ORDER : B M Shyam Prasad, J. This petition is by an Association registered by the residents of a Layout. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the building plan sanctioned by the third respondent on 30.11.2011 in LP No. 0236/2011-12 [Annexure-H]. The third respondent has sanctioned the impugned building plan in favour of the fourth respondent, and during the pendency of the petition, because the fourth respondent has transferred its interest in favour of the fifth respondent, this Court has permitted impleadment of the fifth respondent. Further, with the fourth respondent having entered into certain sale agreements for the sale of units proposed in the construction, the purchasers who have signed these agreements for purchase are also impleaded. 2. This Court, on 09.06.2022, has restrained the fifth respondent from undertaking any development till the next date of hearing, and this restraining order is continued. After this order, the third respondent has started proceedings under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,1976, and the fifth respondent has availed its statutory remedy as against the orders under the afore provision. This Court, when the fifth respondent has filed application for modification of the order dated 09.06.2022 in terms of the liberty reserved, has allowed this respondent to construct retaining wall observing that the construction of the retaining wall shall be under the third respondent’s supervision. 3. On 29.09.2022, with the learned counsel for the petitioner opposing the fifth respondent's request for completing the work without claiming equity, this Court has observed that if the petitioner fails in the petition, the fifth respondent will be at liberty to claim damages. Ultimately, this Court has reserved the fifth respondent with liberty to place on record the measures that would be taken to ensure that the construction is brought within the permissible parameters. 4. Thereafter, the fifth respondent has placed on record the details of the purchased Transferable Development Rights [TDR], the details of the application of the TDR and the modification in the construction that the BBMP could permit with the application of TDR. The fifth respondent has also filed a plan showing the modifications that would be with the application of TDR asserting that if the building is rendered complete according to the modified Plan, there would be no reason for complaints of deviation from the byelaws. 5. The fifth respondent has also filed a plan showing the modifications that would be with the application of TDR asserting that if the building is rendered complete according to the modified Plan, there would be no reason for complaints of deviation from the byelaws. 5. This Court has also called upon the Joint Director of Town Planning [North], BBMP [JDTP] to receive the documents that the fifth respondent proposes to file in support of the modification and take a definite stand on the permissibility of granting approval for such modification. The JDTP, in compliance has filed Report, and the Report, in its essential part reads that this Court must direct the fifth respondent to submit the TDR Utilisation Certificate to load the TDR for construction of the Additional area, and it also reads that the fifth respondent will have to produce [i] NOC from the concerned of the Airport Authorities, [ii] Consent for Establishment from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, and [iii] Municipal Records and Encumbrance Certificate. 6. Significantly, the JDTP has stated in the Report that the fifth respondent will have to remove all the deviations from the modified plan, and if there is due compliance with these requirements, the sanction for the modification plan will be considered. With opportunity, the petitioner has filed Objections to the Report contending inter alia that the TDR cannot be loaded and that the Karnataka Town and Country Planning [Benefit of Development Rights] Rules, 2016 are not framed for the purpose of loading TDR to regularize constructions built contrary to the sanctioned plan. 7. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties, including Sri Udaya Holla - the learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent, for final disposal of the petition. Sri Udaya Holla submits, in reiteration of his earlier submissions, that this Court could dispose of the petition directing the JDTP to consider granting approval for modification now proposed and that the fifth respondent will ensure due compliance, including removal of those parts of construction which would offend the modified plan now filed. Neither Sri B.S. Karthikeyan, the learned Counsel for the BBMP, or Ms. Kruthika Raghavan, the learned counsel for the purchasers, object. 8. Neither Sri B.S. Karthikeyan, the learned Counsel for the BBMP, or Ms. Kruthika Raghavan, the learned counsel for the purchasers, object. 8. On behalf of the petitioner, Sri Pavan N reiterates that any permission for the modification now proposed must be in the light of the objection that the TDR Rules will not permit the loading of TDR for the purposes of regularizing construction with Sri Udaya Holla refuting these assertions stating, amongst others, that the construction is not complete and when it is in the midst of construction, it would be open to the fifth respondent to load the TDR and seek modification. 9. The construction, which is commenced with the impugned sanctioned plan in the year 2011, has been under construction in all these 14 years with third party rights being created. The construction and the rights therein cannot be in a flux forever if there is a possibility of resolution within the bounds of law. The JDTP must consider whether the fifth respondent is capable of due compliance as is mentioned in the Report and examine the feasibility of granting permission for modification as proposed and that this must be done in an expedited manner. 10. This Court opines that with all questions left open, the JDTP must reason the decision to grant the modification or to even refuse and must decide within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It would be needless to observe that the proceedings under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, must stand deferred until a decision as is now enabled is taken. The petition stands disposed of accordingly, and all the pending applications stand dismissed. ORDER ON IA NO.1/2025 Sri Ashok B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.5, and Sri K.N.Phanindra, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.6 to 8, are heard on the application. It would suffice for this Court to observe that Sri Ashok B. Patil seeks liberty to withdraw the application but without prejudice to the petitioner to explore the remedies as would be permissible in law including Order XLVII of the CPC. With such liberty, the application stands disposed of directing the office to release the order dictated on 07.06.2025.