JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is filed for following relief: a) Issue writ of mandamus directing respondents no.3 and 2 respectively to disburse compensation amount in favour of petitioner deposited by respondent no.2 and 4 for having acquired property for purpose of Pottery Town Metro Station and other purposes vide Annexure-F, etc. 2. Sri N.R. Naik, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that property bearing no.4, presently no.4/4, Pottery Town, 48th Division, BBMP New Ward no.61, Bengaluru, was granted to family members of petitioner. Subsequently, under a deed of release, petitioner became it's owner. 3. It was submitted that said property was sought to be acquired for Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., under notification dtd. 18/10/2021 and that respondent no.3 had passed an order dtd. 4/8/2021 (Annexure-D) under Sec. 28(3) of KIAD Act for continuation of acquisition proceedings in name of persons, shown as khatedars. 4. It was submitted that in view of execution of release deed, petitioner had become sole title holder and therefore filed representation on 8/10/2020 to respondent no.4 as per Annexure-F. Alleging that said representation had remained without consideration, petitioner was before this Court seeking for direction for its consideration by respondents. 5. Sri Manjunath V Rayappa, learned AGA for respondent no.1, Sri P.V. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3, and Sri B.V. Muralidhar, learned counsel for respondent no.5 would firstly submit that application for payment of compensation has to be made to Land Acquisition Officer. Secondly, there was dispute regarding title to land in acquisition, between petitioner, BBMP - respondent no.5 and another. And thirdly, only an extent of 222.96 sq. meters was acquired out of PID no.91/40/62 and 91/40/63 dtd. 26/5/2022, and therefore, petitioner could lay claim only in respect of said extent. 6. Sri K. Krishna, learned counsel for respondent no.4 further submitted that there is dispute regarding title to land under question and khatedar as shown in records was respondent no.5 and petitioner was seeking claim in respect of said land on basis of documents subsequent to vesting of land in State under provisions of Inam Abolition Act. Therefore relief sought in representation submitted by petitioner involved disputed question of title. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 8. Therefore relief sought in representation submitted by petitioner involved disputed question of title. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record. 8. In view of above submission and since only relief sought for by petitioner is for writ of mandamus to consider his representation, it would be appropriate to dispose of writ petition by issuing direction to respondents, without expressing any opinion on merits of petitioner's claims. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of permitting petitioner to give representation appending all relevant documents in support of his title to respondent no.3 within an outer limit of 15 days from date of receipt of certified copy of this order and thereafter directing respondent no.3 to consider same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon within an outer limit of three months after notifying all interested persons. Needless to state that issuance of direction to consider representation cannot be construed as positive direction to grant relief as sought for and consideration has to be based on merits of petitioner's claim.