N. KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE above appeal is preferred against the order dated 1st january 2001 in W. P. No. 1057/1991 (BDA) by the learned Single judge. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief are as hereunder:- Land bearing Sy. No. 53/3 and Sy. No. 53/4 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas and 1 acre 26 guntas respectively situated at Jakkasandra village originally belonged to Sri N. R. Bhoote having acquired under a registered sale deed dated 4. 11. 1958. The said Bhoote appointed one Sri Nanjunda Mudaliar as a watchman to look after the said property and he died 30 years ago. After his death Sri S. L. Hosahalappa pretending as his relative continued his watchmanship post under N. R. Bhoote. ( 3 ) THE a fore said land was acquired by the City Improvement Trust Board (CITB) the predecessors of respondent No. 1. Respondent no. 2 issued a preliminary notification dated 26. 1. 1960 and a final notification dated 28. 9. 1965 acquiring the said lands and other lands with an intention to form an industrial layout. Possession was taken on 6. 9. 1975. The said N. R. Bhoote appears to have received the compensation also. Thereafter, the said N. R. Bhoote made an application for grant of industrial site No. 3a so formed in Sy. No. 53/ 3 and 53/4 measuring east to west 120' and north to south 205' by way of reconveyance. On the said application the Bangalore development Authority passed a resolutio. n dated 26. 2. 1975 informing n. R. Bhoote that site measuring 120' x 160' was reconveyed to him at the rate of Rs. 15. 00 per square feet. It appears the said N. R. Bhoote paid a sum of Rs. 16,000. 00 by way of cheque bearing No. 227455 on 6. 7. 1979. There was a delay in payment of the aforesaid amount and therefore it is alleged that the Bangalore Development authority has cancelled the allotment in favour of N. R. Bhoote, though no such resolution is produced before the Court. Thereafter, the bangalore Development Authority issued a notice to the appellant herein on 8. 11. 1979 directing him to deliver vacant possession of the acquired land. The appellant replied to the said letter and requested for three months time to vacate the premises by his reply dated 19. 11. 1979. Thereafter, the bangalore Development Authority issued a notice to the appellant herein on 8. 11. 1979 directing him to deliver vacant possession of the acquired land. The appellant replied to the said letter and requested for three months time to vacate the premises by his reply dated 19. 11. 1979. After the said request he filed a suit O. S. 6171/ 1980 on the file of the VII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for injunction against the BDA. The said Suit after contest came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 3. 7. 1984. Against the said judgment and decree he preferred an Appeal RFA 457/84 before this Court. When the said Appeal came up for hearing on 5. 2. 1999 it was submitted that he has made an application to the State government and also to the BDA for allotment of the site in question in his favour and the same is under consideration. On the aforesaid submission this Court disposed of the sale Appeal on 5. 2. 1999 with a direction that the appellant should not be disturbed from possession till the BDA or the Government takes decision on his request. ( 4 ) IN the mean while, the BDA had allotted the site in question in favour of one Abdul Khuddus. On coming to know of such allotment the appellant challenged the said allotment by filing Writ Petition no. 4469/80. In the said Writ Petition N. R. Bhoote also made an application for impleadment. This Court in the said Writ Petition set aside the allotment in favour of Abdul Khuddus and directed the bda to consider the request of the appellant as well as the said n. R. Bhoote-applicant in the said Writ Petition on merits. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction issued by this Court the Bangalore development Authority considered the application of N. R. Bhoote and the appellant and the same was rejected which is duly communicated to them by letter dated 25. 3. 1988. Thereafter again the parties made a request and the appellant's request was again rejected by letter dated 22. 2. 1990. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1057/1991 challenging the aforesaid impugned endorsement dated 25. 3. 1988 and 22. 2. 1990 and sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-BDA to allot the site No. 3a referred to supra. 1988. Thereafter again the parties made a request and the appellant's request was again rejected by letter dated 22. 2. 1990. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1057/1991 challenging the aforesaid impugned endorsement dated 25. 3. 1988 and 22. 2. 1990 and sought for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-BDA to allot the site No. 3a referred to supra. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Bangalore development Authority by its resolution dated 29. 6. 1999/3. 7. 1999 considered the representation of appellants and N. R. Bhoote and taking into consideration the pendency of W. P. No. 1057/91 and the order passed in RFAF 457/84 took a decision, rejected the request of the appellants herein and recalled the order of cancellation in favour of N. R. Bhoote on the ground of non-payment within the prescribed time and resolved to reallot the very site in favour of n. R. Bhoote on payment of necessary fees under Section 38-C of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 as amended which is hereinafter referred to as "the Act". On coming to know of the said resolution the appellants sought amendment of the Writ Petition to set out the aforesaid facts and also sought for amendment of the prayer whereunder they sought for quashing of the said resolution which was allowed. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the learned Single Judge heard all the parties and proceeded to pass the impugned order dismissing the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge held the appellant could not seek allotment of the land nor claim any right against the real owner in whose favour reconveyance can be made under Section 38-C of the Act as the appellant has no locus standi to seek allotment and that the appellant has no right, title or interest over the said land. He further held that the allotment in favour of respondent No. 3 could not be held to be null and void merely because he has entered into an agreement to sell the site to be allotted in his favour. For the aforesaid reasons the learned Single Judge held the petitioner is not entitled to either get the allotment in favour of the third respondent quashed nor is he entitled for a writ of mandamus directing the BDA to allot the said site in question in his favour. It is against this order the present appeal is filed. For the aforesaid reasons the learned Single Judge held the petitioner is not entitled to either get the allotment in favour of the third respondent quashed nor is he entitled for a writ of mandamus directing the BDA to allot the said site in question in his favour. It is against this order the present appeal is filed. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Sri G. S. Visweswar, learned Counsel for the appellant, assailing the order of the learned Single Judge submitted that, firstly the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellants have no locus standi to challenge the order of reconveyance in favour of third respondent is bad. Secondly, he contended as admittedly the appellants are in possession of the site in question. By virtue of their long possession, they have a right to get the site reconveyed in their favour under section 38c of the Bangalore Development Authority Act and the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellants could not seek allotment of the land nor claim any right against the real owner in whose favour reconveyance has been made is bad. Thirdlly he contended that the learned Single Judge failed to notice that the third respondent has entered into an agreement with third parties agreeing to sell the land to be reconveyed which rendered the order of reconveyance void. ( 7 ) SRI C. B. Srinivasan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents sought to support the order of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered all the points which arose for consideration with reference to the material on record, and the said order do not call for any interference by this court. ( 8 ) WHAT emerges from the material on record and the submissions of the learned Counsels is that N. R. Bhoote admittedly is the original owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 53/3 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas and Sy. No. 53/4 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in all 3 acres 12 guntas situated at Jakkasandra Village. He appointed one Nanjuhda Mudaliar as watchman to look after the property. On his death S. L. Hosahalappa claiming to be his relative was looking after the said lands. No. 53/3 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas and Sy. No. 53/4 measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in all 3 acres 12 guntas situated at Jakkasandra Village. He appointed one Nanjuhda Mudaliar as watchman to look after the property. On his death S. L. Hosahalappa claiming to be his relative was looking after the said lands. The said lands were acquired by the erstwhile City improvement Trust Board and the said land yested with the Authority free from all encumbrances. ( 9 ) THE said S. L. Hosahalappa who came on the land as a watchman subsequently claimed tenancy rights over the land in question and after acquisition when the Bangalore Development authority issued notice to him to vacate the land in question by his letter dated 19. 11. 1979 he sought for three months time to vacate and hand over the acquired land. Thereafter, he approached the courts contrary to his undertaking given and by virtue of the orders passed by various Courts he has been continued in possession from 19. 11. 1979 till today. When in the legal proceedings he was declared to be in unauthorised possession he now claims to be in settled possession of the land in dispute and by virtue of the settled possession he claims to be entitled to an order of reconveyance of the site No. 3a formed in the acquired land. Further, by virtue of such right he claims he has a right to challenge the order of. reconveyance made in favour of the owner of the land. Therefore, the question that arise for our consideration is: (i) Whether the appellants have a right to get the site in question reconveyed to them under Section 38c of the Bangalore development Authority Act, 1976. (ii) Whether he has a right to challenge the order of reconveyance made in favour of the third respondent. ( 10 ) REGARDING point No. (i) :- The land which was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority measured 5 acres 12 guntas. Now the land to be reconveyed is a site formed in the said land bearing No. 3a measuring 120' x 160'. ( 10 ) REGARDING point No. (i) :- The land which was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority measured 5 acres 12 guntas. Now the land to be reconveyed is a site formed in the said land bearing No. 3a measuring 120' x 160'. Section 38c of the Act reads as under :-"38-C. Power of authority to make allotment in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law or any development scheme sanctioned under this Act, or city Improvement Trust Board Act, 1945, where the authority or the erstwhile City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore has already passed a resolution to reconvey in favour of any persons any site formed in the land which belong to them or vested in or acquired by them for the purpose of any development scheme and on the ground that it is not practicable to include such site for the purpose of the development scheme, the authority may allot such site by way of sale or lease in favour of such person subject to the following conditions- (a) the allottee shall be liable to pay any charges as the authority may levy from time to time; and (b) the total extent of the site allotted under this section together with the land already held by the allottee shall not exceed the ceiling limit specified under Section 4 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976. "a bare reading of the aforesaid section makes it clear that two conditions have to be fulfilled before a person is entitled to allotment of the site under the aforesaid provision. Firstly a resolution to reconvey in favour of the person to whom the site is to be granted must have been passed by the authority. Secondly, the word "reconvey" in the said section pre-supposes that the person to whom the allotment is to be made should be an erstwhile owner whose land has been acquired and in which land the site in question has been formed. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, under Section 38c no person is entitled to allotment of site by way of reconveyance. ( 11 ) IT is an undisputed fact that on the representation of N. R. Bhoote, the authority in its Board meeting dated 26. 2. Unless these two conditions are fulfilled, under Section 38c no person is entitled to allotment of site by way of reconveyance. ( 11 ) IT is an undisputed fact that on the representation of N. R. Bhoote, the authority in its Board meeting dated 26. 2. 1975 on subject No. 4018 passed a resolution to reconvey the extent of 120' x 160' in the acquired land in favour of N. R. Bhoote subject to usual conditions of reconveyance and on payment of layout charges as per Annexure-R6. In pursuance of the said resolution a communication was addressed to Sri N. R. Bhoote on 15. 5. 1975 as per Annexure-R7 calling upon N. R. Bhoote to pay a sum of Rs. 15. 00 per square yard amounting to Rs. 32,000. 00 within a period of 90 days and execute the agreement. The said amount of Rs. 16,000. 00 was paid by Sri N. R. Bhoote by way of a cheque bearing no. 227455 on 6. 7. 1979. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution in favour of N. R. Bhoote the resolution dated 29. 6. 1999 came to be passed allotting the site in question. Therefore, it is clear that the bangalore Development Authority, the first respondent in this appeal, committed no irregularity or illegality in allotting the site in question in favour of the original owner whose legal heir in the third respondent as the same has been done as per Section 38c of the Bangalore development Authority Act. The learned single Judge on careful consideration of the material placed on record has recorded a finding that the allotment of the site in question in favour of the third respondent cannot be said to be illegal or without jurisdiction. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the appellant in this regard. ( 12 ) FOR the same reasons we have to hold that the rejection of the request of the appellants to all of the site in question also as valid in as much as admittedly the appellants were not the owners of the land which was acquired by the BDA. Till today there is no resolution passed by the authority to reconvey the site in question. Therefore, the appellant do not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 38c of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. Till today there is no resolution passed by the authority to reconvey the site in question. Therefore, the appellant do not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under Section 38c of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. In the absence of any resolution by the authority to reconvey the site in favour of the appellants, the appellants are not entitled for reconveyance of the site in question. The mere possession whether that of a watchman or that as of a tenant or unauthorised or settled do not confirm a right on the appellants to get the land reconveyed to them under the aforesaid provision when they do not satisfy the eligibility criteria prescribed under the said Section. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellants are not entitled to reconveyance of the site in question and therefore the authority and the learned Single Judge have rightly rejected their request for reconveyance. ( 13 ) REGARDING point No. (ii) :- The appellants as a fore said have no manner of right, title or interest over the land which was acquired or the site which was allotted in favour of the third respondent. They were not entitled to the allotment of the said sale under Section 38c of the Act. The erstwhile owner was entitled to reconveyance of the said land under Section 38c of the Act. When BDA has passed a resolution to reconvey the said land and has allotted the said site, the appellant has no right to challenge the said order of reconveyance made in favour of the third respondent. ( 14 ) LASTLY it was contended as the third respondent had entered into an agreement to sell the site to be reconveyed in his favour to third persons and it is they who have played an active role in getting the allotment of the site in favour of the third respondent, the order allotting the site in question to the third respondent is void. This submission has no merit. Once the site in question is reconveyed to the third respondent the said allotment would be subject to the terms and conditions imposed under the terms of allotment, the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement to be executed between the parties and also the terms of the rules governing such allotment. This submission has no merit. Once the site in question is reconveyed to the third respondent the said allotment would be subject to the terms and conditions imposed under the terms of allotment, the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement to be executed between the parties and also the terms of the rules governing such allotment. If the third respondent were to contravene any of these terms, rules and regulations he would be liable to the consequences mentioned in the said terms, rules and regulations. However, the said allotment would not become void merely because he has taken the assistance of third persons in securing such allotment as long as the said allotment is made strictly in terms of Section 38c of the Bangalore development Authority Act. There is no prohibition contained in section 38c of the Act for the sale of the land allotted after such allotment. Therefore, we do not find any substance in this submission also. ( 15 ) THE appellants who came on the land as watchman, who sub-sequently put forth a claim of tenancy and when it was not accepted and when their possession was declared as unauthorised, they have been squatting on the property by virtue of the orders passed by various Courts from time to time and are now putting forth a claim of settled possession without paying anyone for the enjoyment of the property all these years. Now they have gone to the extent of challenging the very reconveyance in favour of the owner of the property from whom they claim right to the property. This conduct of theirs is anything but fair and by such conduct they have disentitled themselves to the discretionary relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the fact that in law they have no right for the allotment of the site under section 38c of the Act. ( 16 ) THE learned Single Judge on consideration of the entirematerial placed on record and the relevant law governing the reconveyance and allotment and the various judgments cited at the bar has arrived at findings which are legal and valid. They do not call for any interference. We do not see any merit in this Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .