K. L. MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) ON the request of the petitioner, C. A. Site No. 1 in Ideal Homes, H. B. C. S. Rajarajeshwari nagar, Bangalore was allotted to the petitioner on lease basis for a period of 30 years. Pursuant to the allotment order, entire lease amount of Rs. 2,24,673/- has been paid by the petitioner. As per Rules, petitioner was require to construct building and make use of the site leased in its favour for the purpose for which it was granted within a period of three years. Possession of the site was handed over to the petitioner on 29. 10. 1997 as per possession certificate dated 29. 10. 1997 which is produced as Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20. 8. 2001 as per Annexure-E stating that petitioner has failed to construct a building in accordance with the terms and conditions of lease. Therefore, petitioner was called upon to show cause why lease granted in his favour should not be forfeited. On 27. 9. 2001 as per Annexure-F petitioner requested the respondent to extend time to construct a building on the ground that petitioner institution is financially not sound. Respondent as per annexure-G on 13. 11. 2001 has cancelled the allotment made in favour of the petitioner and forfeited the entire lease amount paid by the petitioner. This order is called in question in this petition. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT has filed counter contending that since the cause shown by the petitioner was not a sufficient cause for extension of time, respondent in its meeting held on 13. 11. 2001 cancelled the lease and the entire lease amount was forfeited. According to the respondent, action initiated by the respondent is justified as the CA site has not been utilised by the petitioner in time for the purpose for which it is leased. Therefore, respondent requests the Court to dismiss the petition. 2. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, following points will emerge for the consideration of this Court: 1. Whether the respondent was right in forfeiting the entire lease amount deposited by the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondent can cancel the lease without giving adequate opportunity for the petitioner? ( 3 ) THE facts in this case are not in dispute. Petitioner was put in possession of CA Site on 29. 10. 1997. Whether the respondent was right in forfeiting the entire lease amount deposited by the petitioner? 2. Whether the respondent can cancel the lease without giving adequate opportunity for the petitioner? ( 3 ) THE facts in this case are not in dispute. Petitioner was put in possession of CA Site on 29. 10. 1997. Petitioner do not dispute the issuance of show cause notice by the respondent, but his grievance before this Court is that he has not been heard in the matter before cancelling the lease and that the respondent has no power to forfeit the entire lease amount deposited by him. From reading of Annexure-G dated 13. 11. 2001, it is clear that respondent has not considered the request of the petitioner for extension of time. Only on the ground that petitioner has failed to construct the building within the stipulated time, resolution was passed to forfeit the amount and to cancel the lease. The site in question was leased in favour of the petitioner to commence a kannada Medium School. According to the petitioner, due to financial constraints, petitioner could not commence the construction. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the respondent in its resolution dated 13. 11. 2001. Since the reasons assigned for cancellation of the lease is on an altogether different ground, it has to be held that the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent in a proper perspective. Accordingly, resolution dated 13. 11. 2001 is required to be set aside and the same is also required to be reconsidered by the respondent in regard to the cancellation of site of the petitioner in question. ( 4 ) WHILE cancelling allotment made in favour of the petitioner, respondent has forfeited the entire lease amount deposited by the petitioner. Sub-rule (7) of Rule-10 of The Bangalore Development authority (Allotment of Civic Amenity Sites) Rules, 1989, does not empower the respondent to forfeit the entire lease amount. Sub-rule (7) of Rule-10 of the Rules, reads as hereunder : "the lessee shall complete the construction of the building within a period of three years from the date of registration of the lease agreement or such extended period as the authority may in any specified case by written order permit. Sub-rule (7) of Rule-10 of the Rules, reads as hereunder : "the lessee shall complete the construction of the building within a period of three years from the date of registration of the lease agreement or such extended period as the authority may in any specified case by written order permit. If the building is not constructed within the said period, the allotment may, after giving reasonable notice to the institution, be cancelled, the agreement revoked and the lessee evicted from the site by the authority and after forfeiting twelfth and half percent of the lease amount paid by the institution the authority shall refund the balance to the institution. " from the reading of this sub-rule, it is clear that while cancelling the lease granted to the petitioner, at best respondent can forfeit only 12. 5% of the lease amount paid by the petitioner and respondent has to refund the balance to the petitioner. Since respondent has passed a resolution forfeiting entire lease amount, Annexure-G dated 13. 11. 2001 has to be set aside on this count also. ( 5 ) IN the result, this petition is allowed. Matter is remitted back to the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner. Liberty is given to the petitioner to submit one more representation if the petitioner is willing to seek extension of time to construct a building. If such representation is given, same shall be considered by the respondent on merits and in accordance with law and if the case of the petitioner for seeking of extension of time cannot be considered by the respondent, respondent has only power to forfeit only 12. 5% of the lease amount paid by the petitioner. In such an event, respondent is directed to refund balance of the amount to the petitioner.