Judgment : Site No.3-C/998/3 Block 1. Hennur Road, Banaswadi Road Layout, Bangalore, formed by the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) was allotted to the 3rd respondent under allotment letter dt. 12.11.1990 and following the entire sital value, the BDA executed a lease-cum-sale agreement on 17.11.1990 and put the 3rd respondent in possession of the site under possession certificate dated 23.11.1994. After the completion of the period of 10 years, there being no breach of terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement the BDA executed a sale deed dt. 26.6.2002 conveying the site absolutely in favour of the 3rd respondent. Thereafterwards, the 3rd respondent as an absolute owner paid the property taxes and secured a khata in his name in the registers of the BBMP when the site fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the BBMP. On 21.2.2007, the 3rd respondent conveyed by way of sale the said property, jointly, in favour of Sri N.R Srinivasappa and S. Suresh, who, in turn offered conveyed by way of sale, to the petitioner for a valuable consideration under a sale deed dt. 11.4.2007 duly registered, whereupon the katha was transferred into the name of the petitioner. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent-BDA executed a cancellation deed dt. 14.12.2007 Annexure-F, by canceling the allotment of the site in question to the 3rd respondent on the premise that the 4th respondent- wife of the 3rd respondent applied for and also obtained allotment of another site, violating the prescription that more than one member of the family should not be allotted a site. According to the petitioner, though a show cause notice was issued nevertheless was not served on the 4th respondent, while the 3rd respondent though served with notice did not tile a reply, following which the Commissioner of the BDA by order Annexure-G cancelled the allotment. Hence this writ petition to quash (i) the order dt. 16.11.2007 Annexure-G of the 1st respondent; (ii) the cancellation deed dated 14.12.2007 Annexure-F; and (iii) to quash the allotment of the said site in favour of the 5th respondent. 2. Petition is not opposed by filing statement of objections since the objections filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 are returned by the registry for non-compliance. 3. 16.11.2007 Annexure-G of the 1st respondent; (ii) the cancellation deed dated 14.12.2007 Annexure-F; and (iii) to quash the allotment of the said site in favour of the 5th respondent. 2. Petition is not opposed by filing statement of objections since the objections filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 are returned by the registry for non-compliance. 3. In the undisputed facts supra, the question as to whether the order dated 16.11.2007 of the BDA canceling the allotment of site No. 3-C-998/3, Block-I, HRBR Layout, Bangalore in favour of 3rd respondent in the year 1990, could be condemned on the ground of unreasonable delay in initiating action? 4. In almost similar though not identical circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in Bangalore Development Authority Vs. Smt. Sumitradevi, ILR 2005 (2) Kar 1386 having regard to Rule 13, clause 9 relating to allotment of sites under the Ban- galore Development (Allotment of Site) Rules, 1984 for short ‘Rules’ held thus: “In cases where no period of limitation is prescribed under the statute or rules made there under in exercise of power suo moto, the question for consideration is no whether the exercise of the power is barred by limitation for in the absence of a period of limitation prescribed under the Act, the question of bar of limitation cannot arise, but, it is a question of reasonable period, within which that power should be exercised. What is reasonable period within which the statutory. Suo moto power could be exercised would undoubtedly be dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case.” 5. Applying the very same principles to the facts of this case, there is an inordinate delay of more than 17 long years in the impugned action canceling the allotment of site made in favour of 3rd respondent, who, had infact conveyed the immovable property by way of sale in favour of N.R. Srinivasappa and S. Suresh, who, in turn, conveyed the site to the petitioner for a valuable consideration. Action having not been initiated to cancel the allotment within a reasonable time, on the premise that the 3rd and 4th respondents as husband and wife were both allotted a site each in contravention of the ‘Rules’ the order impugned of the 1st respondent after the property changed hands twice over, cannot but be faulted on the ground of delay. Action having not been initiated to cancel the allotment within a reasonable time, on the premise that the 3rd and 4th respondents as husband and wife were both allotted a site each in contravention of the ‘Rules’ the order impugned of the 1st respondent after the property changed hands twice over, cannot but be faulted on the ground of delay. Moreover, there is no material whatsoever to establish that the respondent BDA had in fact a reasonable cause for initiating action to cancel the allotment in the year 2007 and explain the inordinate delay. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allotment of the site in favour of the 5th Respondent has since been cancelled and therefore the petitioner does not press the last relief. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 16.11.2007 Annexure-G of he 1st respondent and the cancellation deed dated 14.12.2007 Annexure-F are quashed.