ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. Petitioner's land measuring 22 guntas in Sy. No. 164/2 of Ullalu Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, when not acquired for formation of Sir M. Vishveshwaraiah Layout, on the premise, that, the land was put to use for horticulture, nevertheless, the Deputy Commissioner is said to have permitted its diversion from horticulture to residential purpose, following which, petitioner made an application under Section 32 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (for short `Act') for permission to form a private layout, which when not considered, has resulted in this petition for a writ of mandamus. 2. If the land of the petitioner was excluded from acquisition for formation of Sir M. Vishveswaraiah Layout on the premise that it was put to use for horticulture, then it is not known as to how the very same land on a later date can be put to use for forming a private layout. It is also not known as to whether the State Government declared as residential the usage of this land under the Comprehensive Development Plan or the Revised Master Plan of 2015, since not forthcoming from the record. So also what is not forthcoming from the petition is strict compliance of sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Act in furnishing particulars of laying out of the sites of the area upon streets, lands or open spaces; the intended level, direction and width of the street; the street alignment and the building line and the proposed sites abutting the streets; the arrangement to be made for levelling, paving, metalling, flagging, channeling, sewering, draining, conserving and lighting the streets and for adequate drinking water supply. 3. In the absence of the aforesaid relevant material in Annexure-D application, petitioner cannot claim as a matter of legal right, issue of a writ of mandamus to respondent to consider the application. It and when the petitioner complies with the requirement of law, supra, may make an application to respondent-BDA enclosing a copy of this order, which if done, there is no reason to believe that respondent-BDA would not consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. Petition rejected.