V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) THE 2nd respondent-Bangalore development authority issued a notification as per Annexure-B dated 19-12-1986 offering sites for allotment in 20 layouts formed by it. One of the layouts among them is sarakki layout. In response to the said notification the petitioner applied for a kite measuring 60' x 90' in sarakki layout as per Annexure-C dated 20-1-1987. He claimed allotment of site in the reserved category since he belongs to scheduled caste. The Bangalore development authority published the list of allottees on 5-7-1987. In the said list the name of the petitioner was not included in respect of site measuring 60' x 90' but his name was shown against site measuring 50' x 80'. However, the site numbers and the layouts were not mentioned. Subsequently, the Bangalore development authority announced the site numbers and layouts in which the sites were allotted. It is stated that the application of the petitioner for allotment of site measuring 60' x 90' was overlooked on the ground that the petitioner was not married and he had not indicated the number of previous attempts, which is not correct as is evident from the application at Annexure-a. In those circumstances, the petitioner took up the matter with the Bangalore development authority by corresponding from 29-7-1987 to 25-9-1987. It is stated that in respect of site No. 32 measuring 50' x 80' allotted to him in btm tavarekere vide allotment letter at Annexure-F dated 4-11-1987 was a smaller dimension and there was litigation in respect of the said layout. The stay order granted in that litigation was still in force. In the circumstances, the petitioner wrote a letter on 19-1-1988 to the Bangalore development authority requesting to allot him site No. 5 or 62 or 100, all measuring 50' x 80' in btm layout. Pending consideration of the same, the sital value of Rs. 85,000-00 was paid by him. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations as per Annexures-j to j-4 and consequently, vide Annexure-K dated 20-4-1989 the petitioner was informed that in view of the stay order in respect of site No. 32 allotted to him, he would be allotted an alternate site. Accordingly, site No. 2 in btm layout was allotted under Annexure-L dated 13-9-1989. According to the petitioner, the said site is formed in sy. Accordingly, site No. 2 in btm layout was allotted under Annexure-L dated 13-9-1989. According to the petitioner, the said site is formed in sy. No. 34 of madiwala and it actually measures 50' x 90' and it is in a pucca slum area. This made the petitioner to seek allotment of another alternative site in indira nagar or sarakki or banashankari I or ii stages vide Annexure-m dated 20-11-1989. Another letter was addressed on 14-6-1990 pointing out the allotment of alternate site to certain persons mentioned in the petition. The petitioner has furnished the details of allotment of alternative sites in similar circumstances in Annexure-o. Subsequently alto the petitioner made representations vide Annexures-p and p-1, dated 16-2-1991 and 6-8-1991 respectively seeking allotment of alternative site in the layouts preferred by him, thereafter, the Bangalore development authority called for a report from the concerned engineering Section on the matter and accordingly, report was submitted on 8-3-1991 stating that site No. 33 in btm layout I stage measuring 60' x 84' was vacant and the same may be allotted to the petitioner in lieu of site No. 2 in sy. No. 34 of madiwala. However, vide Annexure-s dated 13-7-1992 the state government conveyed their approval for allotment of the said site No. 33 in favour of the first respondent in lieu of another site allotted to her in hennur-banaswadi layout. The petitioner alleges that this was done since the first respondent and one u. a. chandramouly are close relatives. According to the petition allegations, the said chandramouly is an income tax officer and he also moved for allotment of alternative site along with the petitioner. It is further alleged that the file of the petitioner was moved faster but the Bangalore development authority had taken extra care to make recommendation in the case of the said chandramouly and in the meanwhile the first respondent got allotted the site No. 33 in her favour. Several other allegations are made in this regard but they are not germane to the case on hand. Aggrieved by the approval given by the government under Annexure-s for the allotment of site No. 33 in btm layout in favour of the first respondent the petitioner has filed this writ petition. Several other allegations are made in this regard but they are not germane to the case on hand. Aggrieved by the approval given by the government under Annexure-s for the allotment of site No. 33 in btm layout in favour of the first respondent the petitioner has filed this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE prayers in this writ petition is to quash the approval of the government under Annexure-s for allotment of site No. 33 in btm layout in favour of the first respondent and for a direction to the Bangalore development authority to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of the said site in his favour. ( 3 ) RESPONDENT 1 has filed statement of objections contending that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was not a conclusive one and justifying the impugned action. ( 4 ) THE 2nd respondent also filed statement of objections justifying the action. It is contended that the allotment of alternative sites would be confined only in cases where there is mistake on the part of the Bangalore development authority and where possession of the sites allotted could not be given on account of litigation and stay orders. ( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that the recommendation made by the engineering Section was in consonance with notification No. Hud 381 mnx 86, dated 1-12-1986 produced as Annexure-r and the Bangalore development authority should have acted upon it. It is contended that the site first allotted was under litigation and the alternative site allotted was in a slum area and not fit for human habitation and therefore the petitioner was compelled to seek allotment of another alternative site. In those circumstances, the site recommended by the engineering Section ought to have been allotted to the petitioner. Instead of allotting it to the petitioner, the same had been allotted in favour of the first respondent and the same is contrary to Rule 10 (3) of Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules. It is further contended that the site allotted to the first respondent is not alternative site but it is the allotment made for the first time. It is further contended that the site allotted to the first respondent is not alternative site but it is the allotment made for the first time. It is further stated that first respondent was allotted site No. 9-m 212 in hennur- banaswadi layout and she has paid the total value of the site and even agreement-cum-sale agreement had also been registered as document No. 4533 before the sub-registrar on 1-12-1989 and possession certificate was also issued in her favour. It is contended that the bda should not have allotted the site in question in favour of the first respondent without cancelling the first allotment. When the first allotment was subsisting, consideration of her claim for allotment of alternative site does not arise and hence the impugned action is bad in law. ( 6 ) THE question for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the petition? ( 7 ) THE petitioner has not filed this writ petition in public interest. He is seeking to quash the approval of the government under Annexure-s of the site allotted in favour of first respondent. Petitioner is seeking allotment of alternative site in heu of the two sites allotted to him. No doubt the first allotment of site was under litigation and hence the Bangalore development authority allotted alternative site. The petitioner again sought for allotment of another alternative site in lieu of it and he is more particular in getting the site allotted in favour of the first respondent. Even assuming that he is entitled for allotment of alternative site as per the guidelines of the government and the rules, such allotment shall not necessarily of a particular site. It is for the Bangalore development authority to allot any other alternative site depending upon various factors. ( 8 ) MERELY because the petitioner's application for allotment of alternative site was processed earlier but acting on the claim of the first respondent does not confer legal right on the petitioner. No allottee can insist the Bangalore development authority for allotment of a particular site. The prayer of the petitioner for quashing of Annexure-s cannot be granted as there is no infringement of either any fundamental right or statutory right. Petitioner has no vested right to seek allotment of particular site. Even if Annexure-s is quashed, petitioner will not get the same site. The prayer of the petitioner for quashing of Annexure-s cannot be granted as there is no infringement of either any fundamental right or statutory right. Petitioner has no vested right to seek allotment of particular site. Even if Annexure-s is quashed, petitioner will not get the same site. ( 9 ) THE representation of the petitioner for allotment of alternative is still under consideration by the Bangalore development authority. Since the allegation of the petitioner that the site allotted in his favour for the second time is in a pucca slum area, Justice can be done by issuing necessary directions to the Bangalore development authority. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is partly allowed. A direction is issued to the Bangalore development authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of alternative site of the same or equivalent measurement suitable for utilisation in any of the layouts suggested by him within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Bangalore development authority shall bear in mind that this is the third site that would be going to be allotted to the petitioner since the two sites allotted earlier were under litigation and in slum area. --- *** --- .