Judgment Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'BDA' for short) challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9547/2011 dated 29.07.2011. 3. A civic amenity site was allotted to the respondent-Society. A lease agreement was entered into on 14.03.2007. Immediately, the respondent-Society filed an application for grant of licence to construct the building. The plan was sanctioned only on 21.04.2008 and thereafter, the respondent-Society started putting up construction to complete the building in accordance with the plan. In the meanwhile, the respondent received a notice from the appellant dated 18.02.2011 stating that the land allotted to the Society is cancelled on the ground that the respondent-Society did not complete the construction within a period of two years. The cancellation order was questioned by the respondent before the learned Single Judge. According to the appellant, the respondent-Society was required to complete the construction by obtaining the plan within a period of six months from the date of the lease agreement and two years later from the date of the sanction. 4. The learned Single Judge after examining the case of the parties and after considering the arguments advanced by the parties came to the conclusion that in terms of Clause-7 of the agreement, the plan itself was not sanctioned by the BDA. The same was approved at a later date and that the respondent-Society had commenced construction in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. Therefore, the order of cancellation was held to be bad in law. It was also held by the learned Single Judge that before cancellation of allotment, not even a notice was issued to the respondent-Society. This order is called in question in this appeal. 5. Sri Nanjunda Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the BDA submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petition, since the respondent has failed to complete construction within a period of two years as agreed upon and that the finding of the learned Single Judge in regard to Clause-7 of the agreement is incorrect. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Therefore, he requests the Court to allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. But we are unable to agree with the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel, because at the first instance, before cancelling a lease of an immovable property, a statutory authority is required to follow the principles of natural justice. Without issuing notice, lease has been unilaterally cancelled and therefore only on this ground the learned Single Judge could have allowed the writ petition. Be that as it may. Even on merits, the learned Single Judge has held that within the stipulated time, plan has not been sanctioned by the BDA. If the BDA has taken its own sweet will and time to sanction the plan, the respondent cannot be blamed for the inaction on the part of the BDA in not considering the plan submitted by the respondent. 7. Therefore, viewed from any angle, we do not see any merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.