JUDGMENT/ORDER Krishna S Dixit, J. - Petitioner is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing the endorsement dated 01.01.2016 issued by the respondent-BDA at Annexure-X, whereby his request for allotment of an alternate site in lieu of the one acquired has been negatived. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that his client had title to a revenue site in question that admeasured 1200 sq.ft.; the site is subsumed in the land acquired by the BDA and therefore consistent with the extant policy, petitioner needs to be granted an alternate site as has been done in the case of many others. 2. After service of notice, the respondent-BDA having entered appearance through its Sr. Panel Counsel opposes the petition contending that petitioner has suffered an adverse finding in a Civil Suit as to his vendor having had no title to convey; the said finding has been affirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in petitioner's RSA and therefore petitioner does not have any right to claim an alternate site at all. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made on behalf of the BDA. 4. Petitioner was the defendant in a title suit in O.S.No.7338/1990 in respect of site in question. It was filed by widow & children of one late Mr.M.V.Venkatesh. The said suit came to be decreed against the petitioner and at para 20 of the judgment dated 11.09.2001, the learned trial Judge observed as under: '20. It is also relevant to note that entire Sy.No.26 was acquired way back in 1963 consequent upon which the entire survey number stood vested with the CITB. Therefore, the question of executing a sale deed by Suryanarayana Shetty in respect of Sites No.3 and 16 formed in the said survey number on 18.4.1973 or the execution of sale deeds as per Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 did not arise. In other words, neither Suryanarayana Shetty nor Smt. Hanna Diasy and S.Joseph nor V.Parameshwaraiah, the vendor of the defendant have had any right, title or interest over any portion of the property in Sy.No.26. Defendant has clearly admitted that the CITB., or BDA., has not reconveyed the site which he had purchased from his vendor V.Parameshwaraiah. In other words, neither Suryanarayana Shetty nor Smt. Hanna Diasy and S.Joseph nor V.Parameshwaraiah, the vendor of the defendant have had any right, title or interest over any portion of the property in Sy.No.26. Defendant has clearly admitted that the CITB., or BDA., has not reconveyed the site which he had purchased from his vendor V.Parameshwaraiah. Therefore, whatever documents he has produced regarding his title and possession of site No.553 cannot be of any consequence....' 5. Petitioner had put the above judgment & decree in challenge in RSA No.1052/2001 that came to be dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this court on 01.07.2009 with the following observation: 'Though this court has upon forming an opinion that BDA was a necessary party and having permitted the BDA to come on record and to file its written statement, while also permitting to produce further documents, has only fortified the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The material on record would disclose that in view of the acquisition proceedings in respect of the entire extent of survey no.26, in which the sites belonging to the plaintiffs as well as the defendant may have existed, the circumstance that a corresponding site had been allotted to the husband of the plaintiff no.1, and the formalities of such conveyance having been completed, while the site in respect of which the defendant-appellant was claiming was the subject matter of sale transactions, notwithstanding the acquisition b the BDA and the same not having been conveyed b the BDA even as on date, does not enable the appellant to set up any claim as against the plaintiffs whose right and title has been endorsed b the execution of a sale deed b the BDA....' 6. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Co-ordinate Bench that decided the RSA had reserved right in favour of his client to seek allotment of alternative site at the hands of the BDA in no way advances his case, in view of the specific finding suffered by him in the suit that came to be affirmed in the RSA. The Co-ordinate Bench itself at internal page 9 of its RSA judgment has observed: '... accordingly there is no infirmity in the trial Court having decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the title deeds executed by the BDA. The Co-ordinate Bench itself at internal page 9 of its RSA judgment has observed: '... accordingly there is no infirmity in the trial Court having decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the title deeds executed by the BDA. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference and the appeal stands dismissed.' That being the position, the petitioner does not have even any litigable right qua the respondent BDA, the liberty to apply for allotment reserved in the RSA, notwithstanding. In the above circumstances petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is.