V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) SITE No. 508, situated at 10th Main, 18th Cross, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, was allotted by the respondents to the petitioner on 29-1-1973. The petitioner has constructed a house and has been residing therein. ( 2 ) ADJACENT to the site allotted to the petitioner there is a small piece of marginal land measuring (10+18)/2 x 50 feet. The same was allotted to the petitioner under Annexure-A dated 3-6-1976 at the average auction rate of Rs. 84. 66 per square yard and the petitioner was called upon to pay the cost of the same amounting to Rs. 6,585-00 within 90 days of the receipt of Annexure-A. From 16-6-1976 to 24-2-1977 the petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs. 6,585-00 as mentioned in Annexure-A1. The correct dimension report of the marginal land was submitted by the engineering Section of the BDA on 29-12-1977 and the actual measurement reported was 116. 66 sq. yds. Hence, by endorsement at Annexure-B dated 22-3-1993 the petitioner was called upon to produce the challans, if any, for having paid a sum of Rs. 3,585-00 being the balance amount of the marginal land. The petitioner remitted the said amount in two instalments, Rs. 2,000-00 on 2-12-1993 and another sum of Rs. 1,585-00 on 10-3-1995 vide Annexure-B1. Thereafter, the petitioner made representations to issue possession certificate and to complete the other formalities. ( 3 ) WHEN the things stood thus, respondents claim to have sent an endorsement dated 22-2-1995 to the petitioner, which is annexed to annexure-C1, calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,22,888-00 within 45 days of the receipt of the same. According to the respondents, this amount represents the average auction rate prevalent then for the excess marginal land of 32. 46 sq. mtrs. and interest for the delayed payment of Rs. 5,000-00 paid by the petitioner earlier. The petitioner claims that he has not received the said endorsement. Hence, the respondents issued Annexure-C1 dated 27-8-1996 to the petitioner along with the endorsement dated 22-2-1995 calling upon the petitioner to produce the challans for having remitted the sum of Rs. 1,22,888-20. Since the petitioner has not paid the said amount, the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 28-10-1997 has been passed by the respondents cancelling the marginal land allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has sought to quash the same in this writ petition on various grounds. 1,22,888-20. Since the petitioner has not paid the said amount, the impugned order at Annexure-D dated 28-10-1997 has been passed by the respondents cancelling the marginal land allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has sought to quash the same in this writ petition on various grounds. ( 4 ) IN the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the marginal land measuring 77. 80 sq. yds. was allotted to the the petitioner in the year 1976 but the excess marginal land measuring 32. 46 sq. mtrs. was not allotted till 1994. On inspection since it was found that the petitioner had constructed compound wall including the excess marginal land, it was decided to allot the excess marginal land to the petitioner at the prevailing average auction rate and to recover interest on the belated payment made by the petitioner in respect of the marginal land allotted in the year 1976. Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 1,22,888-00. The. petitioner submitted representation contending that he was not required to pay the cost of excess marginal land and that he had paid the cost at the old rate. As the petitioner failed to pay the sum of Rs. 1,22,888-00, the impugned order cancelling the allotment of marginal land was passed and the same is legal, just and does not suffer from any infirmity. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has filed reply to the statement of objections stating that the contention raised by the respondents is not correct. It is claimed that the entire marginal land measuring 116. 66 sq. yds. existed in 1976 was advertised and allotted. The contention raised by the respondents that 38. 86 sq. yds. was not allotted in the year 1976 is denied. It is also pleaded that there was only one marginal land measuring 116. 66 sq. yds. and the same had been split up into two portions and in fact the entire extent of 116. 66 sq. yds. was allotted in the year 1976 itself. It is also contended that the respondents have deliberately proceeded to split the marginal land and to allot the same again with a view to illegally extract revenue from the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE allotment of marginal land in question in favour of the petitioner is not in dispute. 66 sq. yds. was allotted in the year 1976 itself. It is also contended that the respondents have deliberately proceeded to split the marginal land and to allot the same again with a view to illegally extract revenue from the petitioner. ( 6 ) THE allotment of marginal land in question in favour of the petitioner is not in dispute. The only dispute is in respect of the demand made by the respondents at the prevailing auction rate for the excess marginal land. It is also not in dispute that the rate fixed for the marginal land in the year 1976 was at Rs. 84-66 per sq. yd. and the petitioner was called upon to pay a total sum of Rs. 6,585-00, which the petitioner has paid, though belatedly. According to the respondents, the sum of Rs. 1,22,888-00 claimed by them and not paid by the petitioner consists of two items, namely (1) interest for the belated payment made by the petitioner pursuant to the allotment of marginal land in the year 1976 and (2) value of excess marginal land measuring 32. 46 sq. mtrs. as per the prevailing average auction rate. ( 7 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions, the actual allotment made under Annexure-A in 1976 and the actual marginal land available has to be taken into consideration. What is allotted in Annexure-A is (10+18)/2 x 50 feet (77. 80 sq. yds ). The actual available marginal land as per the report of Engineering Department is (18+14)/2 x 50 (116. 66 sq. yds. ). Undoubtedly, there is excess marginal land of 38. 86 sq. yds. The respondents have demanded the sum of Rs. 1,22,888-00 towards the interest for belated payment made by the petitioner as also the existing average auction price. Whether this demand is justified, or not, has to be examined. ( 8 ) IN the first place, on what basis the respondents have shown the extent of marginal land in Annexure-A, is not forthcoming. When larger extent of marginal land was available, why lesser extent was shown is a matter to be taken serious note of by this Court. A statutory body like the BDA cannot allot its land without proper measurements and on imaginations according to their whims and fancies. When larger extent of marginal land was available, why lesser extent was shown is a matter to be taken serious note of by this Court. A statutory body like the BDA cannot allot its land without proper measurements and on imaginations according to their whims and fancies. A strange procedure has been adopted by allotting the marginal land first to the petitioner with certain measurement at a particular price and thereafter obtained report with regard to the actual extent of marginal land available. This action of the respondents is highly deplorable. ( 9 ) IN the second place, while the allotment letter at Annexure-A is dated 3-6-1976, in paragraph 3 of the counter it is stated that on 18-11-1977 the respondent called upon the Engineer-Officer to furnish the correct measurement of the marginal land and such a report was submitted on 29-12-1977 by the Engineering Section. This makes clear that after a lapse of nearly one and half years of allotment of the marginal land the respondents have taken steps to obtain the correct extent of marginal land available. This shows the serious laches on the part of the respondents. ( 10 ) ADDED to the above, even though the actual measurement report was submitted on 29-12-1977, no steps were taken immediately thereafter. Even in the year 1993 when 'annexure-B, dated 22-3-1993 was issued, the petitioner was only called upon to furnish the challans, if any, for having paid the sum of Rs. Rs. 3,585-00 and there is no whisper made about the excess marginal land or the amount of Rs. 1,22,888-00 to be paid by the petitioner. That means, even after coming to know about the existence of excess marginal land than what had been allotted to the petitioner under Annexure-A, no attempt was made by the respondents either to inform the petitioner about the same or to demand the cost of the excess marginal land. As admitted in paragraph 3 of the counter, it was only in the year 1995 when the endorsement (fated 22-2-1995 produced along with Annexure-C1 that the respondents have woken up from the slumber and claims to have demanded the petitioner to pay the sum of Rs. Rs. 1,22,888-00. The petitioner alleges that he has not received this communication. It appears to be so in the light of the same having been sent to him along with Annexure-Cl. Rs. 1,22,888-00. The petitioner alleges that he has not received this communication. It appears to be so in the light of the same having been sent to him along with Annexure-Cl. Even assuming that it was issued to the petitioner immediately, the fact remains that even after receipt of the actual measurement of the marginal site in the year 1977, respondents slept over the matter until the endorsement dated 22-2-1995 was allegedly issued. Thus, for nearly 19 years from the date of allotment of marginal land to the petitioner the respondents have not taken any steps in the matter of excess marginal land. This shows the callousness of the respondent-BDA in handling the matters. ( 11 ) IT is also to be noted that in paragraph 3 of the counter it is stated that the Commissioner along with other officers inspected the spot on 20-1-1994 and found that the petitioner had constructed a compound wall including the excess marginal land which was not allotted. When they found the occupation of the petitioner on the excess marginal land not allotted to him,they should have issued notice to the petitioner and got him evicted from such unauthorised occupation. Even this was also not done and petitioner has been allowed to continue as such. The respondents have to pay for laches on their part. In other words, they are not entitled to demand the amount claimed by them from the petitioner on account of their own fault. ( 12 ) THE cancellation of marginal site has been made under Annexure-D on the ground that petitioner has not paid the sum of Rs. 1,22,888-00 demanded by the respondents. As already observed, this amount is towards the prevailing average auction price and interest for the delayed payment. Respondents having slept over the issue for nearly 19 years, are debarred from claiming the cost of the excess marginal land at the prevailing average auction rate. The conduct of respondents disentitle them from claiming the amount from the petitioner after a lapse of nearly two decades. ( 13 ) IT is not indicated in the statement of objections as to what was the prevailing auction rate. The auction rate of sites of larger dimension and civic amenity sites cannot be applied to a small piece of marginal land. In fact, there is no basis at ail for the demand of Rs. 1,22,888-00 made by the respondents. ( 13 ) IT is not indicated in the statement of objections as to what was the prevailing auction rate. The auction rate of sites of larger dimension and civic amenity sites cannot be applied to a small piece of marginal land. In fact, there is no basis at ail for the demand of Rs. 1,22,888-00 made by the respondents. Respondents were not justified in making such a demand. The contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have no authority to allot one marginal land twice by splitting up into two pieces, is well-founded. The entire approach of respondents is illegal, unlawful, unjust and bad in law. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, existence of excess marginal land to an extent of 38. 86 sq. yds. is not in dispute and in fact cannot be denied as noticed in paragraph 7 above. The petitioner cannot be allowed to enjoy the same free of cost. It would be proper to direct him to pay the difference of the amount at the same rate when the marginal land was allotted under annexure-A in the year 1976. ( 15 ) AS per the allotment letter at Annexure-A, dated 3-6-1976 the petitioner was required to pay the sum of Rs. 6,585-00 within 90 days. However, petitioner has paid this amount on different dates from 16-6-1976 to 24-2-1977 as mentioned in Annexure-A1. Thus, there was delay on the part of the petitioner in making the payment within the stipulated period. Hence, the petitioner is liable to pay interest at 21% per annum, for the period of delay on the sum not paid within 90 days stipulated in Annexure-A. ( 16 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is allowed partly and the impugned order at Annexure-D stands quashed subject to the observations made above. If the petitioner pays the aforesaid interest-amount and difference amount towards the excess marginal land within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondents shall fulfill all other formalities within eight weeks from the date of payment made by the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. If the petitioner pays the aforesaid interest-amount and difference amount towards the excess marginal land within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the respondents shall fulfill all other formalities within eight weeks from the date of payment made by the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. ( 17 ) BEFORE parting with the case, I am constrained to observe that on account of the lethargic, callous and irresponsible functioning of the concerned officers of respondent-BDA, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court dragging the respondents themselves in respect of the matter pertaining to the year 1976 and is being decided by this court now putting an end to it after a period of more than two decades. It is most unfortunate that in respect of such a small issue the precious time of several officers and staff of BDA and that of this Court apart have been wasted apart from financial loss caused virtually for achieving nothing. Little care, precaution and timely action on the part of concerned officers of BDA would have saved all these. It is hoped that the BDA will not give room for such happenings in future. --- *** --- .