JUDGMENT A.S. BOPANNA, J.—The respondent in W.P. No. 61.29/2009 (BDA) is before this Court assailing the order dated 2.6.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the said order, the learned Single Judge has quashed the order dated 24.1.2009 which was impugned at Annexure-N to the writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the appeal papers. 3. The respondent herein had applied to Bangalore Development Authority (appellant herein) for allotment of a site measuring 6X9 meters. In this regard, the initial deposit of Rs. 14,200/- was also paid on 20.12.2003. Pursuant thereto, the appellant issued an letter dated 3.2.2004 tinder which the site bearing No. 1913 in BSK VI stage further extension, IV H Block, Bangalore, was allotted. The total value of the site was Indicated at Rs. 1,13,400/-. The formalities required towards the completion of the transaction including the payment of balance sital value, was complied by the respondent herein. 4. When the matter stood thus, the respondent herein was issued with a show cause notice dated 21.4.2005 notifying that the appellants herein propose to cancel the allotment made in her favour. Since no reply was issued to the show cause notice within the time indicated, the appellant issued a letter dated 20.6.2005 and cancelled the allotment which had been made. The respondent herein had, therefore, approached this Court in W.P. No. 5839/2007 assailing the cancellation order dated 20.6.2005. This Court on noticing that the cancellation made was without proper opportunity, had by the order dated 25.6.2008 allowed the writ petition in part. Accordingly, the cancellation order was set aside and the respondent herein was permitted to file her objections to the proposed cancellation within the period of four weeks granted therein. The appellant herein was directed to consider the objections and thereafter pass appropriate orders in that regard. 5. On disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent herein filed her reply dated 17.7.2008. The appellant herein, on considering the said objection statement, has passed the impugned order dated 24.1.2009 by which the cancellation order has been confirmed. It is in that context, the respondent herein had instituted the present writ petition which is the subject matter of this appeal. 6. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has held that the respondent herein had not suppressed any material facts when she made an application seeking allotment of the site. It is in that context, the respondent herein had instituted the present writ petition which is the subject matter of this appeal. 6. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has held that the respondent herein had not suppressed any material facts when she made an application seeking allotment of the site. It was, therefore, held by the learned Single Judge that the appellant (BDA) who were aware about the particulars, had allotted the site and had also permitted the respondent herein to avail loan from the financial institution. One other aspect which was noticed by the learned Single Judge was that the present allotment had in fact prevented the respondent from malting an application for allotment of site in Arkavathi layout which was to be formed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has also stated that the period of 5 years had lapsed. Keeping these aspects in mind, the learned Single Judge has quashed the order which was impugned in the writ petition. 7. Having considered the rival contentions, the quest ion for consideration would be as to whether the learned Single Judge was justified in the view taken in the present facts? It is no doubt true that the respondent herein had disclosed the true facts. But, the question that would still remain is as to whether the respondent herein was eligible to be granted the site if the facts which were disclosed were considered in accordance with the criteria laid down by the Rules for allotment. The factual position that she was not eligible as per the prevailing Rules is not in dispute. The same is also evident from the very fact that the learned Single Judge has decided based on the reasons as recorded, which have been noticed above and not because the respondent herein was entitled to under the Rules. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, it is clear that if the application had been scrutinised diligently by the concerned Officers of the appellant the respondent was not entitled to be allotted the site in the present attempt. 8. In the above background, the further question would be as to whether the mitigating circumstances noticed by the learned Single Judge alone would be sufficient to hold that the respondent should be allowed the benefit of retaining the site which was wrongly allotted. 8. In the above background, the further question would be as to whether the mitigating circumstances noticed by the learned Single Judge alone would be sufficient to hold that the respondent should be allowed the benefit of retaining the site which was wrongly allotted. At the outset, it is clear that the allotment is erroneously made and the appellant has sought to rectify the error. The payment was made by the respondent on 27.3.2004. However, the transaction had not been completed by execution and registration of the sale deed or the lease-cum- sale deed. Prior to the same, the error was noticed and the show cause notice was issued on 21.4.2005 in about a year. Hence there is no inordinate delay and certainly five years had not lapsed as observed by the learned Single Judge. Further, possession of the site was not granted and as such the respondent had not altered her position by putting up construction or by making any further Investment. It is no doubt true that the respondent is stated to have secured the loan based on the ‘no objection certificate’ issued by the appellant and has deposited the sital value. The sital value in any ease would be refunded by the appellant. However, if the respondent has suffered any monetary loss by way of interest incurred or in any other manner, including the denial of opportunity to apply for allotment of site in a new layout the respondent would be entitled to establish the same and make the claim for interest or seek for damages. But, on the other hand, another eligible applicant cannot be denied the site by allowing the respondent to retain the site which she was not entitled to be allotted. If she is allowed to retain the site, third party right would be effected in the instant case. Hence, the mitigating circumstance or sympathetic view alone cannot be the basis. Further, any indulgence shown by this Court would only encourage connivance between dishonest officers and applicants who are capable of manipulation to overcome the Rules regulating allotment, though we hope that such a thing has not happened in the instant case. 9. Keeping all the above noticed aspects in view, we are unable to sustain the order dated 2.6.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge. The same is, therefore, set aside. 10. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.