ORDER : Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. Writ Petition No. 4588 of 2015 is filed raising the challenge to the order dated 19-4-2014 (Annexure-E2) passed by the first respondent suspending the approved modified layout plan and consequent endorsement dated 23-1-2015 (Annexure-F) issued by the respondent 2 refusing to consider the petitioner's request for the approval of the building plan until further orders. The said writ petition is filed by a purchaser of the site bearing No. 1506 in the layout formed by the Ministry of Communications Employees Co-operative Housing Society in Sahakarnagar, Bengaluru. The said petitioner has also sought the mandamus to the second respondent to sanction the building plan in accordance with law. Writ Petition No. 44989 of 2014 is filed by the Ministry of Communications Employees Co-operative Housing Society raising the challenge to the very same order dated 19-4-2014 (Annexure-A in W.P. No. 44989 of 2014 and Annexure-E2 in W.P. No. 4588 of 2015) suspending the approved modified layout plan. The respondent's communication dated 11-8-2014 (Annexure-X) reiterating the contents of suspension order and refusing to withdraw the same is also challenged. 2. The two petitioners in W.P. No. 38266 of 2014 are the joint owners of site No. 791 in the layout formed by the said Society in Sahakarnagar. The reliefs sought in the said writ petition is substantially akin to the ones sought in W.P. No. 4588 of 2015. 3. Sri C.M. Nagabushana, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 4588 of 2015 submits that the petitioner has purchased the site in question by registered sale deed dated 31-1-2013 (Annexure-B) from Smt. Jayasheela S. Kulkarni, who herself had purchased it from the Ministry of Communications Employees Co-operative Housing Society by registered sale deed dated 5-5-1995 (Annexure-A). He submits that the site in question was originally allotted to the petitioner's vendor. He submits that on purchasing the property, the petitioner got the khatha mutuated in his favour, as is evident from the certificate dated 18-3-2013 (Annexure-C) issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (B.B.M.P.). When the petitioner sought the B.B.M.P.'s approval for the building plan, his request was turned down by the B.B.M.P. by issuing the impugned endorsement dated 23-1-2015 (Annexure-F). He submits that on purchasing the property, the petitioner got the khatha mutuated in his favour, as is evident from the certificate dated 18-3-2013 (Annexure-C) issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (B.B.M.P.). When the petitioner sought the B.B.M.P.'s approval for the building plan, his request was turned down by the B.B.M.P. by issuing the impugned endorsement dated 23-1-2015 (Annexure-F). The one and the only reason stated in the impugned endorsement is that the order approving the formation of the layout issued to the said Society is suspended and that until the Bangalore Development Authority ('B.D. A.' for short) issues further orders, no building plan can be sanctioned. 4. The learned Counsel submits that the B.D.A. issuing directions to the B.B.M.P. and the B.B.M.P. acting on such directions are absolutely unsupportable. He submits that the grounds for refusing the approval for the building plans are enumerated in Section 303 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the said Act' for short). The approval for the building plan cannot be refused on any other ground other than the grounds contained in Section 303(1)(a) to 303(1)(g). Section 303(1) is extracted hereinbelow: "303. He submits that the grounds for refusing the approval for the building plans are enumerated in Section 303 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('the said Act' for short). The approval for the building plan cannot be refused on any other ground other than the grounds contained in Section 303(1)(a) to 303(1)(g). Section 303(1) is extracted hereinbelow: "303. Grounds on which approval of site for, or permission to construct building, may be refused.--(1) The only grounds on which approval of a site for the construction or reconstruction of a building or permission to construct or reconstruct a building may be refused, are the following, namely.-- (a) that the work or the use of the site for the work or any of the particulars comprised in the site plan, ground plan, elevations, sections, or specification would contravene some specified provision of any law or some specified order, rule, declaration or bye-law made under any law; (b) that the application for such permission does not contain the particulars or is not prepared in the manner required under rules or bye-laws; (c) that any of the documents referred to in Section 299 have not been signed as required under rules or bye-laws; (d) that any information or documents required by the Commissioner under the rules or bye-laws has or have not been duly furnished; (e) that streets or roads have not been made as required by Section 280; (f) that the proposed building would be an encroachment upon Government or Corporation land; (g) that the site of such building does not abut on a street or a projected street and there is no access to such building from any such street by a passage or pathway appertaining to such site and not less than five metres wide at any part." 5. He submits that nearly 3000 sites are formed and the houses are already constructed on as many as about 2500 sites. He submits that the petitioner is prepared to put up the construction at his own risk. He emphatically submits that there is no impediment in sanctioning the building plan in respect of the petitioner's site, as it is covered by the approved modified layout plan. 6. He submits that the petitioner is prepared to put up the construction at his own risk. He emphatically submits that there is no impediment in sanctioning the building plan in respect of the petitioner's site, as it is covered by the approved modified layout plan. 6. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Sandeep Patil for the petitioner in W.P. No. 44989 of 2014 submits that the Commissioner of B.D.A. has no power to suspend or cancel the modified work order, which itself is issued pursuant to the B.D.A.'s resolution dated 22-12-2006 (Annexure-E). He submits that the impugned order is without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. He brings to my notice the provisions contained in Section 13(2)(a) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, which are extracted hereinbelow: "13. Powers and duties of the Commissioner.--(1) and (2).... (a) Carry into effect the resolutions of the authority: Provided that, if, in the opinion of the Commissioner any resolution of the authority contravenes any provision of this Act or any other law or of any rule, notification, regulation or bye-law made or issued under this Act or any other law, or of any order passed by the Government or is prejudicial or detrimental to the interest of the authority, he shall, within fifteen days of the passing of the resolution refer the matter to the Government for orders and inform the authority at its next meeting of the action taken by him and until the orders of the Government on such reference are received, the Commissioner shall not be bound to give effect to the resolution." 7. The learned Senior Counsel submits that on the issuance of the order approving the layout plan and the consequent work order, the layout is formed and sites are allotted to the members of the petitioner-Society in the year 1992. A large number of allottees have erected the buildings on the sites allotted and sold to them. Some of them have also sold the sites to others. Thus the third party interests have come in. At this juncture, the respondent-B.D.A. is not justified in demanding that the additional extent of land of 13,233.17 sq. mtrs. be given to the B.D.A. 8. Some of them have also sold the sites to others. Thus the third party interests have come in. At this juncture, the respondent-B.D.A. is not justified in demanding that the additional extent of land of 13,233.17 sq. mtrs. be given to the B.D.A. 8. He submits that as per the resolution dated 22-12-2006 as communicated in B.D.A.'s letter dated 29-12-2006 (Annexure-H), the petitioner has executed the relinquishment deeds in respect of 3 acres 31 guntas of land and also paid a sum of Rs. 4,37,46,654/-. He brings to my notice that the said resolution was impugned by Sri B. Munikrishnappa and two others in W.P. No. 18522 of 2007. This Court, by its order dated 20-7-2009 (Annexure-L) dismissed the writ petition negativing the challenge to the said resolution. Thereafter, the said order was challenged by B. Munikrishnappa by way of Writ Appeal No. 2904 of 2009. The Division Bench, by its judgment dated 10-11-2009 (Annexure-M) dismissed the writ appeal confirming the learned Single Judge's order. The said B. Munikrishnappa took up the matter with the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 3651 of 2010, but without any rate of success. The same was dismissed by the Apex Court by its order dated 22-2-2010 (Annexure-N). Thus, the resolution dated 22-12-2006 has attained the finality. 9. The learned Senior Counsel submits that even on the petitioner executing the relinquishment deed in respect of the additionally demanded lands and paying the amounts, the respondent did not issue the modified layout plan. Therefore, the petitioner-Society was constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P. No. 17068 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, by its order dated 22-6-2010 (Annexure-P) with a direction to the BDA to release the modified layout plan as per the resolution dated 22-12-2006 in eight weeks' time. Subsequently, the respondent has issued the modified layout plan (Annexure-K). Consequently, it has also issued the modified work order dated 20-10-2012 (Annexure-T). 10. Now suspending the modified layout plan is a clear case of disobedience of this Court's order, so submits the learned Senior Counsel. He also brings to my notice the notings of the Law Officer dated 10-9-2014 (Annexure-Y). He has expressed his considered legal opinion disapproving of what the B.D.A. has done. The relevant portions of the notings are as follows: xxx xxx xxx 11. He also brings to my notice the notings of the Law Officer dated 10-9-2014 (Annexure-Y). He has expressed his considered legal opinion disapproving of what the B.D.A. has done. The relevant portions of the notings are as follows: xxx xxx xxx 11. He also brings to my notice that the B.D.A.'s order dated 4-11-2010 (Annexure-Z) demanding 6.7 acres of land was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. No. 13371 of 2011. He submits that this Court, by its order dated 12-12-2011 (Annexure-S) quashed the said order. He submits that the perusal of this Court's order dated 12-12-2011 would reveal that the similar pleas, as taken by the respondent in its statement of objections to this petition, were taken in W.P. No. 13371 of 2011. 12. Sri R.B. Sangamesh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 38266 of 2014 makes the submissions akin to the submissions made by Sri C.M. Nagabushana, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 4588 of 2015 and by Sri Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. No. 44989 of 2014. He submits that the site in question is approved both in the original order and in the modified order. 13. Sri K. Krishna, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-B.D.A. submits that as per the modified work order dated 20-10-2012 (Annexure-T), the petitioner-Society is required and directed to hand over an extent of 13,233.17 sq. mtrs of land to the B.D.A. within one month. This has not been done by the petitioner. He submits that the resolution dated 22-12-2006 (Annexure-E) is only in the matter of giving 13.11% of the land to the B.D.A. The shortfall of 1.89% is demanded to be relinquished. He further submits that 1.89% of the petitioner-Society's lands comes to 3 acres 31 guntas. He submits that even as per the joint survey report, there is a shortfall in the land required to be relinquished. 14. He further submits that 1.89% of the petitioner-Society's lands comes to 3 acres 31 guntas. He submits that even as per the joint survey report, there is a shortfall in the land required to be relinquished. 14. On being asked about the stages and procedure in releasing the sites for the petitioner-Society for being allotted/sold to its members, Sri Krishna submits that 40% of the sites are released immediately after the approval of the layout plan, 30% of the sites are released after the petitioner-Society executes 50% of the work order and the balance 30% of the sites would be released after the execution of the relinquishment deeds in respect of the lands by the petitioner-Society. 15. Sri K. Krishna submits that the total residential area as per the modified layout plan is 4,55,726.57 sq. mtrs. 16. Sri Subramanya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 44989 of 2014 quickly joins issue with him and submits that the said area is now reduced to 4,53,400.05 sq. mtrs. after the acquisition notifications in respect of 23 guntas of land came to be quashed. 17. Sri Krishna submits that as per the modified plan, the petitioner-Society is obliged to give 1,21,283.28 sq. mtrs., whereas it has executed the relinquishment deed only to an extent of 1,09,735.57 sq. mtrs. He further submits that in actuality it measures 95,860.69 sq. mtrs. 18. Sri Krishna submits that the petitioner-Society is required to give 292.48 sq. mtrs. towards civic amenity areas. He submits that no land whatsoever is given by the petitioner-Society towards the civic amenity areas. On the other hand, the petitioner-Society claims to have given the land measuring 2,379.33 sq. mtrs. towards the civic amenity. 19. Sri Subramanya submits that the plots in the lands in question are given to Post Office, BWSSB, BESCOM, Public Libraries, etc., which are all either Government Departments or Government undertakings. He submits that the land measuring 2,379.33 sq. mtrs. is utilised for creating civic amenities. 20. On the question of the relinquishing of the land by the petitioner-Society for the formation of the road, it is Sri Krishna's submission that the petitioner Society is liable to give 2,57,710.64 sq. mtrs. He submits that the petitioner-Society has relinquished 2,46,595.32 sq. mtrs. in favour of the respondent-BDA. He fairly submits that in actuality it measures 2,54,588.59 sq. mtrs. 21. On being specifically asked as to whether 2,54,588.59 sq. mtrs. He submits that the petitioner-Society has relinquished 2,46,595.32 sq. mtrs. in favour of the respondent-BDA. He fairly submits that in actuality it measures 2,54,588.59 sq. mtrs. 21. On being specifically asked as to whether 2,54,588.59 sq. mtrs. is inclusive of the areas utilised by the National Highways Authority, he submits that the modified layout plan itself was after the formation of the National Highways. He submits that the said figure 2,54,588.59 sq. mtrs. is after taking into account the road-widening by the BBMP on an extent of land measuring 7,293.34 sq. mtrs. and the formation of the road between the park 5 and 6 on an extent measuring 699.93 sq. mtrs. 22. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The questions that fall for my consideration are: "i. Whether the B.D.A.'s order dated 19-4-2014 suspending the approved modified layout plan is legal? ii. Whether the impugned endorsements dated 23-11-2015 (Annexure-F in W.P. No. 4588 of 2015) and dated 29-5-2014 (Annexure-K) in W.P. No. 38266 of 2014 are tenable?" 23. In Re: Question No. (i).--To answer this question, the background facts of the case are required to be examined. The B.D.A. approved the layout plan of the said Society on 30-7-1988 and issued the work order on 31-12-1988. The B.D.A., in its meeting held on 22-12-2006, passed the resolution to give approval to the modified residential layout plan, subject to the said Society relinquishing 3 acres 31 guntas towards the park and paying Rs. 100/- per sq. ft. for utilising the additional residential area. Pursuant thereto, the Society got the relinquishment deed and the sale deed executed in respect of 3 acres 7 guntas and 24 guntas respectively. The Society also remitted Rs.4,37,46,654/-. Thereafter, the B.D.A. issued the draft layout plan in the year 2007. 24. In the meanwhile, the three persons, namely, Sriyuths B. Munikrishnappa, K.R. Srinivas and K.Y. Lakshminarayanan filed W.P. No. 18522 of 2007 challenging the B.D.A.'s resolution dated 22-12-2006. This Court, by its order dated 20-7-2009 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of: (a) delay and laches; (b) lack of bona fides; and (c) coming in of the third party interests. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by Sri B. Munikirshnappa by filing Writ Appeal No. 2904 of 2009. This Court, by its order dated 20-7-2009 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of: (a) delay and laches; (b) lack of bona fides; and (c) coming in of the third party interests. The said order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by Sri B. Munikirshnappa by filing Writ Appeal No. 2904 of 2009. The Division Bench, by its judgment dated 10-11-2009 dismissed the said writ appeal appreciating the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and holding that it is not a fit case to unsettle the settled position. The Division Bench formed the considered view that the interests of the innocent third parties would be affected, if the B.D.A.'s resolution dated 22-12-2006 is interfered with. As the things have almost become irretrievable, the Division Bench has held that it is difficult to put the clock back. 25. This judgment of the Division Bench was challenged by Sri B. Munikrishnappa by filing a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 3651 of 2010. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said S.L.P. on 22-2-2010. 26. Further, when the B.D.A. showed inaction in the matter, the said Society filed W.P. No. 17068 of 2010 seeking a direction to the B.D.A. to release the modified layout plan as per its resolution dated 22-12-2006. The said petition was allowed by this Court, by its order dated 22-6-2010. The B.D.A. issued the communication dated 4-11-2010 requiring the Society to hand over 6.7 acres of land to enable it (B.D.A.) to consider the petitioner's request for issuing the modified layout plan. This was challenged by the said Society by filing W.P. No. 13371 of 2011. This Court, by its order dated 12-12-2011 held that there is absolutely no justification for withholding its resolution dated 22-12-2006 and for calling upon the petitioner to surrender the additional lands. Pursuant thereto, the B.D.A. has issued the modified work order dated 20-10-2012. 27. When thus stood the state of affairs, Sri B. Munikrishnappa filed the complaint dated 27-3-2004. Based on the said complaint, the B.D.A. held the spot inspection and found that there is a shortfall in the land for park and open space. On delivering such a finding, the B.D.A. has suspended the approved modified layout plan. 28. The tenability of the said impugned order has to be examined with reference to all the relevant materials and aspects of the matter. On delivering such a finding, the B.D.A. has suspended the approved modified layout plan. 28. The tenability of the said impugned order has to be examined with reference to all the relevant materials and aspects of the matter. In the first place, I find that the impugned suspension order is not an informed decision. It does not even refer to the various orders passed by the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble Division Bench and the Apex Court. The ratio laid in all the judicial decisions is that there is no justification for demanding additional lands from the Society towards the parks and open spaces. 29. This Court would not express any opinion as to whether or not the B.D.A. can consult its Law Officer in a matter of this nature. But what cannot be glossed over is that its Law Officer has tendered a considered opinion that the impugned suspension order does not withstand the scrutiny of law. The operative portion of his opinion is extracted supra while referring to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli. The B.D.A. has not reconsidered its stand in the wake of the legal opinion. The impugned suspension order is neither confirmed nor withdrawn. 30. The third party interests have come in. The bona fide purchasers of the sites either from the Society or from its allottees cannot be prevented from putting up the construction on their sites. 31. The settled matter cannot be desettled in view of the upholding of the B.D.A.'s resolution dated 22-12-2006 by the Courts in the earlier rounds of litigation. The B.D.A. cannot go behind and beyond the said resolution. If the extent of the land relinquished by the Society in favour of B.D.A. is lesser than what is shown in the sale deed, it only shows that the B.D.A. has not inspected and measured the land at the time of receiving the possession of the said lands from the Society. Having accepted the relinquishment and sale deeds in its favour long ago, the B.D.A. is now not justified in complaining of shortfall in the land. If the said lands are in unauthorised occupation of any third party, the B.D.A. has to secure their possession from them in accordance with law, as held by this Court, in its order dated 12-12-2011 passed in W.P. No. 13371 of 2011. 32. If the said lands are in unauthorised occupation of any third party, the B.D.A. has to secure their possession from them in accordance with law, as held by this Court, in its order dated 12-12-2011 passed in W.P. No. 13371 of 2011. 32. There is also a lot of confusion about the extent of land used by the B.B.M.P. and the National Highways Authority of India for the formation/widening of the road. It is not known who has received the compensation on account of the compulsory acquisition of a portion of the land for formation/widening of the road. The use of such portion of the land for the road purpose has to be given the necessary weightage. The portion of the land used for such purposes cannot be treated as the one utilised for additional residential area. 33. As noticed by this Court, in its order dated 20-7-2009 passed in W.P. No. 18522 of 2007, the Society also appears to have faced another intervening problem - high tension wire passing through the middle of the layout, which disabled the Society from forming the sites underneath the high tension wire. 34. The demand for the lands cannot be raised by the B.D.A. in piecemeal. Of course, if there are subsequent events or developments, the demand can be reviewed; but there cannot be any demand for additional lands. On the other hand, the B.D. A. ought to have reduced the demanded extent of land in view of quashing of the acquisition proceedings in respect of 23 guntas of land. Admittedly, neither the Society has made any request in that regard nor the B.D.A. has issued further modified approval order for the layout plan. 35. The impugned order is liable to be quashed for yet another reason too. It is passed by the Commissioner of B.D.A. It has the effect of demanding the land in excess of 3 acres 31 guntas of lands, as provided in B.D.A.'s resolution, 22-12-2006. I am afraid the Commissioner is not clothed with the power to cancel, revoke, vary or modify the resolution passed by the B.D.A. in its meeting held on 22-12-2006. 36. I am afraid the Commissioner is not clothed with the power to cancel, revoke, vary or modify the resolution passed by the B.D.A. in its meeting held on 22-12-2006. 36. Under Section 13(2)(a) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 ('B.D.A. Act' for short), the Commissioner is obliged to carry into effect the resolutions of the B.D.A. If the Commissioner opines that the B.D.A.'s resolution is contravening any provision of law or is prejudicial or detrimental to the interests of B.D.A., he has to refer the matter to the Government. But, the Commissioner has not chosen to refer the matter to the Government. The provisions contained in Section 13(2)(a) of the B.D.A. Act are extracted supra. 37. Under Section 65-B of the B.D.A. Act, the Government has the power to cancel the resolutions of the B.D.A. But, no provision in the B.D.A. Act confers the power upon the Commissioner to vary or modify the B.D.A.'s resolution. Section 65-B of the B.D.A. Act reads as follows: "65-B. Submission of copies of resolution and Government's power to cancel the resolution or order.--(1) The Commissioner shall submit to the Government copies of all resolutions of the authority. (2) If the Government is of opinion that the execution of any resolution or order issued by or on behalf of the authority or the doing of any act which is about to be done or is being done by or on behalf of the authority is in contravention of or in excess of the powers conferred by this Act or any other law for the time being in force or is likely to lead to a breach of peace or to cause injury or annoyance to the public or to any class or body or persons or is prejudicial to the interests of the authority, it may, by order in writing, suspend the execution of such resolution or order or prohibit the doing of any such act after issuing a notice to the authority to show cause, within the specified period which shall not be less than fifteen days, why. -- (a) the resolution or order may not be cancelled in whole or in part; or (b) any regulation or bye-law concerned may not be repealed in whole or in part. -- (a) the resolution or order may not be cancelled in whole or in part; or (b) any regulation or bye-law concerned may not be repealed in whole or in part. (3) Upon consideration of the reply, if any, received from the authority and after such inquiry as it thinks fit, Government may pass orders cancelling the resolution or order or repealing the regulation or bye-law and communicate the same to the authority. (4) Government may at anytime, on further representation by the authority or otherwise, revise, modify, or revoke an order passed under sub-section (3)." 38. For all the aforesaid reasons, I answer Question No. (i) in the negative. I quash the impugned order dated 19-4-2014 suspending the modified layout plan and the work order issued pursuant thereto. 39. In Re: Question No. (ii).--The impugned endorsements are untenable for the following three reasons: "(a) They are issued consequent upon the B.D.A.'s order dated 19-4-2014, which itself is quashed. Therefore, the consequential endorsements are also liable to be quashed. (b) The impugned endorsements are issued by the B.B.M.P. at the behest of B.D.A. Neither the B.D.A. Act nor the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 provide for giving of any directions, much less binding directions by the B.D.A. to the B.B.M.P. not to sanction the building plan. (c) The grounds for refusing the permission to construct a building are enumerated in Section 303(1)(a) to 303(1)(g) of the said Act. The provisions contained therein are extracted supra. The impugned endorsements are not for any of the seven grounds or reasons enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Section 303(1) of the said Act." 40. For the three aforesaid reasons, I quash the impugned orders. But all this does not mean that the B.D.A. is not entitled to get the lands from the Society towards the open space and parks. If it proposes to persist in its demand, it has to be only in terms of its resolution dated 22-12-2006. 41. I deem it necessary and just to give liberty to the B.D.A. to file a duly constituted civil suit for mandatory injunction, etc. before the Competent Civil Court. If it proposes to persist in its demand, it has to be only in terms of its resolution dated 22-12-2006. 41. I deem it necessary and just to give liberty to the B.D.A. to file a duly constituted civil suit for mandatory injunction, etc. before the Competent Civil Court. I hasten to add that the liberty to the B.D.A. to file a suit is reserved in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, viz.: (a) prevailing confusion regarding the exact extent of residential area utilised by the Society; (b) lack of clarity as to whether the stated utilisation of the area by the Society is inclusive or exclusive of the lands acquired for formation and widening of the road by National Highways Authority of India and by the B.B.M.P.; (c) the shrinking of the land relinquished by the Society in favour of B.D.A. on account of the alleged encroachment; and (d) the non-utilisation of a small portion of the land for residential purpose underneath the high tension wire. Should the B.D.A. file such a suit, it shall also be open to the Society and all the parties claiming under it to take such defences as are permissible in law. The reserving of such a liberty should not be construed to mean that the B.D.A. has to approach the Civil Court for enforcement of the conditions imposed by it in the order approving the layout plan or in the work order issued pursuant thereto. 42. Now that the main matter itself is disposed of, nothing survives for consideration of I.A. No. 1 of 2015 for direction in W.P. No. 38266 of 2014 and I.A. No. 2 of 2015 for stay in W.P. No. 4588 of 2015. They are dismissed as having become unnecessary. These petitions are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.