Judgment :- 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner, at the first instance has sought a direction to the respondent to transfer title in respect of site No. 1774 in HBR Layout, 1st stage, 5th Block, Bangalore – 43, allotted in the name of her husband Sri. B.N. Prabhudev to her name. Subsequently, an application has been made seeking quashing of order dated 11.5.2011 (Annexure-L). 2. The petitioner has averred since that her deceased husband had made an application to the respondent authority seeking allotment of a residential site in Bangalore. After necessary registration, her husband was allotted the aforementioned site. In fact, applications were invited for allotment of sites. It is stated that the petitioner’s husband was unsuccessful in eight attempts, but in the 9th attempt, the site in question was allotted by a communication dated 27.5.1988 (Annexure-A). He was directed to deposit the sital value and the same had been done. Subsequently, lease-cum-sale deed was executed on 28.6.1991 (Annexure-D) and the possession of the site in question was also given to the petitioner’s husband. He died on 3.4.2007 leaving behind the petitioner and his daughter. Subsequently, the petitioner made an application for transfer of the said site in her name in the form of execution of an absolute sale deed and thereby made a representation and the same was not attended to, However, the petitioner was shocked to receive a notice dated 3.7.2010 stating that the petitioner’s husband was already in ownership and possession of a site and therefore, he was not entitled to any allotment by the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA’) and to show-cause as to why the allotment made by BDA should not be cancelled. A copy of the show-cause notice is produced as Annexure-J. The petitioner submitted her reply to the same on 24.7.2010, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-K. Since there was no action taken by the BDA on the representations made by the petitioner this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the BDA to transfer the site in the name of the petitioner. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent – BDA has cancelled the allotment of site in question by issuance of a cancellation order dated 11.5.2011 which is produced as Annexure-L. The same is also assailed in this writ petition. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent – BDA has cancelled the allotment of site in question by issuance of a cancellation order dated 11.5.2011 which is produced as Annexure-L. The same is also assailed in this writ petition. 3. In response to the writ petition, learned counsel for the BDA has filed statement of objection admitting the fact that the site in question was allotted in the name of petitioner’s husband. However, in application Form No. 2 at Sl.No. 18, the applicant has answered the question stated therein in the negative and thereby there has been a suppression of material facts in the application form since the petitioner’s husband was already in possession of a site. The BDA could not have been allotted a site in his name. Therefore, the same has been cancelled rightly. It is also stated that the petitioner’s husband has suppressed the fact that he was the owner of site No. 47 at Amarajyoti Layout, which he obtained by virtue of a Gift Deed dated 25.2.1997. Therefore, he was ineligible to apply for a site and that there has been an erroneous allotment of site. Therefore, invoking rule 13(10) of BDA Allotment of Sites Rules, 1984, cancelled the site in question and the sital value was forfeited and it was stated that the site would be resumed by the authority. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent-authority. 5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband was allotted a site on 27.5.1988. Thereafter, there had been an execution of the lease-cum-sale agreement and possession of the site in question was also handed over to him. He died on 3.4.2007 and therefore, the petitioner sought transfer of the said site in her name. It was at that stage, on the representation made by the petitioner, on the basis of some information given by a stranger, the application form filed by the petitioner’s husband for allotment of a site was scrutinized and on the basis of the information that the petitioner’s husband was in possession of site No.47 at Amarjyoti Layout, the representation of the petitioner was not considered and subsequently, the site in question has also been cancelled. He submits that the cancellation of the said site was on the premise that there has been suppression of material facts by the petitioner’s husband at the time of making an application and that he was ineligible to apply for a site from BDA which is not correct. That the provision applied by the respondent-authority is not correct having regard to the facts of the case since the petitioner’s husband was not allotted any site by any of the authorities stated in column No. 18 of the application form or by any house building society. He was a beneficiary of site No. 47 at Amarjyot0i Layout by virtue of a gift deed executed by his late mother. Therefore, it is not an allotment made by the house building society to the petitioner’s husband. Therefore, the respondent-authority was not right in cancelling the allotment of the site in question to the petitioner’s husband. He, therefore, would submit that the said cancellation has to be quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondent-authority to register the site in question in the name of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-BDA, while making reference to the statement of objections contended that column No.18 of the application form, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-R1, specifically relates to any earlier allotment of a site by any of the statutory bodies mentioned therein or house building co-operative society to the applicant. In answer to the said column, the petitioner’s husband has stated “No”. This is a suppression and misrepresentation made to the BDA since the petitioner’s husband was owning a site allotted by Amarjyoti House Building Co-operative Society. Therefore, he was not eligible to make any application in terms of Rule 10 of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules. 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) and therefore, invoking Rule 3 (10), the BDA has rightly cancelled the site and forfeited the sital value and has ordered for resumption of site in question which order does not call for any interference since the material information which has been sought in column 18 of the application form is directly relatable to Sub-Rule 10 of Rule 13. Therefore, the petitioner’s husband was not entitled even to apply for a site. He, therefore, would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner’s husband was not entitled even to apply for a site. He, therefore, would submit that the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the order passed by this court in W.P. No. 6106/2009 dated 21.1.2010. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arise for my consideration is, Whether the respondent – BDA was justified in cancelling the site in question? If not, whether the petitioner is entitled to transfer of the site in question to her name ? 8. From the material on record, it is not in dispute that on 10.9.1987. Petitioner’s husband had made an application for allotment of a site. It is also not in dispute that in response to the information sought in column No. 18 of the said form, the petitioner’s husband had answered in the negative. The question is as to whether the petitioner’s husband was disentitled to make an application for allotment of a site and as to whether there has been any suppression of material facts which would entitle the BDA to cancel the site allotted to him. As narrate in the facts, pursuant to Annexure-R1, the BDA allotted in site in question to the petitioner’s husband on 27.5.1998 and subsequently, lease-cum-sale deed was executed on 28.6.1991 and possession of site was also given to the petitioner’s husband. He died on 3.4.2007. it is also not in dispute that the petitioner was the beneficiary of site No.47 at Amarjyothi Layout, which site was allotted to petitioner’s husband’s elder sister who had in turn bequeathed the said site to petitioner’s husband’s mother who had in turn gifted the said site to the petitioner’s husband. It is, no doubt, true that the gift deed is prior to the making of an application for allotment of the site to the BDA. However, on the factual matrix of the case what has to be considered is, whether the petitioner’s late husband was disentitled or ineligible from making an application for allotment of site. In this context, Rule 10 reads as follows: “10. However, on the factual matrix of the case what has to be considered is, whether the petitioner’s late husband was disentitled or ineligible from making an application for allotment of site. In this context, Rule 10 reads as follows: “10. Eligibility – No person – (1) who is a minor [(1-A) x x x x x x] (2)who is not a domicile of Karnataka for not less than [fifteen years] immediately prior to the date of registration and (3) who or any dependant member of whose family, owns a site or a house or has been allotted a site or a house by the Bangalore Development Authority or a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (Karnataka Act 11 of 1959) or any such other Authority within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area or has been allotted a site or a house in any part in the State by any other Urban Development Authority or the Karnataka Housing Board or such other Agency of the Government, shall be eligible to apply for allotment of a site.] Provided that the requirement of [fifteen years] domicile may be relaxed; (i) in the case of persons who are domiciled in the State of Karnataka but being in the armed forces of the Union and servicing outside the State of Karnataka; (ii) in the case of persons who are domiciled in the State of Karnataka but have gone outside the State for [ employment or higher studies] and who bonafide intend to reside in the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. [(iii) x x x x x] (iv) in the case of officers belonging to All India Service, whose services are allotted to the Karnataka State Cadre and domiciled in the State of Karnataka for not less than two years immediately prior to the date of registration; (v) in the case of serving soldiers who are either serving in the State or outside the State of Karnataka.]” 9. Column No. 18 in Form No. 2 (Annexure–R1) reads as follows: “Do you or your Wife / Husband or your dependant children or your dependant parents or your dependant Brothers or Sisters own site or a house in the Bangalore Metropolitan area or have been allotted a site or a house in the Bangalore Metropolitan area by the erstwhile C.I.T.B. the B.D.A., K.H.B., H.B.C.S., or any other authority, indicate Yes or No. If yes furnish details.” On a reading of the said Rule as well as the information sought at Column No. 18, it becomes clear that if a dependant member of the family of the applicant owns a site or house or has been allotted a site or a house by (1) BDA or (2) a co-operative society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 or (3) any such other authority within the Bangalore Metropolitan Area or (4) any other authority in any part of such area or any other urban development authority or (5) Karnataka Housing Board or (6) such other agency of the Government, would be ineligible to apply or allotment of a site. Therefore, if an applicant comes into ownership of a site or has been allotted a site in any manner apart from what has been expressly stated in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 10 it would not be a boar for making an application. Neither would it make such an applicant ineligible for seeking an allotment of a site from the BDA. The object of the Sub-Rule is to ensure that a person is not a beneficiary of allotment from agencies which are stated therein twice. Therefore, any allotment made by any of the statutory bodies referred to in Sub-Rule (3) or by any house building co-operative society would disentitle such a person to once again seek an allotment of a site from the BDA. The object is to ensure that no person who has already been in ownership of site or has been allotted a site is not again enriched by allotment of a site from the BDA. The object of the said Rule is to ensure that when largess is distributed by the State through statutory authorities or by the house-building co-operative societies, no person would receive as double benefit. Therefore, the said Rule is only in the context of distribution or allotment of sites by statutory bodies or house building-operative societies. The object of the said Rule is to ensure that when largess is distributed by the State through statutory authorities or by the house-building co-operative societies, no person would receive as double benefit. Therefore, the said Rule is only in the context of distribution or allotment of sites by statutory bodies or house building-operative societies. The same does not take into consideration acquisition of house sites or house in any other manner known to law particularly under private transactions. 10. The said Rule is in the context of Article 39 of the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly, Clause ‘b’ and ‘c’ which state that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community must be so distributed as best to subserve the common good and that the operation of the economic system would not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment as well as the Article 38 which states that the State shall secure social order for the promotion of welfare of the people in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all institutions of national life and the State shall strive to minimize the inequalities in income, status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations. It is in that context that Sub-Rule (3) makes a person ineligible to apply for allotment of a site if he has been a beneficiary or has acquired a site as a beneficiary from any of the statutory bodies or house building from any of the statutory bodies or house building cooperative societies stated therein. The sub-rule does not state that if a person has come into ownership of a house or a site in any other manner known to law, then in that event also he would be ineligible to apply for allotment of a site. In fact, a person can come into ownership of a site or a house by virtue of a private sale, gift, exchange or in any other manner recognized in law such as by inheritance, succession, settlement etc. Such manner of gaining ownership of a house or a site would not disentitle a person fro allotment of a site by the BDA. Such manner of gaining ownership of a house or a site would not disentitle a person fro allotment of a site by the BDA. In the absence of there being any express provision stating that if a person has become owner of a site by a sale or a gift etc., or in any other manner known to law, the BDA cannot contend that such category of persons also would become ineligible to apply for a site. 11. The reason for issuance of a show-cause notice or for cancellation of the allotment is one, which has to be within the four corners of the Rule. Such a rule would require a strict interpretation since it entails adverse consequences resulting in cancellation of an allotment. On a strict interpretation of the said Sub-Rule, it would imply that if a person has come to ownership of a house or a site by any manner not stated in the sub-Rule would not disentitle such a person nor would make him ineligible to apply for a site. Column 18 in the application form is nothing but an information being sought on the basis of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 10. In the instant case, the petitioner’s husband answered the said column in the ‘negative’ since he was neither the owner of a site or house not was allotted one from any of the entities stated therein. 12. The BDA’s contention is that the said answer is suppression of material fact. Since the petitioner’s late husband was already in ownership of site No. 47 of Amarjyoti Layout, which was allotted from a House Building Co-Operative Society and therefore, he was not entitled to any allotment. The facts of the present case would have to be borne in mind before accepting such a contention. Site No. 47 at Amarjyothi Layout was not allotted to the petitioners husband at all. He was not even a member of the said society. He had become the owner of the said site under a gift deed executed by his mother who had inherited the said site under a will executed by her daughter who is none other than the petitioner’s elder sister and who was the owner of the said site No.47 . He was not even a member of the said society. He had become the owner of the said site under a gift deed executed by his mother who had inherited the said site under a will executed by her daughter who is none other than the petitioner’s elder sister and who was the owner of the said site No.47 . A benefit under a gift deed cannot be construed to be a benefit which has been received directly from the house building society i.e. Amarjyothi House Building Society, merely because the said site was originally allotted by the said society in the name of the petitioner’s elder sister. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any dependant member of the petitioner’s husband or the petitioner was allotted a site by any of the authorities mentioned in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 10. In the absence of there being any material to show that the petitioner was allotted a site by any of the statutory authorities or any house-building society as mentioned in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 10, the invocation of Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 13 stating that there has been misrepresentation or suppression of material facts or that there has been incorrect or false information given by the petitioner’s husband in the application form for allotment of site is erroneous. As already stated, placing reliance on something which is not mentioned or stated in the Rules and thereby cancelling the allotment is an instance of arbitrary exercise of power apart from there being non-application of mind. Therefore, show-cause notice as well as order of cancellation Annexures-J and N have to be quashed. 13. Learned counsel for BDA has placed reliance on the order dated 25.1.2010 by this court. The facts of the said case are that the applicant for allotment had not stated that her husband was an allottee of site by CITB. Non-disclosure of the said fact would clearly come within Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 13 of the Rules and the applicant therein had also no eligibility to apply for a site. It is under those circumstances, the cancellation of the allotment of the site was upheld and in exercise of discretion, this court directed the BDA to refund the sital value. The facts of the said case are quite distinct from the fact of the present case. Hence, the same is not applicable. It is under those circumstances, the cancellation of the allotment of the site was upheld and in exercise of discretion, this court directed the BDA to refund the sital value. The facts of the said case are quite distinct from the fact of the present case. Hence, the same is not applicable. Hence, Annexure-J and N are quashed. 14. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Since the only reason cited by the BDA for cancelling of the sites has not been accepted by this court, the respondent – BDA is directed to execute absolute sale deed in the name of the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Parties to bear their own costs.