ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus/direction against the respondents' Authority to execute the sale deed for the balance extent of 5 feet x 25 feet, which was the portion abutting to the property bearing No.20/1 situated at 8 th Cross, Mariamma Temple Street, Vasanthanagar, Bengaluru - 560052, by collecting the proportionate sale consideration as on the estimated market value price prevailing for the area as on 30.10.2003 by considering the representations dated 22.05.2006 as per Annexure-D and dated 28.10.2020 as per Annexure-E. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the BBMP. Perused the records. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.1 in not considering and deciding the petitioner’s representations dated 22.05.2006 (Annexure-D) and 28.10.2020 (Annexure-E). The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court by placing reliance on the proceedings of the then Administrator dated 27.11.1978 (Annexure-A), and the subsequent sale deed executed by the Corporation on 14.03.1984 (Annexure-B). 4. Learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submits that respondent No.1, being the custodian of public property, must examine the petitioner’s request for execution of the sale deed in respect of the remaining extent of land in accordance with law and subject to prior approval of the State Government. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought in the said representations. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner, while refuting the stand taken by the BBMP, draws attention to the proceedings of the then Bengaluru City Corporation dated 27.11.1978. It is submitted that the grant of land measuring 25 feet x 30 feet was approved by the Commissioner after conducting a spot inspection. The petitioner’s grievance is that, despite the resolution to grant land measuring 25 feet x 30 feet, the Corporation executed the sale deed only to the extent of 25 feet x 15 feet. Therefore, the petitioner seeks execution of a sale deed in respect of the remaining extent, which is negligible, upon payment of the prevailing market value. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on records, this Court deems it fit to extract the proceedings of the then Bangalore City Corporation, which is evidenced at Annexure-A: "PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR DATED 27.11.1978 EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE (TAXATION AND FINANCE) AND CORPORATION. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on records, this Court deems it fit to extract the proceedings of the then Bangalore City Corporation, which is evidenced at Annexure-A: "PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADMINISTRATOR DATED 27.11.1978 EXERCISING THE POWERS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE (TAXATION AND FINANCE) AND CORPORATION. Subject No.498: Commissioner's note No.AS Pr.212/78-79 dated 29.11.1978 placing for approval in the matter of grant of Corporation land measuring 25 x 30 in Mariyamma Temple Street Vasanta Nagar, Bangalore to Smt.Jayalakshmamma at Rs.100/- per square yard. DECISION: Smt.Jayalakshmamma, No.4, Mariyamma Temple Street, Vasanthanagar, submitted a representation requesting for allotment of a piece of land at Mariamma Temple Street, Vasanthanagar. The area has also been inspected along with the Commissioner. The Commissioner has recommended that the vacant land measuring 25 x 30 as per sketch, may be allotted to the applicant at Rs.100/- per square yard. Approved. O/TSF/498/78-79 Sd/- ADMINISTRATOR" 7. On careful examination of the proceedings extracted supra, it is evidently clear that the then Commissioner of the Bengaluru City Corporation had, vide proceedings dated 27.11.1978, resolved to allot a vacant site measuring 25 feet x 30 feet in favour of the petitioner. However, despite this resolution, the Corporation subsequently executed a registered sale deed conveying only a portion of the resolved extent, namely 25 feet x 15 feet. This discrepancy in the extent of the land conveyed vis-à-vis the extent originally approved is the core grievance of the petitioner. 8. The petitioner, in support of his claim, also places reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.18829/2001, wherein this Court had issued a direction to the jurisdictional Tahsildar to consider the petitioner’s case for regularization of the remaining extent of land. Despite this judicial directive and the passage of considerable time, respondent No.1 – BBMP, has failed to take any action on the petitioner’s representations dated 22.05.2006 and 28.10.2020. The inaction on the part of the BBMP, despite the existence of official proceedings and a prior judicial direction, compels this Court to intervene in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 9. On a perusal of the records, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner, having been conferred the benefit of the resolution passed by the Corporation in the year 1978, has acquired a legitimate expectation, if not a legal right, to seek consideration of his representation for execution of a sale deed in respect of the remaining extent. 9. On a perusal of the records, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner, having been conferred the benefit of the resolution passed by the Corporation in the year 1978, has acquired a legitimate expectation, if not a legal right, to seek consideration of his representation for execution of a sale deed in respect of the remaining extent. Since the Commissioner had categorically resolved to allot land measuring 25 feet x 30 feet, and the petitioner was conveyed only a lesser extent through the registered deed, respondent No.1 is under an obligation to re-examine the matter. The question that arises is whether the remaining extent, which is a small and abutting strip of land, can be put to any other effective public use by the BBMP/State or whether it can be conveyed to the petitioner, particularly in light of the original resolution dated 27.11.1978 (Annexure-A). 10. In view of the prolonged inaction by respondent No.1 and the failure to take a decision on the petitioner’s long-standing grievance, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case warrants issuance of a writ of mandamus. The narrow question that respondent No.1 is required to answer is whether the remaining extent of land, which is admittedly negligible and directly abutting the property already conveyed to the petitioner, has any public utility, or whether it can be conveyed to the petitioner based on prevailing market value, consistent with the prior resolution of the Corporation. 11. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to take into consideration the factual background, the prior resolution of the Corporation, and the earlier order of this Court in W.P. No.18829/2001, and pass a reasoned order on the petitioner’s representations within a stipulated time frame. 12. For the reasons stated above, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER : (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Respondent No.1 – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) is hereby directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representations dated 22.05.2006 (Annexure-D) and 28.10.2020 (Annexure-E), by passing a reasoned order strictly in accordance with law. (iii) While considering the said representations, respondent No.1 shall take into account: (a) The proceedings of the then Bengaluru City Corporation dated 27.11.1978 (Annexure-A), wherein the Commissioner had resolved to allot land measuring 25 feet x 30 feet; (b) The directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.18829/2001 regarding regularization of the remaining extent. (iii) While considering the said representations, respondent No.1 shall take into account: (a) The proceedings of the then Bengaluru City Corporation dated 27.11.1978 (Annexure-A), wherein the Commissioner had resolved to allot land measuring 25 feet x 30 feet; (b) The directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.18829/2001 regarding regularization of the remaining extent. (iv) Respondent No.1 shall specifically examine whether the remaining extent of land, measuring 25 feet x 15 feet, which is abutting the petitioner’s existing property, is required for any public purpose, and if not, whether the same can be conveyed to the petitioner upon payment of applicable charges in accordance with law and applicable policy. (v) The entire exercise, including passing of appropriate orders, shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.