ORDER : Suraj Govindaraj, J. 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs; (i) issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus against the respondent No.88 to take immediate action as per the endorsement dated 24.04.2025 to stop the execution of the sale deeds by Respondent No. 2 and 3 from execution of the absolute sale deeds and consequently demolish the illegal constructions put up on the land measuring 2 Acres 28 Guntas of land in Sy.No.31/1 and 1 Acre 36 Guntas of land in Sy.No.32/1 situated at Mittaganahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk and District, vide ANNEXURE - H: (ii) Such other relief/s as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Respondent No.3 is stated to be the absolute owner of the land measuring 2 Acres 28 Guntas in Sy.No.31/1 and 1 Acre 36 Guntas of land in Sy.No.32/1 situated at Mittaganahally Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore Taluk and District. 3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are stated to have started the formation of a layout in terms of the joint development agreement entered into between them. The Petitioner wanting to buy a site had approached Respondent No.2. When Respondent No.2 had made available certain documents, the Petitioner, after seeing the documents and claiming to be a local person, who has knowledge of the entire area where the layout is to be formed, is alleged to have identified certain lacunae and after obtaining the documents from Respondent No.2 had called upon Respondent No.2 to make available details about any permission of the government as well as the BDA relating to change of land use, etc., for the formation of the layout, the road, etc, the same not having been provided. 4. The Petitioner claimed that Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, has been violated and it is in that background that the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs by making the purchasers of various sites in the layout as parties at Respondent Nos.15 to 87. 5. 4. The Petitioner claimed that Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, has been violated and it is in that background that the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs by making the purchasers of various sites in the layout as parties at Respondent Nos.15 to 87. 5. The Petitioner is also stated to have filed a suit in OS.No.1099/2024 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Court seeking for a mandatory injunction for the developer to rectify the alleged illegalities committed by them in the formation of the layout and for a permanent injunction restraining the developer and the owner of the land from alienating the sites until the illegality is addressed. Though interim reliefs had been sought for, interim reliefs had not been granted, and the suit is stated to be pending. 6. Having gone through the papers, I am of the considered opinion that this is a classic case of abuse of process of Court seeking to overreach and make use of the process of Court to obtain reliefs which the Petitioner cannot either seek for or be granted, in effect, the Petitioner only intends for the respondents to stop execution of the sale deeds and to demolish the alleged illegal constructions put up in the aforesaid land. The Petitioner is neither an owner of the land nor a purchaser of the land. Except to claim that the Petitioner is a prospective purchaser who had approached the respondents seeking for documents, the Petitioner has no private lis which can be considered in the present matter. 7. The manner in which the Petitioner had filed the suit, as also the present writ petition, clearly and categorically establishes that the Petitioner is a busybody who is seeking to make use of the process of Court to cause harm, loss, and injury not only to the owner of the land and the developer of the land, but also to various other persons, who have purchased sites and put up constructions, who have been arrayed as Respondent Nos.15 to 87 in the present matter. 8. The manner in which the Petitioner has gone ahead with the litigation leaves me no other option but to impose exemplary and punitive costs so as to deter the Petitioner from making any such future adventure by abusing the process of Court. 9. 8. The manner in which the Petitioner has gone ahead with the litigation leaves me no other option but to impose exemplary and punitive costs so as to deter the Petitioner from making any such future adventure by abusing the process of Court. 9. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, which shall be paid within a period of four weeks from today. ii) If the same is not paid by 31.01.2026, the Member Secretary, KSLSA would be entitled to initiate such proceedings as may be required to recover the said costs as arrears of land revenue from the Petitioner.