Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order, dated 11.9.2009 (Annexure-P) passed by the respondent cancelling the allotment of site. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person. The doctor has assessed the disability at 60%, as is evident from the medical certificate (Annexure-A). He sought the allotment of the site in the category of the physically handicapped for whom 2% sites are earmarked as per Rule 11(1)(g) of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called ‘ the said Rules’ for short). The respondent allotted to the petitioner the site No.2694 in Sir M. Visveshwaraya Layout, VI Block measuring 12 X18 mtrs. vide allotment letter, dated 7.4.2003. 3. The total allotment consideration is about Rs.3,43,450/-. The petitioner had paid Rs.43,000/-as initial deposit. He paid Rs.1,30,000/-on 7.11.2003 and Rs.1,71,450/-on 26.8.2004. The sum of Rs.1,30,000/-and Rs.1,71,000/-came to be returned to the petitioner holding that they are time-barred. The respondent also passed the order on 15.10.2004 cancelling the allotment. It was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.46059/2004. This Court, by its order, dated 4.11.2008 set aside the cancellation order by remitting the matter back to the BDA for consideration of the petitioner's objections. On the remand of the matter also, the respondent passed the order, dated 11.9.2009 confirming the earlier order of the cancellation dated 15.10.2004. Aggrieved by the passing of the order, dated 11.9.2009, this petition is instituted. 4. Sri B. Rudragowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case is required to be considered with compassion, as he is a physically handicapped person. He submits that the Division Bench of this Court, by its judgment, dated 30.10.2009 has affirmed the learned Single Judge's order directing the BDA to receive the delayed payments with interest thereon. 5. Sri Rudragowda submits that the petitioner could not move about easily for raising the financial assistance for paying the balance allotment consideration. He submits that the petitioner is unemployed and that he begged and borrowed. With surmounting difficulties, he mobilised the balance allotment consideration and paid it. 6. He submits that the respondent has entertained the delayed payment in several cases, the particulars of which are set out in the objections (Annexure-N dated 30.3.2009). He submits that the petitioner is unemployed and that he begged and borrowed. With surmounting difficulties, he mobilised the balance allotment consideration and paid it. 6. He submits that the respondent has entertained the delayed payment in several cases, the particulars of which are set out in the objections (Annexure-N dated 30.3.2009). He submits that precedents of receiving and entertaining the delayed payments have not been denied by the respondent in its counter. 7. He also read out Rule 13(1) of the said Rules. It is extracted herein below: "13. Conditions of allotment and sale of site.- The allotment of a site under these rules shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) The allottee shall, within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of notice of allotment pay to the Authority, the balance sital value deducting the initial deposit. If the balance sital value is not paid within a period of sixty days, the Authority may on application of the allottee, extend the time for payment for a further period not exceeding one hundred twenty days as a final chance and the allottee shall pay an additional interest at the rate of eighteen per cent on the balance sital value for the first thirty days of the extended period and at the rate of twenty one per cent for the next ninety days of the extended period. If the amount is not paid within such extended period also, the registration fee shall be liable to be forfeited and the allotment may be cancelled without prior intimation.” Provided that where an allottee is a person belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Tribes or the family of a defence personnel killed or disabled during hostilities and whose annual income from all sources does not exceed rupees eleven thousand and eight hundred only or belonging to an economically weaker section as notified by the Government from time to time, the balance of the value of the site required to be paid under this sub-rule shall be paid by him without interest, within a period of three years in equal annual instalments from the date of receipt of the notice of allotment. 8. Based on the afore-extracted proviso, he would contend that the payment of allotment consideration can be made within a period of three years. 9. 8. Based on the afore-extracted proviso, he would contend that the payment of allotment consideration can be made within a period of three years. 9. Sri Praveen Kumar Raikote, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Rules do not permit the receipt of the allotment consideration after the expiry of 60 days from the date of the receipt of the notice of allotment. The respondent may extend the time for a further period not exceeding 120 days as a final chance and by imposing an additional interest at the rate of 18% on the balance sital value for the first 30 days of the extended period and at the rate of 21% for the next 90 days of the extended period. He further submits that if the amount is not paid within the extended period also, the registration fee would be forfeited and the allotment would be cancelled. He submits that the respondent cannot receive any payments made beyond a period of 180 days from the date of the receipt of the allotment letter. He has also relied on this Court's order, dated 1.9.2010 passed in W.P.No.18993/2009 dismissing the similar petitions following the Division Bench judgment. 10. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The question that falls for my consideration is whether the allotment of site can be withdrawn from a physically handicapped person on the ground that there is eight months' delay in paying the balance allotment consideration? 11. For answering this question, I may usefully refer to the laudable legislation made by the Parliament -Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter called as ‘the PWD Act' for short). It aims at the rehabilitation of the physically handicapped persons. It obligates the State and its instrumentalities like the respondent BDA to extend benefits to persons with disabilities. The provisions contained in Section 43 of the PWD Act are extracted hereinbelow: "43. Schemes for preferential allotment of land for certain purposes.-The appropriate Governments and focal authorities shall by notification frame schemes in favour of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of land at concessional rates of - .(a) house; .(b) setting up business; .(c) setting up of special recreation centres; .(d) establishment of special schools; .(e) establishment of research centres; .(f) establishment of factories by entrepreneurs with disabilities. 12. 12. Thus, it is a mandate of the Union Legislature that the persons with disabilities be given the preferential allotment of land at concessional rates. The preferential allotment and the concessional rate may prove to be a mirage, if the persons with disabilities are in no position to make the payment towards the allotment of land within a few weeks or months. The persons with disabilities are to be given more time than the time given to the allottees belonging to other categories. 13. Section 66 of the PWD Act reads as follows: "66. Appropriate Governments and local authorities to undertake rehabilitation.- .(1) The appropriate Governments and the local authorities shall within the limits of their economic capacity and development undertake or cause to be undertaken rehabilitation of all persons with disabilities. .(2) For purposes of sub-section (1), the appropriate Governments and local authorities shall grant financial assistance to non-Governmental Organisations. .(3) The appropriate Governments and local authorities while formulating rehabilitation policies shall consult the non-Governmental Organisations working for the cause of persons with disabilities." 14. It is beneficial to refer to the Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the case of NATIONAL FEDERATION OF BLINDS, U.P. BRANCH AND ANOTHER VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERSreported in AIR 2000 ALLAHABAD 258. "25. Rehabilitation means the restoration of the disabled to the fullest physical, mental, social, vocational and economic usefulness of which persons is capable. In other words, rehabilitation is a goal oriented programme which aims at enabling an impaired person to reach an optimum mental, physical, or social functional level, which follows basically three aspects; Physical Rehabilitation, Vocational Rehabilitation and Psychosocial Integration of the Disabled. 26. The physical and vocational rehabilitation cannot be achieved desired result unless disabled feel himself psychologically integrated and the society is willing to accept them as productive members. A disabled person not only suffers from the agony of being physically handicapped, but also suffers from the malice of being socially handicapped. Such person also faces adjustment problems of different nature. A disabled suffers from feeling of insecurity both physical and emotional. The false notions about disability in the mind of a common man, deprived a disabled person of his right to lead a meaningful life, which results into deep mental agony, physical discomfort, aversion, ridicule and scorn of the able-bodied, which escalate emotional problems. A disabled suffers from feeling of insecurity both physical and emotional. The false notions about disability in the mind of a common man, deprived a disabled person of his right to lead a meaningful life, which results into deep mental agony, physical discomfort, aversion, ridicule and scorn of the able-bodied, which escalate emotional problems. Promotion of the rights of disabled person, rehabilitation as well as integration are the main streams of social life and are of paramount importance. Problems on disability is mere syndrome, the root causes are inherent in mass poverty, social segregation and illiteracy. The only permanent solution of disability problem, which a handicapped person faces, could be their psycho-social and economic integration and proper placement which will enable them to stand on their own with dignity and decency. 29. It is really unfortunate that the State Government as well as local authorities, including the development bodies, have not framed a scheme in favour of the persons who suffer from such disabilities. Non-framing of such a scheme would not in any way negate the provisions of Sec.43 of the Act, which clearly lays down that such disabled persons will get preference in the matter of allotment of land and houses at concessional rates. It is a matter of common knowledge that the land and houses at concessional rates are given by the Lucknow Development Authority to various other categories of persons like legislators, journalists, freedom fighters etc, and their own employees. Why the handicapped persons should be denied the concessional rates for allotment of land and houses, has not been indicated in the order passed by the Lucknow Development Authority. Only this much has been indicated in the order of the Lucknow Development Authority dated 27.9.1999 that although the blind persons will get preference in the matter of allotment but they will not be given any discount concession in the rates. This order runs contrary to the provisions of Sec.43 of the Act, referred to above. The contention of the Lucknow Development Authority is that neither the State nor the Lucknow Development Authority has framed any Scheme and notified the Scheme, hence the handicapped persons cannot be given land or house on concessional rates. Such a contention cannot be accepted. It was the obligation of the State Government and all focal bodies including the Development Authorities, to frame a Scheme and notify the same. Such a contention cannot be accepted. It was the obligation of the State Government and all focal bodies including the Development Authorities, to frame a Scheme and notify the same. If they had not done so, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong." 15. The benevolent provisions of the PWD Act warrant a considerate and humanistic approach. The provisions contained in Section 43 of the PWD Act are in Chapter VII under the caption ‘AFFIRMATIVE ACTION’. There is a duty cast on the appropriate Government, focal authorities and development authorities to frame the schemes in favour of persons with disabilities for the preferential allotment of sites at concessional rates. 16. The Delhi High Court by its order, dated 14.3.2008passed in the case of SANJAY KUMAR JHA VERSUS AIIMS AND ANOTHERin W.P.(C)No.14332/2004 has held that the commercial purpose should not govern the actions of the authorities having regard to the objectives with which PWD Act has been enacted. 17. It is also profitable to refer to the direction given by the Honourable Supreme Court in its decision in the case of SH. SALIL CHATURVEDI AND PRAJWALA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND OTHERS in W.P.(C) Nos.56 and 576/2004 and 212 and 580/2003 disposed off on 4.3.2009. It is as follows: "3. Under, the above circumstances, we direct that whenever the State Governments or local authorities allot land for various purposes indicated in Section 43 of the Act and various items indicated in Section 43, preferential treatment be given to the disabled persons and the land shall be given at concessional rate. The percentage of reservation may be left to the discretion of the State Governments/local authorities. However, total percentage of disabled persons shall be taken into account while deciding the percentage…….." 18. The Delhi High Court has this to say in the case of GULSHAN VERSUS O.D.A.in W.P.(C)No.22934/2005 and CM 15021/2005 disposed off on 18.8.2006. "10. The Act was conceived as a measure to ensure a barrier free society, guaranteeing certain affirmative rights to persons with various disabilities and impairments. Section 43 casts are obligation upon appropriate governments to formulate schemes for preferential allotment of lands and houses, to benefit persons with disabilities. "10. The Act was conceived as a measure to ensure a barrier free society, guaranteeing certain affirmative rights to persons with various disabilities and impairments. Section 43 casts are obligation upon appropriate governments to formulate schemes for preferential allotment of lands and houses, to benefit persons with disabilities. Further parliamentary recognition of the special nature of cerebral palsy and the need to adopt distinctive measures, took place in 1999, when the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 was enacted. The Parliament established a Trust, under the Act, with a corpus of Rs.100 crore to inter alia, enable and empower persons with disability to live as independantly and as fully as possible within and as close to the community to which they belong." 19. Considering the statutory provisions and the Courts' decisions to which the elaborate references are made hereinabove, I answer the question in the negative. Consequently, I direct the respondent BDA to receive the delayed payment of the amount from the petitioner with the permissible interest thereon. The proviso to Rule 13 (1) of the said Rules extracted hereinabove also provides for the delayed payments upto three years in respect of certain categories of persons. But strangely enough, the category of the physically handicapped persons does not figure in the said proviso. 20. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has 60% disability. He is not even in a position to walk on his own. There may have been some difficulty for him in moving out and reaching out to the bankers for raising the financial assistance. The delay of eight months in making the payment cannot be held to be fatal to the retention of the allotment of site in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The protection to the petitioner has to be extended in the letter and spirit of the afore-extracted statutory provisions. The petitioner's physical impairment or medical condition cannot entail in a situation of the denial of the allotment. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The respondent BDA is directed to send the demand notice quantifying the petitioner's liability towards both the allotment consideration and the accumulated interest thereon within two weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order. 21. For all the aforesaid reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed. The respondent BDA is directed to send the demand notice quantifying the petitioner's liability towards both the allotment consideration and the accumulated interest thereon within two weeks from the date of the issuance of the certified copy of today's order. The petitioner shall comply with the demand notice by making the full payment within two weeks from the date of the demand notice. On the receipt of the full allotment consideration and the interest thereon within the period stipulated herein, the respondent BDA shall execute the lease-cum-sale agreement in favour of the petitioner in respect of the site in question. It is made clear that if the petitioner defaults in making the payment within the timeframe stipulated herein, the benefit of this order would not remain accrued to him. 22. This Court also considers it just and necessary to direct the respondent BDA to frame the necessary scheme in favour of the persons with disabilities to implement the provisions of Section 43 of the PWD Act effectively.