( 1 ) THESE two petitions are taken up together for passing a common order. W. P. No. 6811 of 2004 is before me seeking for a direction directing the respondent to consider the objection of the petitioner dated 29-9-2000, Annexure-K with a further direction of an opportunity of being heard. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to petition averments petitioner is an absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of site bearing No. 1208, Sarakki II Phase extension, II Stage, J. P. Nagar, Bangalore measuring East-West 12. 19 meters and North-South 18. 29 meters. Respondent pursuant to allotment of the schedule property was put the petitioner in possession of the same in terms of the possession certificate dated 19-5-1980 thereafter an absolute registered sale deed was executed in terms of annexure-B. J. P. Nagar Second Stage was developed by the BDA. The said layout was transferred to Bangalore Mahanagara Palike for its maintenance by local board. Petitioner applied for change of katha in her name. The property was assessed to property tax. Annexure-C is the copy of the assessment and katha extract dated 4-12-1995 issued by the bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Petitioner applied for sanction plan and licence for constructing a residential house. Bangalore Mahanagara palike issued the same. Petitioner could not put up construction on account of financial difficulties. Construction of the shed and the compound wall was done with a view to protect the property. According to petition averments, BDA issued notice to the petitioner in terms of annexure-H, dated 25-7-2000 and sought for removal of unauthorised construction put up by him. Petitioner aggrieved by the same filed a writ Petition No. 19807 of 2000 in this Court. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 5-9-2000 and directed the parties to treat Annexure-H as show-cause notice in the matter. Petitioner was granted time to file objections in terms of the order of the Court. Petitioner filed objections on 22-9-2000 and acknowledgement dated 29-9-2000 is also produced at annexure-L. Petitioner with these facts is seeking for various directions as referred to above. 2-A. Impleading application was filed and the same was allowed. Impleading applicant was treated as additional respondent 3. Petitioner was granted time to file objections in terms of the order of the Court. Petitioner filed objections on 22-9-2000 and acknowledgement dated 29-9-2000 is also produced at annexure-L. Petitioner with these facts is seeking for various directions as referred to above. 2-A. Impleading application was filed and the same was allowed. Impleading applicant was treated as additional respondent 3. It is further stated that the land belonging to this respondent situated at rajamahal Vilas and the lands belonging to the other farmers measuring 1344 acres and 12 guntas was acquired by the BDA for development of a layout called Rajamahal Vilas II Stage, Bangalore. While notifying the land for acquisition the BDA passed a resolution dated 26-6-1984 wherein it was decided that each of the landowners would be given a site measuring 40 x 60 feet free of cost per acre. The resolution was not implemented. Petitions were filed in this Court. Petitions were dismissed. Matter was taken to Supreme Court. The supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal Nos. 14037 to 14056 of 1996 by setting aside the judgment of this Court and directing the BDA to deliver possession of sites to landowners. Pursuant to the orders of the supreme Court, the BDA allotted the site in question in favour of this respondent in terms of Annexures-R1, R2, R3 and R4. Respondent further states that the petitioner is guilty of forgery and manipulation in terms of the averments made in the objection statement. After noticing the forgery and the manipulation BDA has chosen to cancel the document in favour of the petitioner. He wants this petition to be dismissed. ( 3 ) BDA has filed its objections supporting the contesting respondent. BDA states that this Court on an earlier occasion directed an opportunity to the petitioner. Petitioner did not file objections in terms of the orders of this Court. After expiry of eight weeks, BDA took a decision and issued a sale deed in favour of the third respondent. They say that in the absence of any objections question of consideration of objections does not arise. They want the petition to be dismissed. Petitioner did not file objections in terms of the orders of this Court. After expiry of eight weeks, BDA took a decision and issued a sale deed in favour of the third respondent. They say that in the absence of any objections question of consideration of objections does not arise. They want the petition to be dismissed. ( 4 ) IN W. P. No. 26563 of 2004 petitioner seeks for quashing of the cancellation deed dated 2-3-2001 executed on 5-3-2001 vide Annexure-N. He also makes additional statement stating that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner stood cancelled at Annexure-L. According to the petitioner, the same has been done without hearing the petitioner. It is also against the direction of this Court. He wants an interference by this Court. ( 5 ) THIS petition is again objected to by the respondent-BDA. BDA would say that Site Nos. 1203, 1258 and 308 were allotted to respondent 3, Sri Venugopal and Sri D. M. Nagaraj respectively. It was noticed that some persons had fabricated the document in respect of the sites and got the katha changed. Police complaint was filed and accordingly the sale deed dated 12-9-1994 was cancelled by the deed of cancellation. They further deny the allegations. ( 6 ) BOTH the petitions were heard together. Documents were made available. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would argue that on an earlier occasion an order of removal of unauthorised construction was made and that was successfully challenged before this Court. This Court directed the BDA to consider the objections. The BDA without considering the objections ordered cancellation of the sale deed and that order runs counter to the direction of this Court. He further says that grant of land to third respondent is factually and legally unsustainable. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent would say that land has been granted pursuant to an order of this Court. He says that petitioner is unable to show as to how and when he got the site allotted. Learned counsel for the BDA would say that objections as such were not received. Even otherwise, he would say that the petitioner is guilty of fraud and forgery and that therefore the petitioner is not to be granted any relief ( 7 ) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. Learned counsel for the BDA would say that objections as such were not received. Even otherwise, he would say that the petitioner is guilty of fraud and forgery and that therefore the petitioner is not to be granted any relief ( 7 ) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 8 ) ADMITTED facts would reveal that the petitioner has been issued with possession certificate on 19-5-1980. Thereafter an absolute sale deed was executed on 12-9-1994. Thereafter the petitioner in the light of this document has chosen to get the katha certificate and other documents. Material on record also would reveal that originally the land belonged to the third respondent and that land was acquired. In terms of the scheme of BDA, landowners are entitled for 40 x 60 site free of cost and that was not provided to the third respondent resulting in a writ petition and subsequent allotment of a site in his favour. After noticing the sale deed in favour of the third respondent in respect of the land in question, the BDA issued a notice to the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction on the land in question in terms of annexure-H. Petitioner approached this Court and this Court directed the petitioner to file objections to Annexure-H. Thereafter according to the petitioner he filed the objections, however the same was not considered before passing the impugned order. ( 9 ) LET me see as to whether any legal right is available to the petitioner with regard to the site and whether the BDA has allotted the site in favour of the third respondent in violation of the directions of this court. ( 10 ) PETITIONER asserts that in terms of the direction issued by this court, he filed his objections on 22-9-2000 and he has produced the acknowledgement dated 29-9-2000, bearing No. 146915. Respondent asserts that no such objection was filed in the matter. In the light of this controversy, I called for the original register maintained by the BDA to satisfy myself as to whether the petitioner has really filed any objections. Original file was made available to me. From the original file it is seen that the acknowledgement No. 14695 would be for the month of April. In the present case, the said acknowledgement numbers refers to September. Hence a doubt is created in the mind of the Court. Original file was made available to me. From the original file it is seen that the acknowledgement No. 14695 would be for the month of April. In the present case, the said acknowledgement numbers refers to September. Hence a doubt is created in the mind of the Court. It is also seen that this Court disposed of the earlier writ petition on 5-9-2000. Objections were filed according to the petitioner on 22-9-2000. He has filed this petition in the year 2004 for consideration of his objections. This gives rise to a doubt with regard to the bona fides of the objections. Moreover a responsible public official has chosen to deny the receipt of the objections statement. Taking an over all view of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioner could not have filed the objections. ( 11 ) PETITIONER also challenges the subsequent sale deed executed in favour of the third respondent in the connected matter. Petitioner strongly relies on Annexure-A possession certificate and the subsequent sale deed executed in her favour. Possession certificate is issued in the matter of possession of land for 10 years. There is a further endorsement that the possession certificate is for the lease of land. Rules of BDA provides for an allotment and after allotment lease-cum-sale deed would be executed providing prohibition of sale of land for the first 10 years. No allotment letter, was produced with the writ petition. After noticing this, I adjourned the case on several occasions, for the purpose of production of allotment letter. However, petitioner places before me a notice with regard to enquiry in the year 1990 in respect of the land in question. I have gone through the absolute sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 12-9-1994. In the preamble of the sale deed, it is mentioned that the Vendee (petitioner) has paid the full value of the schedule site and executed a bond thereon and whereas the Engineer Officer has delivered the possession of the site to the purchaser. No bond is produced. In the possession certificate the schedule is shown as site No. 1208, Sarakki II Phase. ( 12 ) AT this stage, I must also notice the further facts in terms of the pleadings. The third respondent was the original owner and he was the land loser in terms of the acquisition. No bond is produced. In the possession certificate the schedule is shown as site No. 1208, Sarakki II Phase. ( 12 ) AT this stage, I must also notice the further facts in terms of the pleadings. The third respondent was the original owner and he was the land loser in terms of the acquisition. He was granted land in terms of the scheme pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court. BDA has also maintained a register in which various details such as, site No. , dimension, area of site, rate per sq. yd. , value of the site, authority for the value fixed, name and address of the lessee, date of allotment on lease basis, etc. , are mentioned. There is absolutely no reference to the petitioner in the register maintained by the BDA. On the other hand, name of the third respondent is shown in the register. It was in these circumstances, the respondent has rightly cancelled the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner in the absence of any acceptable material. The cancellation cannot said to be unsustainable in the case on hand. It also cannot be said that the [execution of a site] in favour of the contesting respondent is unsustainable. In fact, the said sale deed has been executed pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court in terms of the material available on record (Reference SLP No. 9562 of 1991, dated 23-9-1996 ). Taking into consideration, all aspects of the matter, I am of the view that no case as such is made out warranting interference in my discretionary jurisdiction. ( 13 ) BEFORE concluding, I am highly disturbed to see the way in which the sites are being considered by the BDA. Of course the transaction refers to pre 2000 period. Unscrupulous elements taking advantage of soaring prices of land in Bangalore, create documents and thereby create problems to all concerned. In the case on hand, possession certificate is produced with no supporting documents. The sale deed has been executed without proper verification. A mere cancellation by BDA would not serve the purpose of maintaining better discipline in a public office. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to once again order the BDA commissioner to get hold of the entire file and conduct a detailed enquiry as to how the possession certificate and the sale deed have come into existence. A mere cancellation by BDA would not serve the purpose of maintaining better discipline in a public office. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to once again order the BDA commissioner to get hold of the entire file and conduct a detailed enquiry as to how the possession certificate and the sale deed have come into existence. If the Commissioner finds anybody directly or indirectly party to this transaction, liberty is reserved to the Commissioner to initiate proper criminal proceedings against those concerned, in addition to departmental proceedings in accordance with law. Petitioner is also liable to pay a costs of Rs. 10,000/- to the third respondent towards these litigations. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .