The Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) should not act as a private real estate company to maximise profits, the Karnataka High Court recently observed while restraining it from proceeding with the auction of sites that were earlier allotted to the petitioners before they were cancelled and realloted [Manjula R Shetty v. Bangalore Development Authority]..Justice Suraj Govindaraj opined that the BDA must show empathy in resolving the disputes of the existing allottees instead of auctioning the land to third parties"The BDA cannot act as a private real estate company to maximise the profit by auctioning corner sites but has to have empathy to resolve the dispute of existing allottees," the Court said in its order..Further, the Court stated that when several issues relating to alottees are yet to be resolved forcing them to approach the Court, it would be better for all parties if the BDA is restrained from auctioning sites in the Arkavathy layout for the time being."I am of the considered opinion that when there are several issues relating to the allottees which are pending resolution and those allottees are being made to run from pillar to post and are approaching this Court seeking various reliefs, it would not be to any one's benefit if the BDA is permitted to go on with auctioning corner site or otherwise until the issues relating to the existing allottees are sorted out. The preference of allotment, in my considered opinion ought to be given to the allottees who have already been allotted sites instead of bringing new persons as auction purchasers thereby increasing the litigation pertaining to the Arkavathy layout", the order stated. .The Court passed the order on a plea moved by several petitioners who were already allotted land and possession in the Arkavathy Layout. The BDA later realised after allotting the land that there was a gross mistake as the allotted land was formed within the buffer zone of a secondary nala. Therefore, the BDA modified the layout plan, approved the same by itself and built a road on the site.The BDA then wanted to allot alternate sites to the petitioners at Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout around 35 km away from the Arkavathy Layout. This prompted the petitioners to approach the High Court contending that the BDA should have allotted new site at the Arkavathy Layout only instead of auctioning it to third parties. .The Court noted that in KP Balakrishna v.Deputy Conservator of Forest , it had ordered the BDA to consider the claims of the petitioners and allot sites to them within three months. If sites are not available in the Arkavathy Layount, the Court had directed that they must be allotted site in any other layout.The Court held that the petitioners in the instant would also be entitled to the benefits of the directions issued in said order.The High Court directed the counsel for BDA to get instructions in the manner in which the petitioners' grievance could be resolved."The present case though is a gross dereliction of duty by the concerned persons, inasmuch as sites have been formed by the BDA in the buffer zone of a secondary Nala, same has resulted in re-doing of the layout plan virtually obliterating the sites which have been allotted to the petitioners", the Court observed in its Order and listed the matter for further consideration on June 7. .The petitioners were represented by Advocate Deepak Bhaskar. The BDA was represented by Advocate BS Sachin.