Judgment :- 1. The petitioner when allotted site bearing No.896 in BUDA scheme No.40 of Belgaum, measuring 50x80 ft. by respondent Belgaum Urban Development Authority, for short BUDA by letter dated 23/6/1998, Annexure ‘D’, indicating value as Rs.2,42,000/-, was called upon to pay Rs.60,500/-being 25% of the value within 15 days and the balance of Rs.1,56,500/- within 75 days thereafter excluding Rs.25,000/- paid as initial deposit. Petitioner paid Rs.60,500/- on 8/7/1998 and Rs.1,57,500/- on 8/9/1998. Despite the said payments duly acknowledged by the respondent, BUDA notice dated 27/7/2005, Annexure-K, was issued canceling the allotment on the premise that the petitioner did not execute a lease-cum-sale agreement. This was responded to by letter dated 13/9/2005, informing the authority, of the death of his father and that of his mother having fallen sick and thereafter his elder brother too having fallen sick, as the reasons for not registering the plot, which when not considered, made another request by letter dated 4/4/2007 Annexure-M and which when too when not considered, has resulted in this petition. 2. Petition is not opposed by filing statement of objection. Rule 19 Sub Rule (2) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1991 provides for execution of lease-cum-sale agreement in terms of Form No-III. The format of the lease cum sale agreement covenants that the Urban Development Authority, is the first party, while the allottee is the second party and that the Urban Development Authority, after having allotted the site, is required to execute the lease of the site in favour of the petitioner for a period of 10 years, subject to terms and conditions set out therein. 3. In the light of the aforesaid provision it goes without saying that the site when allotted to the petitioner by the BUDA, it was for that authority to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement and call upon the petitioner to also execute the said agreement. In other words unless the BUDA executes the lease-cum-sale agreement there can be no lease of the site in favour of the petitioner. That procedure when not followed, nor the BUDA having called upon the petitioner to furnish the required stamp paper engrossed with the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement of the site allotted, so as to comply with Rule 19(2), the notice dated 22/7/2005 Annexure ‘K’ canceling the allotment is arbitrary and illegal. 4. That procedure when not followed, nor the BUDA having called upon the petitioner to furnish the required stamp paper engrossed with the terms of the lease-cum-sale agreement of the site allotted, so as to comply with Rule 19(2), the notice dated 22/7/2005 Annexure ‘K’ canceling the allotment is arbitrary and illegal. 4. In almost identical circumstances, this Court in WP No.8459/07 dated 15/6/2007 in the case of Shri Anil Kumar Hardi Vs. The Belgaum Urban Development Authority, issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to execute and lodge for registration the lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the petitioner in respect of the site allotted to him, provided the petitioner makes available within a week, the requisite stamp paper engrossed with the terms and conditions of the lease as in Form No.III, to the Rules, within a period of 15 days there from. That order according to learned counsel for the petitioner, when carried in WA No.1172/2007 by BUDA was confirmed by order dated 27/11/2007 of the Division Bench. 5. Although the statement of objections to the petition is not filed, nevertheless leaned counsel for the respondent-Urban development Authority contends that the site in question was allotted and conveyed by way of lease-cum-sale to a third party much before the cancellation of allotment, Annexure-K, and therefore, that site is unavailable to the petitioner. 6. This contention is preposterous and unacceptable. The conduct of the respondent-BUDA in allotting the site No.896 in scheme No.40 to a third party without canceling the allotment in favour of the petitioner points out to mischief of the BUDA in the discharge of statutory duties. The BUDA is unable to justify its action, on the touch tone of justice fairness, reasonableness and as a reasonable, prudent owner. 7. It is useful to refer to the observation of the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta reported in (1994) 1 SCC 243 , that law has always maintained that public authorities who are entrusted with statutory function cannot act negligently, following the explanation in Geddis Vs. 7. It is useful to refer to the observation of the Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta reported in (1994) 1 SCC 243 , that law has always maintained that public authorities who are entrusted with statutory function cannot act negligently, following the explanation in Geddis Vs. Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878) 3 AC 430 which reads thus:- “I take it, without citing cases, that it is now thing well established that no action will lie for doing that which the Legislature has authorised, if it be done without negligence, although it does occasion damage to anyone, but an action does lie for doing what the Legislature has authorised, if it be done negligently.” It is further observed that Misfeasance in public office as explained by Wade in his book on Administrative Law, reads thus:- “Even where there is no ministerial duty as above, an even where no recognized tort such as trespass, nuisance, or negligence is committed, public authorities or officers may be liable in damages for malicious, deliberate or injurious wrong-doing. There is thus a tort which has been called misfeasance in public office, and which includes malicious abuse of power, deliberate maladministration and perhaps also other unlawful acts causing injury”. In addition the Apex Court observed that in Farrington Vs. Thomson SCC 1959 UR 286 the Supreme Court of Victoria awarded damages for exercising a power the authorities knew they did not possess, and reads thus:- “Now I take it to be perfectly clear, that if a public officer abuses his office, either by an act of omission or commission, and the consequence of that is an injury to an individual, an action may be maintained against such public office.” 8. The execution of the lease-cum-sale and the conveyance of the site by an allotment to a third party by the respondent–BUDA being illegal and without authority of law, cannot be sustained. 9. In the result, the notice, Annexure-K, is quashed and writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent-BUDA to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement in respect of site no.896 in scheme 40, in favour of the petitioner provided the petitioner makes available, the requisite stamp paper engrossed with the terms and conditions of the lease as in Form No.III, to the Rules, in any event within a period of 15 days. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State for further needful action and report.