JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the site cancellation order dated 13.10.2010 of Bangalore Development Authority (for short 'BDA'). 2. Considering an application EWS150327 of the petitioner for allotment of a site No.86 in Block-X of Arkavathi Layout, measuring 6x9 meters (EWS) was allotted and allotment intimation dated 24.06.2006 was issued. On 14.11.2006 petitioner was notified that she was ineligible for allotment of site and the allotment made in her favour was recalled. In response to a representation dated 23.05.2007 of the petitioner, an endorsement dated 28.03.2008 was issued. Petitioner having not filled up column-6 relating to the date of birth in her said application, she was directed to produce the proof. Petitioner submitted an affidavit stating that she having not studied in any school, she is unable to produce any document and that her age is 36 years. A further representation, as at Annexure-K having been submitted enclosing the documents stated therein, she was issued with an endorsement dated 14.07.2009 and the petitioner submitted another representation, as at Annexure-M, enclosing her caste certificate and certificate of birth. BDA having issued show cause notice dated 13.07.2010, a reply dated 18.08.2010 having been submitted, upon consideration and finding that the petitioner was not born as on the cut off date i.e., 20.05.1966 and she having not made six attempts for allotment and the allotment of site made to her was cancelled. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed, to quash the said cancellation order, as at Annexure-T and to direct the BDA to execute the deed relating to allotment of site No.86, Block-X of Arkavathi Layout. 3. In justification of the order of cancellation, respondents have filed a counter. 4. Sri Chandrashekara K., learned advocate contended that the petitioner having not suppressed any material in the application filed and the site having been allotted, the impugned order of cancellation is arbitrary. Learned counsel submitted that for the fault of the BDA, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. He relied upon the orders passed by this Court, copies of which have been produced, as at Annexures-V to V3. 5. Learned counsel submitted that for the fault of the BDA, petitioner cannot be made to suffer. He relied upon the orders passed by this Court, copies of which have been produced, as at Annexures-V to V3. 5. Sri B.S. Sachin, learned advocate contended that the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 13.07.2010 and she having not filled up her date of birth in column No.6 of the application, as at Annexure-B, submitted for allotment of site and subsequently having produced certificate of birth, which shows her date of birth as 07.05.1972, the cut off date for allotment of site being 20.05.1966, the mistaken allotment of site was canceled on 13.10.2010. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is unassailable. 6. Perused the writ petition record. 7. Annexure-B is the application of the petitioner, submitted to the BDA for allotment of site. Column No.6 therein has been left blank. BDA having allotted the site without having noticing the omission, in order to provide an opportunity of hearing, notified the petitioner on 26.12.2008 and 14.07.2009 (Annexures-J and L) to produce the document in proof of her date of birth. Along with the representation, as at Annexure-M, petitioner had produced her certificate of birth, which shows her date of birth is 07.05.1972. 8. Rule 13 of the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 contains the conditions of allotment and sale of site. Sub-Rule (10) makes it clear that if the particulars furnished by the applicant in the application form for allotment of site are found to be incorrect or false, the sital value deposited shall be forfeited and the said sum shall be resumed by the authority. Petitioner having not satisfied the condition i.e., cut off date with reference to date of birth i.e., on or before 20.05.1966, the BDA has passed the said cancellation order. 9. Indisputably, petitioner had left the column relating to date of birth, blank. Therefore, her application ought to have been rejected. However, she was granted opportunities to produce the proof with regard to her date of birth and she having submitted the certificate of birth showing her date of birth as 07.05.1972, the cut off date for allotment of 20 x 30 feet EWS site being 20.05.1966, BDA is justified in passing the order of cancellation, as at Annexure-T. 10. Petitioner has also not approached the Court with clean hands. Petitioner has also not approached the Court with clean hands. Even though, she had the certificate of birth, which she has obtained on 16.05.1978, still she had left column No.6 in the application, at Annexure-B blank and thereby petitioner suppressed material information. That apart, she produced false affidavit, as at Annexure-H with regard to not possessing any document in proof of her date of birth. No doubt, the site was allotted in favour of the petitioner, which appears to be on account of negligence on the part of the officials of the BDA. However, the petitioner being not eligible for allotment, as she was not born, on or before the cut off date i.e., 20.05.1966, BDA is justified in canceling the allotment of site. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the orders as at Annexures-V to V3 on which reliance was placed by Sri K. Chandrashekara have no application. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed and there shall be no orders as to cost. However, BDA shall reckon the seniority of the petitioner with reference to her registration No.138648, dated 27.02.1988 and the number of attempts made by her, details of which have been furnished in column No.21 of the application, as at Annexure-B. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent is directed to refund the sital value deposited by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date the refund voucher in duplicate along with the allotment records are submitted by the petitioner.