ORDER Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J. 1. The petitioner has called into question the endorsement, dated 11.3.2014 (Annexure-N) issued by the BDA turning down the petitioner's request for the transfer of allotment of the site in Question from the name of Sri H.G. Vasudev. Sri M.S. Purushothama Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Class-II heir of Sri H.G. Vasudev. He submits that Sri H.G. Vasudev has disappeared in 2005 and that the police complaint is also lodged in that regard. He brings to my notice the endorsement dated 12.12.2009 (Annexure-H) issued by the police to the effect that the said Sri H.G. Vasudev is not traced. He submits that the BDA itself has issued the endorsement, dated 3.12.2005 (Annexure-J) to the effect that the petitioner's request can be considered after 7 years from the date of the disappearance of the said Sri H.G. Vasudev. He submits that the petitioner has even taken out the paper publication issued in the name of the BDA itself. Nobody has filed any objection in response to the said publication. 2. Sri M. Karunakaran, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the site was allotted to Sri H.G. Vasudev in 1988 in the physically handicapped persons' category. He submits that the lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in his favour and that the possession certificate was also issued to him in 1990. He submits that clause 5 of the lease-cum-sale agreement prohibits any alienation during the lease period. In violation of the said clause, Sri H.G. Vasudev executed general power of attorney in favour of Sri H.D. Ranganath, the father of the petitioner authorizing him (Sri H.D. Ranganath) to sell the property; clause 11 of the said document authorizes the said H.D. Ranganath to alienate the site in question. 3. He submits that the petitioner has not produced any succession certificate, heirship certificate and death certificate. He further submits that there are no documents whatsoever to show how the petitioner is related to Sri H.G. Vasudev. He submits that the said H.D. Ranganath also died in 2011. 4. 3. He submits that the petitioner has not produced any succession certificate, heirship certificate and death certificate. He further submits that there are no documents whatsoever to show how the petitioner is related to Sri H.G. Vasudev. He submits that the said H.D. Ranganath also died in 2011. 4. Based on the ipse dixit of the petitioner that Sri H.G. Vasudev is presumed to have been dead since 7 years have elapsed from the date on which he was last seen and that the petitioner Smt. H.R. Rajashree is Class-II heir, the sale deed cannot be ordered to be executed in favour of the petitioner. The matter requires adjudication and the passing of the judgment and decree by the competent Civil Court. Keeping all the contentions open and reserving the liberty to the petitioner to avail of the remedy of filing a duly constituted civil suit in a competent Civil Court, I dispose of this petition. Should the petitioner file the suit in two months' time, the Civil Court shall make every possible endeavour to dispose of the anticipated suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case within an outer limit of two years from the date of its filing. No order as to costs.