- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8584 WP No. 17964 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 17964 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: SMT. DILSHADUNNISA W/O MOHAMMED ZAHIRUDDIN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.29, 3RD CROSS MOHAMMADAN BLOCK MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU- 560 003 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNDARESH H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVLEOPMENT AUTHROITY KUMARA PARK WEST T CHOWDAIAH ROAD BAGNALORE -560 020 2. DEPUTY SECRETARY -IV BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMAR PARK WEST T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BANGALORE -560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISHA N.R., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.BDA.DS.4/ARKAVATI-18/2007.08 DATED: 16.04.2007 ISSUED BY THE R2 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8584 WP No. 17964 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER The petitioner who was an applicant for allotment of site measuring 20 X 30 under Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category was allotted a site after three consecutive attempts on 24.06.2006. The petitioner paid the cost of the site in a sum of Rs.57,200/-. After depositing the amount petitioner made representation to the respondent-BDA to execute a deed of sale in her name. In response thereof, respondent issued impugned endorsement dated 16.01.2008 cancelling the allotment on the premise that the petitioner had suppressed her husband having a residential site in his name and the same running contrary to Rule 10(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment site) Rules. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the petition and the grounds urged therein refers to a deed of partition produced at Annexure-G dated 23.06.2001 and submits that the husband of the petitioner was allotted a small piece of land measuring 550 sq. ft. He submits - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8584 WP No. 17964 of 2024 that the said extent does not even meet the requirement of minimum extent of a site which is contemplated under the BDA Rules. He also submits that no definition is provided as to what is the meaning of site under the BDA Rules. He submits that the practice of allotment of site would indicate the minimum measurement of a site ought to be 20 X 30 which is not even the case. He also submits that Rule 10(3) was introduced in the BDA Act on 14.12.2005 which was not prevalent the day when the petitioner had made application in the year 2004 and when the allotment was made. As such he submits that BDA cannot take shelter under the said Rule to deny the benefit of allotment made to the petitioner. Hence seeks for allowing of the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-BDA submits that though there is no definition of terms “site” or "minimum extent" which a site should have, the fact remains the husband of the petitioner was having a piece of land and the same had not been disclosed in the application and the allotment is made subsequent to coming into force of the Rule 10(3) of Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Site) Rules, 1984. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8584 WP No. 17964 of 2024 Therefore he submits that no illegality can be found with the endorsement issued by respondent-BDA. 4. Heard, perused the records. 5. Admittedly petitioner had made applications for allotment of sites on 28.04.1988 02.12.1988, 14.08.1983 and on 24.05.2004. It is only pursuant to the four attempts made by the petitioner, her last application was considered and the allotment was made on 24.06.2006. 6. It appears that in a partition deed dated 23.06.2001 that was entered into amongst the family members of the husband of the petitioner as per Annexure G in terms of which the husband of the petitioner has been allotted a piece of land measuring 550 Sq. ft. 7. Further the Rules requiring disclosure of the applicant or the Spouse holding a site were brought into effect on and after the year 2006. Application admittedly having been made prior to that petitioner cannot be expected to disclose what was not required to be done under law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8584 WP No. 17964 of 2024 8. The reliance placed on by the respondent-BDA to the subsequent Rules to cancel the allotment therefore is unsustainable as nothing is pointed out to show that the said rules were made applicable retrospectively. 9. In that view of the matter impugned endorsement dated 16.01.2008 at Annexure-E cancelling the allotment is quashed and allotment made in favour of the petitioner is confirmed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24