JUDGMENT : N.V. ANJARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Smt. B.V. Nidhishree for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. K. Krishna for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. C. Shankar Reddy for respondent No.3, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Prabhuling K. Navadgi with learned advocate Mr. Joseph Anthony for respondent No.4 and learned advocate Mr. H. Devendrappa for respondent No.5. 2. The present petition is filed styling it as public interest petition. The petitioners are the residents and owners of houses/residential apartments in Koramangala Layout.Following are the prayers made in the petition: (i) to set aside the Sale Deed dated 01.08.2014 executed by respondent No.2-the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in favour of private respondent No.3, now represented by his heirs respondent No.3(a) and respondent No.3(b). (ii) to set aside the Sale Deed dated 01.08.2014 executed by respondent No.3 in favour of respondent No.4. (iii) to set aside the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 10.05.1985 entered into by respondent No.1-the BDA and respondent No.3. (iv) to set aside the Revised Master Plan 2015 insofar as it demarcated the property in question as 'Hi-Tech'. (v) to direct respondent No.5-the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike to develop and maintain the property in question as park area. (vi) to direct respondent No.1 to take action in accordance with law against the officers responsible for allotment and execution of the sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 in respect of the property in question. 3. The case of the petitioners is inter alia that the property, which is parcel of vacant site No.5-A situated at 1 A' Block, Industrial Layout, Koramangala, Bengaluru admeasuring East to West 60 feet and North to South 530 feet, totalling 2954.29 square meters, was designated as a 'park' area in the Comprehensive Development Plan in the years 1984 and 1995 by the BDA. However, the BDA proceeded to allot the property to respondent No.3 and that, respondent No.2 has executed deed dated 01.08.2014 for absolute in favour of respondent No.3 thereby deviating from the user earmarked in the Comprehensive Development Plan. 3.1 The petitioners have stated that respondent No.1-the BDA, which is the Planning Authority for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, prepares Comprehensive Development Plan which will be revised once in ten years as per Section 25 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The first Comprehensive Development Plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area was approved on 12.10.1984. 3.1 The petitioners have stated that respondent No.1-the BDA, which is the Planning Authority for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area, prepares Comprehensive Development Plan which will be revised once in ten years as per Section 25 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The first Comprehensive Development Plan for the Bangalore Metropolitan Area was approved on 12.10.1984. Thereafter, the Revised Comprehensive Development Plan was approved on 05.01.1995. A Revised Master Plan was formulated in the year 2015 which was approved and confirmed by the State Government on 25.06.2007. 3.2 It is stated that property known as Survey No.56, Jakkasandra Village, which is now Koramangala Layout, 1 A' Block, was converted into sites by the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board. The property described hereinabove, it was stated, was designated as a site for Civic Amenity and as a public space in the Comprehensive Development Plan 1995. The Revised Master Plan 2015 depicts the said area including the described property as 'Hi Tech' area. 3.3 It is the case of the petitioners that when the property was earmarked in the Comprehensive Development Plan as Civic Amenity, the change of user would be in contravention of the Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985. It is the case that in any view, change in the Zoning Regulations would not denude the property of its status as a 'park' for which it was earmarked, without the orders of the appropriate government in that regard. According to the petitioners, the provisions of the Parks Act, 1985 is violated and Section 38-A of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 also prohibits the BDA from selling or otherwise disposing of any area reserved for parks. 3.4 It is the further case that despite the above position, the BDA allotted the property to respondent No.3, who happens to be the son of former Chairman of the BDA. The allotment took place on 02.05.1985. Subsequently, a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 10.05.1985 was executed between the BDA and respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was handed over possession of the property on 13.05.1985. It is the further case that respondent No.2-the authority of the BDA executed absolute Sale Deed on 01.08.2014 in favour of respondent No.3. The allotment took place on 02.05.1985. Subsequently, a Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 10.05.1985 was executed between the BDA and respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 was handed over possession of the property on 13.05.1985. It is the further case that respondent No.2-the authority of the BDA executed absolute Sale Deed on 01.08.2014 in favour of respondent No.3. It was the case that on the very day, respondent No.3 executed a sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of respondent No.4 which came to be registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bommanahalli. 3.5 It is stated that the Sale Deed dated 01.08.2014 was for a consideration of Rs.1,23,547/- whereas, the subsequent sale deed was for a whopping higher consideration to the extent of Rs.18 crores and that the money was pocketed by respondent No.3 and his colluders. Thus, what is contended is that the Sale Deed dated 01.08.2014 executed by respondent No.2-the authority of the BDA pursuant to the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 10.05.1985 is against law and requires to be set aside. The sale deed is in violation of the BDA Act, 1976, it was contended. The same is also stated to be in violation of Sections 7 and 8 of the Parks Act, 1985. It was contended that demarcation of the property as 'Hi Tech' area in the Revised Master Plan 2015 is contrary to the provisions of the Parks Act, 1985 and the BDA Act, 1976 to be liable to be set aside. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-the BDA responded to the petition by filing two affidavits dated 05.10.2015 and 15.11.2021 to rebut the case and oppose the prayers. Giving the factual details of execution of the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement, the possession certificate issued in favour of respondent No.3 and after referring to the earlier litigation, it was denied by the BDA that the site in question was at any point of time earmarked for park as sought to be contended by the petitioners. 4.1 Following factual aspects could be culled out from the reply: (a) The layout was formed by the then City Improvement Trust Board. In the original Layout Plan, the area in question was earmarked as industrial area. (b) In the Outer Line Development Plan 1972, the area/place was located in the industrial zone identified as Medium Industrial Area. Copy of this plan is produced on record. In the original Layout Plan, the area in question was earmarked as industrial area. (b) In the Outer Line Development Plan 1972, the area/place was located in the industrial zone identified as Medium Industrial Area. Copy of this plan is produced on record. (c) In the Comprehensive Development Plan 1984, the area was shown in residential zone. After cancellation of allotment of site to respondent No.3 by order dated 30.07.1993, the BDA formed residential sites which were notified for auction. (d) The auction was cancelled and Revised Comprehensive Development Plan 1995 was issued, wherein the area was in residential zone. (e) Thereafter, Revised Master Plan 2015 was published which came into effect from 25.06.2007. At the time of preparing the Revised Master Plan 2015, the areas surrounding the site in question were developed as Industrial Hi Tech. Considering the existing and future developments, the site in question was classified as Industrial Hi Tech Zone. The relevant portion of the Revised Master Plan 2015 produced on record depicts such classification that the site in question was treated as Industrial Hi Tech Zone. 4.1.1 Respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that since the site in question was never reserved for park in the Layout Plan or in the Comprehensive Development Plan, the contention of the petitioners that the provisions of the Parks Act, 1985 would attract, does not arise. 4.2 In the latest affidavit dated 15.11.2021, the very factual aspects are reiterated as under: 4.2.1 The City Improvement Trust Board approved the Layout Plan in Survey No.56 of Jakkasandra Village on 12.01.1972 which plan, however, did not contain the signature of any of the officers of the Board. The western boundary side area of the Layout Plan was shown as civic amenity and that, it was located in industrial zone. 4.2.2 In 1974, the Layout Plan was modified and the said survey number was included therein, however, the purpose of reservation was not mentioned and no site number was given. 4.2.3 In the Outer Line Development Plan approved by the State Government, the area is shown as industrial zone. 4.2.4 It was stated that on 25.01.1985, respondent No.3 made an application to the Commissioner, BDA for allotment of 4000 square meters of area in Koramangala Layout for establishment of Silk Twisting and Dying unit. 4.2.3 In the Outer Line Development Plan approved by the State Government, the area is shown as industrial zone. 4.2.4 It was stated that on 25.01.1985, respondent No.3 made an application to the Commissioner, BDA for allotment of 4000 square meters of area in Koramangala Layout for establishment of Silk Twisting and Dying unit. The order of allotment was passed on 12.03.1985 and site bearing No.5-A was allotted to respondent No.3 by allotment letter dated02.05.1985 for a total sum of Rs.1,23,667/-. 4.2.5 The sital value was deposited by the allottee-respondent No.3 on 03.05.1985. It was stated that Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was executed on 10.05.1985. 4.3 The private respondent No.3-the allottee as well as respondent No.4-the purchaser have filed their respective affidavits in which also, they have denied that the property 5-A is earmarked as park. It is stated that having admitted that the property in question is in the industrial layout, the petitioners cannot contend that the property is a park on the basis of the agreement dated 10.05.1985 between the BDA and respondent No.3. It was sought to be pointed out that Site No.5-A is carved out of industrial layout in Koramangala and it is referred to as industrial site only: 4.3.1 It was stated that respondent No.3 had approached the Directorate of Industries and Commerce to permit him to start "Shakthi Industry" which permission was granted on04.06.2003. However, the work of manufacture of hollow concrete blocks for which permission was granted could not be commenced due to pendency of litigation and want of finance. On the basis of copies of the two sale deeds produced which refer to the boundaries of the site in question, the fact was reiterated that the property 5-A was not a park but was an industrial site. The orders passed by the Court in the earlier writ petitions were referred to, to suggest that respondent No.3 was accepted as an allottee of industrial site No.5-A in Koramangala Industrial Block, which is 1' A' Block admeasuring 60 feet x 530 feet. It was contended that 29 years have passed, but the allottee is dragged into litigation. 4.4 The reply of respondent No.4 was on similar lines to assert that allotment was made on 10.05.1985, but the same was never challenged by the petitioners at any point of time until after 30 years. It was contended that 29 years have passed, but the allottee is dragged into litigation. 4.4 The reply of respondent No.4 was on similar lines to assert that allotment was made on 10.05.1985, but the same was never challenged by the petitioners at any point of time until after 30 years. The Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was for 10 years, it was stated, with effect from 16.05.1985 which expired by efflux of time since full value of the property was collected by respondent No.2. It was stated that at one point of time, the allotment in favour of respondent No.3 was cancelled by order dated 30.07.1993 which order was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.29452 of 1993: 4.4.1 It was contended that the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.4 was legal. It was contended that filing of the petition was guided by malice. It was further contended that the documents produced and the undisputed position forthcoming from various judicial orders passed by this Court in confirming and affirming the property to be an industrial site right from 1985 betrays the case of the petitioners that the site is a park or that it is earmarked for park. 5. The attendant facts and chronology of events may be summarized to be recollected, before proceeding further: (i) On 12.10.1984, the first Comprehensive Development Plan for Bangalore Metropolitan Area was approved. On 22.03.1985, allotment letter came to be issued in favour of respondent No.3 pursuant to the application by respondent No.3 for allotment of light industrial site. The property in question was allotted for such purpose. (ii) Lease-cum-Sale Agreement came to be executed on 10.05.1985 in favour of respondent No.3-the allottee. On 13.05.1985, possession certificate was issued in favour of the allottee. (iii) On 30.07.1993, the BDA issued the endorsement cancelling the allotment in favour of respondent No.3 on the ground that Condition Nos.6 and 7 of the Allotment Letter are violated. This lead respondent No.3 to challenge the said endorsement by filing Writ Petition No.29452 of 1993. (iv) The Comprehensive Development Plan was revised on 05.01.1995 for District No.9A. (v) The aforesaid Writ Petition No.29452 of 1993 came to be allowed and respondent No.3 was permitted to file objections against cancellation of sale of the said site, which was the endorsement issued by respondent No.1-the BDA. (iv) The Comprehensive Development Plan was revised on 05.01.1995 for District No.9A. (v) The aforesaid Writ Petition No.29452 of 1993 came to be allowed and respondent No.3 was permitted to file objections against cancellation of sale of the said site, which was the endorsement issued by respondent No.1-the BDA. (vi) The BDA issued suo motu Notification dated 18.06.1996 for auctioning the property, which was challenged in Writ Petition No.19018 of 1996. However, the petition was disposed of as not surviving since the auction notification was withdrawn. (vii) Writ Petition No.43363 of 1999 came to be filed by respondent No.3 against the allotment of alternate Site No.141/A as the said site was allotted by the BDA on its own to respondent No.3. (viii) On 29.04.2023, the BDA issued an endorsement refusing to execute sale deed in favour of respondent No.3, which was challenged by respondent No.3 by filing Writ Petition No.26740 of 2003. (ix) The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.08.2003 and the BDA was directed to execute sale deed in respect of Site No.5-A, Koramangala, 1 A' Block in favour of respondent No.3. (x) A further litigation in terms of Writ Appeal No.6770 of 2003 took place and on 18.08.2009, the earlier order of rejection of execution of sale deed was confirmed by the BDA. (xi) Yet another Writ Petition No.37496 of 2009 was filed by respondent No.3 challenging the aforesaid order dated 18.08.2009. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 22.05.2012. (xii) Finally, the Commissioner, BDA passed an order on 22.01.2013 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 as per the original allotment. (xiii) On 01.08.2014, sale deed was executed by respondent No.1-the BDA in favour of respondent No.3. (xiv) Respondent No.3, on the same day that is on 01.08.2014, executed a sale deed in favour of respondent No.4 in respect of the industrial site bearing No.5-A situated at Koramangala Layout. 5.1 From the factual details available from the pleadings and on the basis of the documents produced on record, it would transpire that a clear stand evinces from the respondent-the BDA that Site No.5-A in question was not earmarked as park. No authentic document is available on record to come to final conclusion that the site was reserved and earmarked for park. The site fell in the industrial area and was classified in the Revised Master Plan 2015 accordingly. No authentic document is available on record to come to final conclusion that the site was reserved and earmarked for park. The site fell in the industrial area and was classified in the Revised Master Plan 2015 accordingly. 5.2 The site in question falls in the middle where the surrounding areas have been developed as Industrial Hi Tech areas and thus shown to be classified as Industrial Hi Tech zone as stated in the affidavit and the plan produced. The site is thus has the utility of Industrial Hi Tech. 5.3 The statement of objections filed by private respondent Nos.3 and 4, the contents of which are highlighted hereinabove, show that respondent No.3 had applied for allotment of site in the capacity of an unemployed graduate belonging to scheduled caste community. As seen above, the subject matter controversy had long line of past litigation and the present petition is the fourth round between the parties. 5.4 Furthermore, it transpires from the statement of objections filed by respondent No.3-the allottee that it is not correct that the boundaries of the site could be described as a park. Nothing is produced in substantiation of such a claim. The two sale deeds executed by the BDA dated 21.05.1984 and 01.04.1989 in favour of one Syed Anwar and one Syed Altaf respectively do not indicate what is sought to be established by the petitioners. The said Syed Altaf is petitioner No.5 in the petition. The facts pleaded by the petitioners are not accurate, if not amount to suppression of facts. 5.5 As the main premise of the petition that the site in question was a park or that it was earmarked for park is not established on record, the whole case of the petitioners falls down. No public interest is found to have been involved, though the petition is guised as public interest petition. 5.6 The prayers in the petition seek setting aside of the sale deed dated 01.08.2014 and another sale deed of even date which are executed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively. Prayer of such kind and nature cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction. 5.7 It is to be further noticed that the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was executed in favour of respondent No.3 by the BDA as back as on 10.05.1985. The petition is filed in the year 2015. Prayer of such kind and nature cannot be granted in writ jurisdiction. 5.7 It is to be further noticed that the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was executed in favour of respondent No.3 by the BDA as back as on 10.05.1985. The petition is filed in the year 2015. Therefore, it is after 30 years which is a long delay by any measure to litigate, that too by way of public interest. 5.8 It is not in dispute that in the Revised Master Plan 2015, the property is demarcated as Hi Tech. The Revised Master Plan is not challenged. 6. For all the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the present petition as public interest petition is thoroughly misconceived both on facts and in law. It is not liable to be entertained. No relief deserves to be granted to the petitioners. 7. The meritless petition is dismissed.