ORDER : M.G.S. KAMAL, J. Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs; "a) Issue Writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the Annexure "S" dated Nil issued by the Deputy Director of Slum Development Board Bangalore i.e. Respondent No.4 only with respect to the beneficiary of Sl No.51. b) Issue Writ of Mandamus Directing the Respondent No. 3 and 4 to consider the Representation sent through legal Notice dated 25/08/2021 at Annexure "T" c). Writ of Mandamus Directing the Respondent No 1 and 2 to implement the order dated 25/10/2019 passed by the Regional Commissioner in MUN R.P./18/2016-17 at Annexure "M". d) Grant such other relief or relief's as this Honourable court thinks fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The father of the petitioner was allotted a site No.18 in terms of deed of sale dated 31.07.1996 situated at 'F' Street, Keshavanagara, 1 st Cross, Magadi Road, Bangalore-23, bounded on East by: Private Property, West by: Corporation Property, North by: Corporation property and South by: 'F' Street measuring to an extent of 17.6+10+6X29 feet, over which a house is stated to have been constructed and the petitioner residing therein. It is a further case of the petitioner that by a Rectification Deed dated 02.07.2007, the error in the boundaries as mentioned in the sale deed were rectified. That name of the father of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records. Thus, the father of the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. Things stood thus, respondent No.5 allegedly encroached upon the public road and had put up a shed on the 'F' street. Constraining the petitioner to file a complaint before Karnataka Prohibition of Land Grabbing Special Court in LGC(P) No.1903/2018. It is contented that respondent Nos.2 to 4 had declared the area as mentioned in Annexure-P to the writ petition to be a slum area. It had also given list of occupants found at Annexure-N. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the above submit, that even in the said sketch produced at Annexure-P on the southern side there is a reference to the road. It had also given list of occupants found at Annexure-N. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the above submit, that even in the said sketch produced at Annexure-P on the southern side there is a reference to the road. Juxtaposing the said sketch with another sketch produced at Annexure-R, page No. 54 to the writ petition, he points out that on the south-eastern corner of the said sketch there is a small portion carved out marked as ABCD with House No.51 recognizing the illegal occupation of respondent No.5. He submits that a modified list as per Annexure- S also came to be issued by the respondent- Slum Development Board, adding the name of respondent No.5 at Sl.No.51. He submits that in view of the aforesaid development he caused issue of a notice to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 25.08.2021, calling upon them to modify the sketch in the recommendation made to the Deputy Commissioner dated 12.02.2020, deleting the portion shown in the south western corner of the sketch. He submits inaction on the part of the respondents in clearing the encroachment made by the respondent No.5, constrained him to approach this Court seeking the reliefs as noted above. He further submits that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under the provisions of Karnataka Prohibition of Land Grabbing Act before Special Court are pending consideration. In that view of the matter, if a direction is issued to the respondent No.4 Slum Development Board to consider the plea made by the petitioner in the notice produced at Annexure-T the purpose of the petition will be served. 4. In response, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-BBMP submits that since the issue involved in the matter is a disputed question of fact, parties should be relegated to the Civil Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4-Slum Development Board on the other hand submits that it is only upon the verification regarding the area falling within the parameters of definition of 'Slum' under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Development) Act, 1973 a notification has been issued and the petitioner has not challenged the said notification. Since the petitioner has not disputed the contents of the notification, he has no locus standi to question the same. However, she fairly submits that if the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has not disputed the contents of the notification, he has no locus standi to question the same. However, she fairly submits that if the petitioner makes a representation, the same will be considered in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 on the other hand vehemently contend that though the petitioner claimed to have initiated the proceeding before the Karnataka Prohibition of Land Grabbing Special Court, she is not represented, as such she is not aware of the said proceedings. She submits that the property being claimed by the petitioner and the property in occupation of the respondent No.5 are different and distinct and present petitioner is not prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. The allegation of respondent No.5 blocking the access to the property of petitioner is false and baseless. She emphatically submits that occupation of the property by the respondent No.5 has not caused any impediment whatsoever to the petitioner. Therefore, she seeks dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard. Perused records. 8. Annexure- A is the deed of sale in terms of which the respondent No.1, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike has apparently conveyed Site No.18 as described in the schedule thereunder. Rectification deed at Annexure-B has been executed rectifying the boundaries. Perusal of which would indicate that the property allotted to the petitioner is surrounded on the East by: Binny Mill Property, West by: Property No.87, North by: 'F' Street and South by: Conservancy Galli. A sketch produced at Annexure-H to the writ petition, apparently prepared at the instance of the petitioner by the respondent- BBMP, indicate that a portion measuring 16.5" X 13.5" on the western corner of 'F' Street is stated to be one occupied by respondent No.5. On the Southern side of the said portion is the property stated to belong to the petitioner. The measurement of the area is shown as 30"X 28.2". 9. On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner clarifies that though the measurement shown there as 28.5" X 30", petitioner is in occupation of western portion of the said site. As such, he submits that the encroachment made by the respondent No.5 has completely blocked access to his property. 10. Petitioner admittedly has initiated the proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Prohibition of Land Grabbing Act before the Special Court, which is stated to be pending consideration. As such, he submits that the encroachment made by the respondent No.5 has completely blocked access to his property. 10. Petitioner admittedly has initiated the proceedings under the provisions of Karnataka Prohibition of Land Grabbing Act before the Special Court, which is stated to be pending consideration. Therefore, this Court refrains from making any observation on the merits of the case. However, an alternate relief being sought by the petitioner in this petition is a direction to the respondent No.2, 3 and 4- Slum Development Board to consider the representation in the nature of notice produced at Annexure-T. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, the notice does not dispute the existence of the slum in terms of the notification subject matter of the petition. 11. Be that as it is. As sought for by the petitioner, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondent No.3 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copies of the order, who shall, after affording opportunity to petitioner as well as to respondent No.5, consider and examine whether the area mentioned at Annexure-R, page No.54 to the writ petition, delineated by letters A, B, C, D thereon, falls within the declared slum area or whether the same forms part of the road. Such consideration shall be made within a period of 60 days thereafter and order in this regard be communicated to the parties. Keeping open all other contentions and reserving liberty to avail such remedies as may be available and permissible under law, petition is disposed of.