MARTHA Vs. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the site cancellation order dated 13.10.2010 of Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA').

(2.) CONSIDERING an application EWS150327 of the petitioner for allotment of a site No.86 in Block -X of Arkavathi Layout, measuring 6x9 meters (EWS) was allotted and allotment intimation dated 24.06.2006 was issued. On 14.11.2006 petitioner was notified that she was ineligible for allotment of site and the allotment made in her favour was recalled. In response to a representation dated 23.05.2007 of the petitioner, an endorsement dated 28.03.2008 was issued. Petitioner having not filled up column -6 relating to the date of birth in her said application, she was directed to produce the proof. Petitioner submitted an affidavit stating that she having not studied in any school, she is unable to produce any document and that her age is 36 years. A further representation, as at Annexure -K having been submitted enclosing the documents stated therein, she was issued with an endorsement dated 14.07.2009 and the petitioner submitted another representation, as at Annexure -M, enclosing her caste certificate and certificate of birth. BDA having issued show cause notice dated 13.07.2010, a reply dated 18.08.2010 having been submitted, upon consideration and finding that the petitioner was not born as on the cut off date i.e., 20.05.1966 and she having not made six attempts for allotment and the allotment of site made to her was cancelled. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed, to quash the said cancellation order, as at Annexure -T and to direct the BDA to execute the deed relating to allotment of site No.86, Block -X of Arkavathi Layout.

(3.) SRI Chandrashekara K., learned advocate contended that the petitioner having not suppressed any material in the application filed and the site having been allotted, the impugned order of cancellation is arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that for the fault of the BDA, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. He relied upon the orders passed by this Court, copies of which have been produced, as at Annexures -V to V3.