B. N. KRISHNAN, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant was plaintiff before the XIII addl. City Civil Judge, in O. S. No. 3693 of 1987 and being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit filed for, specific performance for allotment of an alternate site as promised by the Secretary of the B. DA. , has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) HIS case is that a revenue site in S. No. 53 in Weavers' Colony at Gangenahalli, Bangalore, which in turn was comprised in Sy. Nos. 25, 27/1, 34 and 35 was allotted to him by the cubbonpet Silk Handloom Weavers' Co-operative society Ltd. and all these revenue survey numbers were acquired by the B. D. A. and thereafter, on 14-9-1976 he was intimated by the secretary as per Ex. P. 3 that alternate site would be allotted to him at the old rate and subsequently it was not allotted and thereafter he filed Writ petition 7810 of 1987 for getting alternate site allotted, but that Writ Petition was dismissed directing him to approach the Civil Court and, therefore, he had approached the Civil Court for specific performance of the said alleged agreement. ( 3 ) THE B. D. A. having denied the allegations made by the plaintiff, the trial Court framed a number of issues out of which issue No. 1 is to the effect:whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled to allotment of site by the defendant?this issue having been answered against the plaintiff, the suit came to be dismissed. It is the legality and correctness of this Judgment and decree dismissing the said suit, that have been questioned by the appellant before this Court. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant contended that Ex. P. 3 the letter issued by the secretary of the B. DA. from the office of the chairman coupled with Ex. P. 8 the letter addressed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer giving him right to enforce the terms laid down by these persons in respect of allotment of alternate site and it is not open to the B. D. A. to refuse to implement the said terms. He also tried to derive sustenance for the said proposition from the decision of this Court reported in ILR 1990 Kar. 2504 - B. N. Vedananda v Bangalore development Authority. He also tried to derive sustenance for the said proposition from the decision of this Court reported in ILR 1990 Kar. 2504 - B. N. Vedananda v Bangalore development Authority. ( 5 ) THE learned Advocate for the appellant was questioned whether there was any resolution passed by the B. D. A. to enable the Secretary to issue an endorsement as per Ex. P. 3 and the learned Advocate had to concede that on record there is nothing to indicate that any such resolution has been passed by the B. D. A. He also took time on several dates to find out whether any such resolution has been passed by the B. D. A. and has not been able to produce one such. Even assuming for a moment that the B. D. A. has passed a resolution that an alternate site shall be allotted to a person whose revenue site has been acquired, it is still to be seen whether such a resolution conforms to the relevant allotment rules which guide the allotment of the sites by the B. D. A. Except for stating that it is for the b. D. A. to point out that such terms of allotment of an alternate site to a revenue site holder whose revenue site has been acquired is contrary to the rules, the learned Advocate was unable to bring to my attention any of the Rules relating to allotment to say that this term is in accordance with such allotment Rules. It appears to me that the decision referred to by the learned Advocate for the appellant cannof hold field in view of the latest decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR 1991 Kar. 824 - B. Umesh v Bangalore development Authority. In that case it has been pointed out that the allotment of sites in any layout can only be in terms of allotment Rules and not in contravention thereof. It has also been pointed out that it is not within the power of B. D. A. to convey any site out of the sites so laid down to any person by reason only of the fact that he was one of the holders whose land had been acquired. It has also been pointed out that it is not within the power of B. D. A. to convey any site out of the sites so laid down to any person by reason only of the fact that he was one of the holders whose land had been acquired. This decision was sought to be distinguished by the learned Advocate for the appellant on the ground that the resolution in that case was to grant a free site and that is not the case here. Though in the instant case that had come up before the Division Bench, it was a case of allotment of free site, the several observations made with reference to the allotment of sites and the powers of B. D. A. to comply with the allotment Rules apply to the facts of this case and this being a decision of the Division Bench and also a later decision than the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant which. is a decision rendered by a learned Single judge, I find that this decision of the Division bench should be followed. Having regard to the fact that no Rule of the allotment Rules of the b. D. A. enabling such allotment of a site in favour of a revenue site holder whose site has been acquired by the B. D. A. has been pointed out it is clear that even if there be a resolution of the b. D. A. , it could have had no force in the present case. When there is no such resolution and when the Secretary has issued a letter as per Ex. P. 3, it is crystal clear that it could form no basis for a suit for specific performance against the B. D A. In that view of the matter, I find that the lower court was perfectly right in negativing the claim put forward by the plaintiff and hence the appeal is devoid of any merit. ( 6 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .