V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a registered society engaged in imparting education. Pursuant to the notification at Annexure-C issued by the respondent inviting applications for allotment of Civic Amenity Sites, the petitioner applied for allotment of a site. The petitioner was allotted C. A. Site No. 2 in Nagarabhavi Ist stageon 16-4-1994 as per Resolution No. 107/94. However, the allotment letter was not issued to the petitioner as in the report submitted by the Engineering Section of the respondent it was stated that the site in question had already been handed over to P. W. D. for formation of Link Road and hence the site was not available. The petitioner submitted a representation on 18-6-1994 as per Annexure-E requesting for allotment of an alternative site. As the same was not done, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 31475/94 seeking a writ of mandamus in that regard. By an order dated 5-4-1995 this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the recommendation made by the Executive Engineer for allotment of a site situated in Binny Mill Labour Association Housing Co-operative Society layout at Jodi Kempapura Agrahara in favour of the petitioner or in any other layout within six months. Accordingly, the respondent allotted a site in the aforesaid layout in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure-J dated 6-5-1997. The lease amount payable in lumpsum as per Annexure-J is Rs. 14,69,085/ -. The grievance of the petitioner is that the present allotment of site at the rate of Rs. 650-00 per sq. Mtr is illegal, unreasonable and unjust. According to the petitioner, the rate of the site ought to have been at Rs. 150/- per sq. mtr as per the rate prevalent in 1994 when the site was allotted at the first instance. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Annexure-J and for a direction to the respondent to refix the value of the site at the rate prevailed as on 19-1-1994. ( 2 ) ). 150/- per sq. mtr as per the rate prevalent in 1994 when the site was allotted at the first instance. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Annexure-J and for a direction to the respondent to refix the value of the site at the rate prevailed as on 19-1-1994. ( 2 ) ). The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that since the respondent failed to comply with the direction issued by this Court in W. P. No. 31475/94, the petitioner filed C. C. C. No. 245/96 and the same was disposed of on 9-4-1996 on the basis of the reply filed stating that an alternate site had been allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having made such a statement in the contempt proceedings, it is not open for the respondent to alter the site amount. It is further contended that the present site was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of the site notified and allotted earlier and therefore the respondent has no authority to alter the sital value and the lease amount mentioned in Annexure-J is wholly unsustainable in law. ( 3 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent, after narrating the factual position, it is stated that the earlier decision of the authority could not be given effect to because the site that was proposed to be allotted to the petitioner was required for Ring Road and therefore the intimation regarding allotment of site was not communicated to the petitioner and no right was accrued to the petitioner in respect of the site proposed to be allotted earlier and the allotment made subsequently cannot be treated as an allotment made in the year 1994. It is further stated that as per Rule 8 (3) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989 the lease amount notified could be altered by the respondent. ( 4 ) SRI R. S. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent B. D. A. submits that there was no allotment order issued to the petitioner pursuant to the earlier resolution as the site was not available. ( 4 ) SRI R. S. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent B. D. A. submits that there was no allotment order issued to the petitioner pursuant to the earlier resolution as the site was not available. He further submits that the direction issued by this Court in the writ petition was to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative site and the said consideration was in accordance with the Rules. The further submission made is that the respondent has got power to alter the sital value and it is for the petitioner either to accept or decline to accept the allotment. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has no right to seek fixation of the lease amount at the rates prevalent during 1994 and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the averments of the writ petition and the stand taken by the respondent in the counter, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in this writ petition and the petition is misconceived. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the site that was proposed to be allotted to the petitioner under Resolution No. 107/94 dated 16-4-1994 was not available and as a result of which the petitioner was not issued the allotment letter. Since allotment letter was not issued to the petitioner, the petitioner did not accrue any right on the said site. The petitioner has filed this writ petition as if it had accrued a right by virtue of earlier resolution. ( 7 ) THE allotment of site has been made in favour of the petitioner under the Rules. The contension advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the respondent has no power to alter the sital value. The contention is wholly untenable in law. Rule 8 (3) of the Rules empowers the respondent to alter the situa value and it reads thus :-"8. Lease Amount of the Allotted Site to Institutions :- (1) to (2) xx xx xx xx xx (3) The lease amount of a site notified while inviting applications may be altered by the authority and the institutions may accept the site at the altered rate or decline allotment". Lease Amount of the Allotted Site to Institutions :- (1) to (2) xx xx xx xx xx (3) The lease amount of a site notified while inviting applications may be altered by the authority and the institutions may accept the site at the altered rate or decline allotment". In view of the above Rule, the contention raised in this regard does not hold water and the same is hereby rejected. ( 8 ) SINCE the allotment has been made in favour of the petitioner in respect of the site in question for the first time, it cannot also be assumed that the amount of the site mentioned is an altered rate. 'altered rate' means a rate was fixed earlier and subsequently the same is changed. That is not the case here. The site in question is allotted for the first time and the rate mentioned therein is the original rate and it is not altered rate, as is sought to be made out by the petitioner. ( 9 ) ASSUMING that the rate is the altered rate, as per Rule 8 (3) of the Rules it is for the petitioner to accept the same or decline to accept the allotment. The option is left to the petitioner. ( 10 ) THE reliefs sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is misconceived and wholly untenable. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .