1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION No.13049 OF 2014 (BDA) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.47184 OF 2011 (BDA) WRIT PETITION NO.47185 OF 2011 (BDA) IN WRIT PETITION NO.13049/2014 BETWEEN: SRI. CHINNA NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE PATEL SHETTAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT NO.152, "SRI. MADHWA" SIXTH CROSS, NINTH MAIN N.T.I. LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA BANGALORE - 560 097. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.T. NATARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. 2 3. SATISH KUMAR S., S/O LATE SADASHIVAN MAJOR NO.473, ANANDAPUR SLUM HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE. 4. SHIVAKUMAR S., S/O LATE SADASIVAN MAJOR NO.473, ANANDAPUR SLUM HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE . …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SMT. SUMA JANARDHAN GAONKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT TO THE RESPONDENTS BY DIRECTING THE CONCERNED OFFICIALS TO RESTORE THE POSSESSION OF THE SITE BEARING NO.473, SITUATED AT ANANDAPURA SLUM EXTENSION, HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE MEASURING EAST TO WEST 20 FEET AND NORTH TO SOUTH 25 FEET IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION.NO.47185/2011 (BDA) DATED:29.01.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE - L. IN WRIT PETITION NO.47184/2011 BETWEEN: SRI. CHINNA NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE PATEL SHETTAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 3 R/AT NO.5-132, SECOND(2) CROSS FIFTH (5) MAIN, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560 097. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.T. NATARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. 3. SMT. KHATUN BI W/O SRI. MOHADEEN SAB AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.164 'D', 1ST MAIN SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 560 020. 4. SRI. K.K.ANIKARAJ S/O SRI. KUPPASWAMY MAJOR IN AGE R/AT NO.106/C, H.A.L.III STAGE ANANDAPURAM SLUM BANGALORE - 560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. UNNIKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. RAGHAVENDRA V., ADVOCATE FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED:05.11.2012 NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFICIENT) 4 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 02.01.2002 EXECUTED BY THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 13281/2001-02 IN BOOK -I VOLUME 424 IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB- REGUSTRAR, BANGALORE DISTRICT FOLLOWED BY AN LETTER OF ALLOTMENT DATED:03.01.2002 BEARING NO.BDA/DSI/472/ANANDPURA/HAL III STAGE EXECUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS ONE AND TWO BY HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN WRIT PETITION NO.47185/2011 BETWEEN: SRI. CHINNA NARAYANA SWAMY S/O LATE PATEL SHETTAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.5-132, SECOND(2) CROSS FIFTH (5) MAIN, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA POST BANGALORE - 560 097. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.T. NATARAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. 2. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD 5 KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020. 3. SMT. MAHABOOB D/O SRI. SABAJAN SAHEB AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.164'D' FIRST MAIN ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 020. 4. SMT. SULOCHANA W/O SRI. SADASHIVAN SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS 4(a) SRI. SATISH KUMAR S., D/O LATE SADASHIVAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.473, ANANDAPUR SLUM HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE. 4(b) SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S., S/O LATE SADASHIVAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.473, ANANDAPUR SLUM HAL 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU … …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. S.N. HATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R4; VIDE ORDER DATED:05.11.2012 NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CANCELLATION DEED DATED 02.01.2002 EXECUTED BY THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS 6 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 13281/2001-02 IN BOOK -I VOLUME-424 IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL SUB- REGUSTRAR, BANGALORE DISTRICT FOLLOWED BY AN LETTER OF ALLOTMENT DATED:03.01.2002 EXECUTED BY THE R1 & R2 HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-N & P. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CAV ORDER Common petitioner namely, Sri.Chinna Narayana Swamy in these writ petitions claiming to be the owner of sites bearing Nos.472 and 473 both situated adjacent to each other at HAL 3rd Stage earlier known as Anandapura Slum Extension each measuring East to West 20 feet, North to South 25 feet allotment of which was cancelled by the respondent-BDA and were re-allotted in favour of private respondents, is before this Court seeking following reliefs; 7 (a). In W.P.No.47184/2011; a] To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions as against the respondent number one and two to quash the cancellation deed dated 02/1/2002 executed by the Bangalore Development Authority which is registered as document number 13281/2001-02 in BooK-I, Volume 424 in the office of the Additional sub-registrar, Bangalore District, Produced as Annexure- P followed by an letter of allotment dated 03/1/2002 bearing No.BDA./DSI/472/Anandpura/ HAL III Stage executed by the respondents one and two & Produced as Annexure- Q by holding that the order passed by the second respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction and not in accordance with law. [b] To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to respondent number one and two to restore the order of allotment dated 1/5/1975 and so also hold that the registered sale deed dated 17/03/1992 executed by the respondent number one and two in favour of third respondent is valid and subsisting. [c] To grant such other relief or relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. (b). In W.P.No.47185/2011; "a] To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions as against the respondent number one and two to quash the cancellation deed dated 02/1/2002 executed by the Bangalore Development Authority which is registered as document number 13283/2001-02 in BooK-I, Volume 424 in the office of the Additional sub- registrar, Bangalore District, followed by an letter of allotment dated 03/1/2002 bearing No.BDA./DSI/473/Anandpura/ HAL III Stage executed 8 by the respondents one and two by holding that the order passed by the second respondent is illegal and without jurisdiction and not in accordance with law. [b] To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to respondent number one and two to restore the order of allotment in favour of respondent number three dated 1/5/1975 and so also hold that the registered sale deed dated 01/08/1992 executed by the respondent number one and two in favour of third respondent is valid and subsisting. [b] [1] To issue a Writ of Certiorari against Respondent no. 4(a) and 4(b) by quashing subsequent allotment dated 3/1/2002 bearing no.BDA/DSI/473/Anandpura/HAL III stage as per Annexure - P is illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction. Hence, liable to be quashed" (c). In W.P.No.13049/2014; "a). To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the respondents by directing the concerned officials to restore the possession of the Site bearing No.473, situated at Anandapura Slum Extension, HAL Third Stage, Bangalore measuring East to West- 20 feet and North to South 25 feet in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case involved in these writ petitions are that; (a) That originally immovable properties bearing site Nos.472 and 473 each measuring East to West 20 Ft. and North to South 25 Ft., both situated at HAL III Stage, earlier 9 known as Anandapura Slum Extension, were in possession of Smt. Khatunbi wife of Mohadeen Sab and Smt. Mahaboob daughter of Sri.Sabajaan Sab respectively. It appears the entire area was acquired in terms of a scheme formulated by the then City Improvement Trust Board to regularize and to re- allot the same to the original occupants. Accordingly, the then CITB as per its Board resolution dated 26.12.1974 allotted the aforesaid sites in the names of aforesaid occupants in terms of letters of allotment dated 01.05.1975. Pursuant thereof, the respondent -BDA which succeeded to then CITB issued possession certificates dated 30.03.1981 confirming the possession of said Smt. Khatunbi and Smt. Mahaboob. That subsequent to expiry of period of prohibition of alienation of 10 years, said Smt. Khatunbi had obtained a deed of sale in her name on 17.03.1992 and said Smt. Mahaboob obtained the deed of sale on 01.08.1992, which were executed and registered in their favour by the respondent -BDA respectively. (b) That thereafter, aforesaid Smt.Mahaboob sold site No.473 in favour of said Smt. Jayalakshmi under a deed of sale dated 22.09.1993. Similarly Smt. Khatunbi had sold site No.472 10 in favour of one Smt. Jayalakshmi under a deed of sale dated 28.05.1997. The BDA had registered the khata in respect of the aforesaid sites in the name of said Smt.Jayalakshmi. The said Smt.Jayalakshmi is none other than the wife of the petitioner herein. Thus, said Smt. Jayalakshmi became absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid sites. That the said Smt.Jayalakshmi passed away on 02.08.1999 leaving behind the petitioner to succeed to her estate. Consequent upon her demise, the petitioner became absolute owner of the property. (c) That however, due to mental depression, hardship and agony caused to him due to bereavement of his wife, he could not put up construction on the aforesaid site. (d) That when things stood thus, Deputy Secretary of respondent-BDA had initiated the proceedings for cancellation of the allotments and the deeds of sale that were executed in favour of Smt.Khatunbi and Smt.Mahaboob the original allottees upon the representation made by one Thimmarayappa, one of the office bearers of Dalitha Kriya Samithi Karnataka alleging that the said sites had fallen vacant and were to be 11 given to the needy persons. Based on the said representation, the respondent- BDA allotted the said site No.472 in favour of one Sri.K.Kanikaraj the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.47184/2011, cancelling the earlier allotment that was made in favour of Smt.Khatunbi on 01.05.1975. Similarly, allotted the said site No.473 in favour of Smt. Sulochana the respondent No.4 in W.P.No.47185/2011 cancelling the earlier allotment made in favour of said Smt.Mahaboob on 01.05.1975. (e) That the original allottees as well as Smt.Jayalakshmi had been kept under dark with regard to the cancellation and re-allotment made by the respondent-BDA. That when the petitioner learnt that certain persons were making attempt to put-up unauthorised construction on the aforesaid sites belonging to the petitioner and his deceased wife. That he had accordingly lodged a complaint to the jurisdictional police about the illegal and high handed acts and since the police did not take any action petitioner approached the respondent-authorities seeking their intervention to stop the illegal construction. The respondent-BDA instead of taking action against trespassers, did not even respond to the 12 representation made by the petitioner. The respondent No.4 in the meanwhile had put-up construction over the property on the basis of the alleged allotment made in his favour by the respondent -BDA. (f) That the petitioner being absolute owner of the property had made an application before the respondent-BDA under the Right to Information Act on 31.10.2011 seeking details with regard to the matter. In response thereof, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 made available proceedings pertaining to the aforesaid property No.472 between 20.01.1979 and 11.03.2002 to the petitioner on 09.11.2011 and with regard to property bearing No.473 between 20.01.1979 and 16.09.2011 on 17.11.2011. Being aggrieved by the said illegal action of the respondent-BDA, petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.21630/2010 seeking direction to the respondents to cancel the allotment made in favour of the private respondent on 03.01.2002. Since there were certain defects in the said writ petition the same was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Accordingly, 13 the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition and filed the present writ petitions. 4. Similar are the facts in W.P.No.13049/2014 and same is filed seeking direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondent-BDA to restore the possession of site No.473 in favour of the petitioner. 5. Sri. H.T. Nataraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court through the records submitted; (a) That the respondent- BDA had no authority under law to unilaterally cancel the allotment and the sale deeds that had been executed in favour of the original allottees namely, Smt.Khatunbi and Smt.Mahaboob in respect of the aforesaid site Nos.472 and 473 respectively. (b) That in the absence of any authority vested with the respondent-BDA, the action is illegal and void ab initio, as such the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as sought for. (c) That the petitioner learnt about the aforesaid illegal action only during the year 2011 and he approached the Court 14 within reasonable time and as such there is no delay on the part of the petitioner. (d) That since the respondent-BDA has illegally cancelled the allotment, it is the responsibility of the respondent-BDA to restore the things to their original position. (e) He relied upon the following orders passed by this Court in; (i) W.P.Nos.11102/2008 c/w W.P.No.16147/2009 and 16954/2009 dated 15.12.2010 reported in ILR 2011 Kar.120 (ii) W.A.No.2768/2009 dated 27.11.2009; (iii) W.A.No.4037/2010 dated 13.04.2011; (iv) W.P.No.21090/2012 dated 13.08.2012 (v) R.F.A.No.809/1997 dated 13.04.2007 reported in ILR 2008 Kar.2245 Hence, he sought for allowing of the petitions. 6. In response, Ms. Suma Janardha Gaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents sought dismissal of the writ petitions primarily on the ground of delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel. 15 (a) She submitted that the petitioner is the husband of subsequent purchaser of the aforesaid sites. Admittedly, the cancellation and subsequent allotment in favour of the private respondents had taken place in the year 2002. That petitioner having kept quiet for over decade cannot come in a writ petition seeking reliefs of this nature. (b) She submitted even as admitted by the petitioner the private respondents had put up construction on the aforesaid sites to the knowledge of the petitioner who had taken no action in the matter thereby forfeited his right to invoke the provisions of Article 226 against the respondent-authorities. (c) She referred to the averments made in writ petitions to contend that there is no whisper made by the petitioner with regard to reason for delay in approaching the Court. (d) She relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, State Bank of India and Another vs. M.J James reported in (2022) 2 SCC 301 and referring to paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 of the said judgment she insisted 16 that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of acquiescence, delay and laches. 7. Sri. K Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-BDA on the other hand submitted that; (a) the respondent -BDA was constrained to allot the said sites to the private respondents herein, inasmuch as, the very purpose to which the allotment was made had not been materialised. Though the sites in questions were allotted to the original allottee in the year 1972-1973 and the said sites had been kept vacant without putting up any construction thereon as required under the Rules of allotment. Since the sites had not been put to use, the respondent-authority had resolved to cancel the allotment and to allot the same to the deserving persons. (b) He submitted petitioner in any case being the husband of subsequent purchaser cannot question the cancellation of allotment on behalf of the original allottee. He however submitted notwithstanding the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, the respondent-BDA is willing to allot alternate sites to the petitioner. He submitted in fact alternate sites to be allotted 17 to the petitioner have been identified as site Nos. 349 and 350 formed in Sy.No.108 of Kenchanapura Village both measuring 20 feet X 30 feet in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout and the petitioner may be directed to accept the said allotment which would meet the ends of justice. Hence, seeks for dismissal of these petitions. 8. Heard and perused the records. 9. There is no dispute of the fact that originally one Smt.Khatunbi and Smt.Mahaboob had been allotted site bearing Nos.472 and 473 respectively in the year 1975 by the then CITB. It is also not in dispute that subsequently, the respondent -BDA which has succeeded to the office of CITB had executed deeds of sale in favour of the aforesaid original allottees. The aforesaid original allottees in turn had sold the said sites in favour of Smt.Jayalakshmi wife of the petitioner herein. It is also not in dispute that the respondent- BDA cancelled the said allotment in the year 2002 and had allotted the said sites in favour of the private respondents in these petitions on the purported premise of non compliance of the terms of the 18 allotment that was made originally in favour of Smt.Khatunbi and Smt.Mehaboob. 10. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the orders passed in the case of Sri.K.Raju vs. Bangalore Development Authority reported in ILR 2011 Kar.120 and in the case of Binny Mill Labour Welfare House Building Co-operative Society Limited vs. D.R.Mruthyunjaya Aradhya reported in ILR 2008 Kar. 2245 has held that the BDA has no power to unilaterally cancel the deeds of sale. Cancellation of deeds of sale, if any, has to be done only by having recourse to provisions of Section 36 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 by approaching a competent Court of civil jurisdiction, inasmuch as, once the allotment is made, sale deed is executed, BDA loses its right to cancel the same. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner the question of cancellation of allotment for non-compliance of the terms as sought to be contended by the respondent-BDA would not arise, since the BDA did not retain any right over the properties. 11. Having said that the question that would arise for consideration in the fact situation of these cases is "as to 19 whether the petitioner would be entitled for relief as sought for by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because respondent-BDA has unilaterally cancelled the allotment made and the deeds of sale executed in favour of the original allottee?" 12. Though at the first blush, the answer to the aforesaid question would be in the affirmative, however, a little further probe into the facts of the matter would indicate otherwise. 13. Admittedly, even according to the petitioner, the respondent-BDA cancelled the original allotment and the deeds of sale in respect of the aforesaid sites executed in favour of original allottees and thereafter allotted the same in favour of the private respondents in the year 2002, who have admittedly put up construction of residential houses over the said sites. Petitioner in the writ petitions contended that he was mentally depressed and he was undergoing untold hardship due to bereavement of his wife and could not put up construction on the aforesaid sites. 20 14. At paragraph No.22 of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically and categorically contended that when he learnt about the illegal construction being carried on the aforesaid sites, he approached the jurisdictional Police and since Police did not initiate any action, he approached the respondents and lodged complaint before the authorities requesting them to stop the illegal and high handed acts of the persons who were indulged in acts of trespass and who were making attempt to put up construction and were unnecessarily creating cloud with regard to title of the petitioner by complaint dated 25.01.2002. At Paragraph No.23 it is contended that despite his repeated requests and demand there was no response by the respondents. At paragraph No.25 it is contended that he had filed a complaint before the respondent No.1 on 24.06.2010 as per Annexure-R. At paragraph Nos.26 and 27 the petitioner has contended that he made application on 30.01.2011 seeking information under Right to Information Act, in response to which the respondents had issued information for the period between 20.01.1979 and 11.03.2002/16.09.2011. Though, the petitioner claims to have approached this Court by filing Writ petition in W.P.No.21630/2010, the same is stated to have 21 been withdrawn on 25.02.2011 due to certain technical defects and thereafter he has filed the present writ petitions. 15. Except the above, no other explanation is provided in the writ petitions for the petitioner not taking any action between the year 2002 till the year 2010. 16. Clearly the petitioner despite being completely aware of private respondents claiming their rights over the aforesaid sites in terms of the allotment made in their favour by the Respondent -BDA on 03.01.2002 and they putting up construction over the subject sites has done nothing until the year 2010 when he filed complaint before the respondent No.1 on 24.06.2010. 17. Apex Court in the case of CHAIRMAN, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER vs. M.J. JAMES reported in (2022) 2 SCC 301 at paragraphs 39, 40 and 41 while dealing with the aspect of acquiescence, delay and laches has held as under ; "39. Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify distinction between "acquiescence" and "delay and laches". Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing 22 in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. He cannot afterwards complain. In literal sense, the term acquiescence means silent assent, tacit consent, concurrence, or acceptance, which denotes conduct that is evidence of an intention of a party to abandon an equitable right and also to denote conduct from which another party will be justified in inferring such an intention. Acquiescence can be either direct with full knowledge and express approbation, or indirect where a person having the right to set aside the action stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right and in spite of the infringement takes no action mirroring acceptance. However, acquiescence will not apply if lapse of time is of no importance or consequence. 40. Laches unlike limitation is flexible. However, both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right. Laches like acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity. On the other hand, acquiescence implies active assent and is based upon the rule of estoppel in pais. As a form of estoppel, it bars a party afterwards from complaining of the violation of the right. Even indirect acquiescence implies almost active consent, which is not to be inferred by mere silence or inaction which is involved in laches. Acquiescence in this manner is quite distinct from delay. Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. Given the aforesaid legal position, inactive acquiescence on the part of the respondent can be inferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal. Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel bars the respondent from claiming violation of the right of fair representation. 41. The questions of prejudice, change of position, creation of third-party rights or interests on the part of the party seeking relief are important and relevant aspects as delay may obscure facts, 23 encourage dubious claims, and may prevent fair and just adjudication. Often, relevant and material evidence go missing or are not traceable causing prejudice to the opposite party. It is, therefore, necessary for the court to consciously examine whether a party has chosen to sit over the matter and has woken up to gain any advantage and benefit, which aspects have been noticed in Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur and State of Maharashtra v. Digambar. These facets, when proven, must be factored and balanced, even when there is delay and laches on the part of the authorities. These have bearing on grant and withholding of relief. Therefore, we have factored in the aspect of prejudice to the appellants in view of the relief granted in the impugned judgment." 18. The material evidence in the nature of photographs produced by the private respondents undisputedly evidence the fact that the private respondents have put-up residential construction of pakka nature. Petitioner cannot therefore be heard to say that he was not aware of such a construction being put up particularly in the light of averment made in paragraphs 22 to 24 of the writ petition. As noted in the aforesaid judgment by the Apex Court, though the same has been passed in a proceedings involving a departmental inquiry, the principles of law laid down therein squarely applicable to the instant case as well. Petitioner though claims that he was under depression and under bereavement having lost his wife, had made 24 representation only in the year 2010 in between which private respondents had already put up construction. No fault can be found with the private respondent for having put up a construction and having been living in the said premises for over a decade. Third party rights which have been created cannot be undone in favour of a person who despite having clear knowledge about the same did nothing to undo the same within reasonable time as provided under law. 19. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India also warrants party so invoking to be vigilant about his rights and is expected to approach the Court within reasonable time from the time of alleged breach or abridgement of his statutory/constitutional rights. No explanation of any nature whatsoever is provided in the writ petitions except stating at paragraph 25 that the petitioner was suffering from ailments such as Bypass Surgery and Hepatitis- B. No details are provided in this regard either. 20. As already noted the act of the respondent -BDA though cannot be condoned for its unilateral action of cancellation, at the same time the third party rights that were 25 created by virtue of the said act vesting properties in favour of the private respondents who in turn had invested their money and they residing therein also cannot be ignored. 21. However, as submitted by the respondent-BDA they have identified two plots bearing Nos.349 and 350 formed in Sy.No.108 of Kenchanapura Village in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout measuring 20 X30 ft. each which are larger in extent than the subject property, though the petitioner himself being the husband of subsequent purchaser had kept quiet for more than a decade and only thereafter has approached this Court by filing these writ petitions which otherwise suffer delay and laches, to meet the ends of justice and equity between the parties, this Court deems fit to dispose these writ petitions with the following direction: ORDER Respondent-BDA shall allot the sites bearing Nos.349 and 350 each measuring 20ftX30ft forming part of Sy.No.108, Kenchanapura Village in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda layout in favour of the petitioner as alternate to the sites which have been allotted to the private respondents as above and execute 26 necessary deeds of conveyance and complete such other formalities within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. RU Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE