Judgment : 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the order dated 24.06.2006 – Annexure-Q passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Shivajinagar Sub-division of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. 2. By the impugned order, the Assistant Revenue Officer has examined the request made by the petitioner-Sakamma, vide her representation dated 17.10.2008 and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in W.P.No.17882/2008 disposed of on 05.03.2009. As the petitioner was found to be residing along with her son Sri Anand in Kalyani Slum, Sampangiramanagar and as the said Sri Anand had been allotted House No.14 apart from another House No.32 having been allotted in favour of the wife of the deceased second son of the petitioner, she was found not entitled for allotment of any house. The Assistant Revenue Officer has further held that the fact that the petitioner had been residing with her son Anand had been ascertained from a mahazar drawn in the locality. The Assistant Revenue Officer has held that the members of the same family cannot be allotted a third house and therefore the representation could not be considered. 3. Petitioner contends that she was not staying along with her son Anand, but was staying separately. In support of this, copy of the ration card is produced at Annexure-B and a copy of the electoral card issued by the Election Commission of India is produced at Annexure-C. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-Corporation has in fact allotted more than one house in favour of the relatives and in this regard he takes me through the averments made in paragraph 7(b) of the writ petition. He further contends that the action of the respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner is illegal and unsustainable. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the mahazar does not bear the signature of either the petitioner-Sakamma or her son Anand and therefore the same cannot be relied upon. He also contends that the mahazar is not served on the petitioner and therefore the contents could not have been relied upon by the Revenue Officer while passing the impugned order. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has made available the mahazar drawn on 17.12.2008, wherefrom it is seen that Sakamma-petitioner herein was residing along with her elder son Anand. He also contends that the mahazar is not served on the petitioner and therefore the contents could not have been relied upon by the Revenue Officer while passing the impugned order. 5. Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation has made available the mahazar drawn on 17.12.2008, wherefrom it is seen that Sakamma-petitioner herein was residing along with her elder son Anand. The persons who are the residents of the said locality and whose houses were situated in the vicinity of the house of Anand have signed the said mahazar. The Revenue Officer of Shivajinagar Zone has affixed his signature with his seal. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation Sri Puttegowda and upon perusal of the records, I find that admittedly the son of Sakamma, Anand and her daughter-in-law i.e., the wife of deceased son Kantharaj are allotted two separate houses in Kalyani slum of Sampangiramanagar. Petitioner claims that she should be given another house as she was residing separately before the construction was made on the assurance that slum dwellers will be given separate house. The respondent-authority has found upon reconsideration as directed by this Court that the petitioner was residing along with her elder son Anand. This is evident from the mahazar drawn by the Revenue Officer on 17.12.2008. The ration card produced at Annexure – B discloses that petitioner is staying with four members. The family members shown in the ration card are daughter Venkatalakshmi, aged 33 years son Kemparaju, aged 28 years and husband Munivenkatappa, 62 years. Petitioner has not said anything as to when the said ration card was issued. It cannot be made out from Annexure-B as to the date on which the ration card is issued to the petitioner. It cannot be said that Sakamma was staying independently and separately in an independent house as on the relevant date. Her son Anand is admittedly allotted one house in the slum. She has failed to show by producing cogent evidence either before the authorities or before this Court that she was staying separately. Further, the impugned order clearly shows that all the 32 houses constructed have been already allotted to the slum dwellers. Hence, the request made by the petitioner is rightly rejected. She has failed to show by producing cogent evidence either before the authorities or before this Court that she was staying separately. Further, the impugned order clearly shows that all the 32 houses constructed have been already allotted to the slum dwellers. Hence, the request made by the petitioner is rightly rejected. I do not find illegality or infirmity apparent on the face of the record in the order passed at Annexure-Q so as to warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction. 7. Though it is alleged by the petitioner against the authorities that several members in the same family have been allotted houses and there is hostile discrimination against her. This Court cannot examine this aspect as no materials are produced in support of this assertion. Except bare assertions, there are no supporting documents in this regard. More over, it is not known as to whether they were separately residing in separate houses or were residing together in one house. At any rate, unless the petitioner shows her right or the illegality committed in her case, she is not entitled for any relief. The contention that the mahazar is not signed by the petitioner or that the copy of the same is not served on the petitioner, has no substance, inasmuch as, the mahazar is drawn for the purpose of finding out the fact by obtaining the views of the neighbours. 8. Hence, there is no scope for interference in this writ petition. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.