261, 3rd Block, West of Chord Road, 4th Stage, 17th 'C' Cross, Govindarajanagar, Ward No. 105, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore, measuring 30 x 40 ft. He submits that the petitioner has made a representation for the allotment of adjoining marginal land. The said representation, dated 25-12-2006 (Annexure-C) submitted to the BDA on 26-12-2006 has remained unconsidered. On the other hand, the respondents 4 and 5 have been putting up the construction on the said site illegally without even getting the khatha changed and without even obtaining the sanctioned plan. He submits that the first and the third respondents are not bestowing any attention on the petitioner's two complaints both, dated 22-12-2014 (Annexure-F and H). 2. Sri K.G. Sadasivaiah, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 4 and 5 submits that the petitioner's wife had availed of the financial assistance and that as security for the repayment of loan, the site in question was mortgaged to the State Bank of India. On account of the default committed by the petitioner and/or his wife, the bankers auctioned the said site. One Arun purchased the said site in the auction so conducted by the bankers. He further submits that the respondents 4 and 5 have purchased the site from the said auction purchaser, Arun. 3. The learned Counsel submits that after obtaining the registered sale deed, the khatha is also changed in favour of the respondents 4 and 5. He submits that they have started the construction work after obtaining the sanctioned plan. He submits that the petitioner has filed O.S. No. 1608 of 2015 and that the Civil Court has rejected the LA for temporary injunction by its order, dated 23-3-2015. He submits that, as the petitioner has ceased to be the owner of the site in question, he has no locus standi to demand the allotment of the marginal land. According to him, the marginal land can now be allotted only to the respondents 5 and 6, as they have become the owners of the main site, that is, Site No. 261. 4. According to him, the marginal land can now be allotted only to the respondents 5 and 6, as they have become the owners of the main site, that is, Site No. 261. 4. Sri K.N. Puttegowda, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submits that the lis is between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. He submits that, if any party is putting up the construction on the site without obtaining the sanctioned plan or in violation of the sanctioned plan, the respondents 1 and 3 would sternly act in accordance with law. 5. Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent 2 submits that this petition is liable to be rejected on the short ground of delay and laches. The petitioner has filed the representation on 26-12-2006 and nine years thereafter this petition is filed. 6. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed O.S. No. 1608 of 2015 for permanent injunction and that in the said proceedings, he has filed I.A. for temporary injunction. The said I.A. is rejected by the Trial Court, by its order, dated 23-3-2015. 7. As of now, the petitioner has ceased to be the owner of the site in question on account of the same being auctioned in favour of Arun by the bankers and on its subsequent purchase by the respondents 4 and 5. In view of these developments, he cannot lay his claim on the marginal land with any rate success, unless the sale deed is set aside by the competent forum. Therefore, the question of directing the respondent 2 to consider the petitioner's representation for the allotment of marginal land would not arise. 8. As contended by Sri Ravi G. Sabhahit, the petition is hopelessly barred by delay and laches. As far as the prayer for direction to the respondents 1 and 3 to consider the petitioner's representation/complaints both, dated 22-12-2014 (Annexure-F and H), no further directions are required to be issued in view of the fair submission made on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3. 9. This petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. Now that the main matter itself is disposed of, nothing survives for consideration of I.A. No. 1 of 2015 for direction. The same is dismissed as having become unnecessary. Disposed off.