ORDER : Mr. Paras Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.I.G. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally. 3. In this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia-seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to execute a sale deed in respect of the site bearing No.145 formed by the then Bangalore City Improvement Board in Binnamangala Second Stage Extension, Bangalore presently bearing Municipal Corporation No.145, 7th Cross, 10th Main Road, 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore – 560 038 measuring East to West 45 feet and North to South 35 feet comprising an area of 1597.5 square feet. 4. The petitioners who are sons of late Mr.J.S.Champalal Jain who died intestate on 11.02.2011, have filed this writ petition. It is averred in this writ petition that their father had purchased the aforesaid property in an auction which was held on 21.12.1967. Pursuant to the confirmation of the auction in favour of the father of the petitioners, he was placed in possession of the property and a possession certificate dated 29.06.1968 was issued in favour of the petitioners which has been annexed in the writ petition as Annexure-B. Thereafter, an agreement was executed in favour of the father of the petitioners on 19.08.1970 – Annexure-C. The name of the father of the petitioners was also included in the khata maintained by the Bengaluru City Improvement Board. It is also averred in the petition that during the life time, a building was constructed by the father of the petitioners and the taxes were being paid to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Thereupon, the petitioners submitted a representation dated 29.12.2015 along with encumbrance certificate, death certificate of their father, possession certificate and property card. The aforesaid application was duly acknowledted by the Bengaluru Development Authority. However, the Bengaluru Development Authority has failed to execute the absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioners. Thereupon, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Bengaluru Development Authority is a statutory body and is supposed to act in a rational, fair and reasonable manner. It is further submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioners for execution of the sale deed has failed to evoke any response from the Bengaluru Development Authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Bengaluru Development Authority is a statutory body and is supposed to act in a rational, fair and reasonable manner. It is further submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioners for execution of the sale deed has failed to evoke any response from the Bengaluru Development Authority. It is further submitted that the Bengaluru Development Authority is under an obligation to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners and the petitioners are ready and willing to comply with such formalities as may be required for execution of the sale deed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches as the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the petition in the year 2018. It is also submitted that there are 7 legal representatives of the deceased and out of which only 2 legal representatives had approached this Court. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From perusal of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent, it is evident that the respondent nowhere have taken a plea that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. Therefore, such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised on behalf of the respondent at the time of final arguments. Besides this, it is pertinent to mention here that it is well settled that mere physical running of time is not the test of delay and laches until and unless the other party is put to such disadvantage which it cannot be compensated with any sort of money. There has been inaction on the part of the Bengaluru Development Authority in discharge of duties as Bengaluru Development Authority is under an obligation to execute the sale deed in favour of auction purchaser. Admittedly, the father of the petitioners was the auction purchaser and the Bengaluru Development Authority ought to have executed a sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioners well within time. However, instead of executing the sale deed, the plea of delay and laches is being taken without any pleading in the statement of objections. Therefore, the same does not deserve acceptance. 8. However, instead of executing the sale deed, the plea of delay and laches is being taken without any pleading in the statement of objections. Therefore, the same does not deserve acceptance. 8. In view of the preceding analysis, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners along with all the formalities for execution of sale deed, approach within two months from today, the Bengaluru Development Authority shall execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioners/legal representatives of the deceased allottee namely Mr.J.S.Champalal Jain in respect of the property in question within a period of one month thereafter.