JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or order or direction in the nature of writ quashing the three allotment letters dtd. 12/4/2016 imposing lease rentals on the civic amenity sites for a period of 30 years, passed by the respondent vide Annexure-G. b. Issue a direction to the respondent to consider the representation dtd. 8/8/2016 made by 1st petitioner vide annex-h to facilitate handing over of Parks and Open Spaces and Civic Amenity sites in the project in favour of 1st petitioner for maintenance. c. Grant any other relief/s this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case. 2. The petitioner No.1 is an association of persons comprising of the purchaser of the apartments in the building project known as 'Windmills of Your Mind' constructed by petitioner No.2 in various survey numbers situated at Hoodi Village and Sonnenahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. At the time of seeking for Development Plan and Building Plan in terms of applicable Rules, the Petitioner No.2-Developer had relinquished parks and open spaces as also civic amenity sites to the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). Upon completion of the construction and at the time of issuance of occupancy certificate, the petitioner No.1-Association supported by the petitioner No.2-Developer had approached the BDA seeking for allotment of the parks, open spaces and civic amenity sites comprised of in the development plan. In pursuance thereof, respondent-BDA executed the lease agreement in respect of the said area for a period of 30 years and issued the allotment letter dtd. 12/4/2016 to the petitioner. However, while doing so, the respondent imposed a condition of making payment of lease rentals on annuity basis. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. Sri. G. Sridhar , learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the manner in which vide Annexure-G namely the allotment letter dtd. 12/4/2016 the respondent has sought to value the lease rentals is not permissible since what is being given to the petitioners is a right to use the civic amenity comprised of in the development plan in which the members of the petitioner are owners and this Court has in decision dtd. 12/4/2016 the respondent has sought to value the lease rentals is not permissible since what is being given to the petitioners is a right to use the civic amenity comprised of in the development plan in which the members of the petitioner are owners and this Court has in decision dtd. 13/7/2011 in WP No.12689/2011 categorically held that the BDA (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 would not apply and it would be Regulation 7 and 7.1 of Chapter 7 of the Zonal Regulations, which came into force in the year 2007, which would be applicable to the case of the petitioners. At the most, there could be certain conditions which could be imposed but not lease rentals on the petitioner No.2. Therefore, the condition of the payment of lease rentals imposed in the allotment letter dtd. 12/4/2016 is not proper. He, however, submits that the petitioners would comply with any reasonable directions and/or conditions imposed by the respondent - BDA. 4. Sri. B.S. Sachin, learned counsel appearing for BDA would submit that since the plan sanction of the petitioners has been secured prior to the Revised Master Plan 2015 coming into force in the month of June 2007, the Revised Master Plan would not be applicable to the petitioners and it is the Comprehensive Development Plan of the year 1995, which would be applicable to the petitioners in terms whereof only a lease could be granted in favour of the petitioners and requiring the petitioners to make payment of lease rentals. He further submits that the calculation of lease rentals is proper. He therefore submits that the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 5. Heard Sri.G.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.S.Sachin, learned counsel for the respondent and perused papers. 6. This Court vide order dtd. 13/7/2011 in the case of M/s Golden Gate Properties Ltd vs. The State of Karnataka and another in W.P.No.12689/2011 at Paragraph 13 has held as under. 13. Chapter 7 of the Revised Master Plan-2015 deals with regulations for residential development plans and non-residential development plans. Chapter 7.1 deals with residential development plan, which is under consideration. Regulation 7 deals with the manner in which areas reserved for park and open space which are relinquished to the authority can be maintained by the local residents' association if the authority so desires. As far as civic amenity sites are concerned. Chapter 7.1 deals with residential development plan, which is under consideration. Regulation 7 deals with the manner in which areas reserved for park and open space which are relinquished to the authority can be maintained by the local residents' association if the authority so desires. As far as civic amenity sites are concerned. Regulation 7.2 provides for development of the said sites by the developer and the maintenance. Though the open space and park areas or the civic amenity sites may be relinquished by the developer of the private layout through the authority, nevertheless what regulation under Chapter 7 prescribes is, only with regard to the maintenance of the said areas. The said regulations do not deal with disposal of such sites. Even in the absence of disposal of the said areas by the authority, the maintenance of the said city can be handed over to the registered local residents' association. It is only when the civic amenity site is allotted to specific categories of persons that the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civil Amenity Site) Rules, 1989 would apply. The said allotment would be having regard to various criteria as stated in Rule 7 read with Rules 4 and 10. Therefore, when there is no allotment of civic amenity site, but only the maintenance of the same has to be considered. Regulation 7 of the Master Plan-2015 would apply and not Rules of 1989. It is only when a civil amenity site is to be disposed on the basis of a lease to be executed by the authority that the 1989 Rules would apply". 7. This Court while considering the very same issue as in the present matter has categorically held that when there is a Residential Development Plan, which is sanctioned, it is Regulation 7 of the Zonal Regulation, which would be applicable and any area reserved for parks and open spaces are relinquished to the authority can be given back to the local residence for maintenance. Any such hand over is only for the purpose of the maintenance of the said areas by the residence association and/or by the developer and such hand over would not amount to disposal of the site requiring the application of the BDA (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989. Any such hand over is only for the purpose of the maintenance of the said areas by the residence association and/or by the developer and such hand over would not amount to disposal of the site requiring the application of the BDA (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989. This Court has categorically held that the said Rules of 1989 would not be applicable in such a situation and further that it is only when a civic amenity site is reserved for a particular purpose in terms of Rule 3 of 1989 Rules that the disposal of the civic amenity site can be made on the basis of lease rentals. 8. In view of the above, it is clear that the BDA while handing over the open spaces, park area or civic amenity sites to the residents of a residential development, which is implemented by the developer and approved by the BDA, the BDA can only hand over the open space, park area and civic amenity sites for maintenance and there is no title which passes through either to the residents or the developer. 9. Such being the case, when there is no transfer, lease being a transfer under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the concomitance of a lease under the Transfer of Property Act, would not be applicable to the present case requiring the payment of lease rentals on annuity basis or otherwise. 10. The other contention of Sri.B.S. Sachin, learned counsel is that the development plan was sanctioned prior to the year 2005 and therefore, RMP 2015, which came into force in June 2007 would not be applicable. 11. In my considered view the said submission would also be untenable for the reason that the application being made by the petitioner No.1 is in the year 2014, when RMP 2015 had come into force. The application would have to be considered as per the applicable law as on the date on which the application is filed and not on a date on which the plan sanction was granted which admittedly has also been modified after the RMP came to force in the year 2009. Thus, this contention also stands rejected. 12. This Court in a catena of decisions which have followed the aforesaid decision has reiterated the said view. Thus, this contention also stands rejected. 12. This Court in a catena of decisions which have followed the aforesaid decision has reiterated the said view. Hence, it is rather shocking that the BDA despite being aware of the decisions passed by this Court has continued to levy lease rentals whenever an open space, park area or civic amenity is handed over to the residents of the development. 13. In view of the decision of this Court dtd. 13/7/2011 in W.P.No.12689/2011, which is applicable on all fours to the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the BDA cannot resort to levy of lease rentals. However, the BDA can impose certain conditions as regards the maintenance of the said area given to the residents which are required to be reasonable. 14. In view thereof, I pass the following: ORDER i. A certiorari is issued. The condition imposing payment of lease rentals on the civic amenity sites vide allotment letter dtd. 12/4/2016 at Annexure-G is quashed. ii. The respondent is directed to consider the representation dtd. 8/8/2016 of the petitioner No.1 and hand over the open space, park area or civic amenity to the petitioner No.1 by following the directions issued by this Court in WP No.12689/2011. iii. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed.