Judgment : 1. Petitioner made an application in the prescribed. Form-ii for allotment of a site as a person belonging to the Economically Weaker Section falling under General Public Category, as per the BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (for short 'the Rules'). In response thereto, Bangalore Development Authority allotted site No. 1680, situated at VII Block, FE of SMV Nagara, Bangalore and sent an Allotment Intimation dated 06.02.2004. Petitioner deposited the balance sital value of 49,900/ on 15.04.2004. After issue of a show cause notice dated 19.10.2005, a site cancellation order dated 18.02.2006, vide Annexure-E having been sent, this writ petition was filed on 08.02.2013, to quash Annexure-E and for directing the respondent to execute a registered sale deed and convey the allotted site or allot and convey an alternate site. 2. Petition is opposed by filing statement of objections inter alia contending that the respondent having found that the petitioner is residing in Government quarters along with her husband, who is a Government servant and the income of the family being in excess of ?11,800/- per annum, the petitioner did not fit into EWS category. A show cause notice dated 3 9.10.2005 was issued and thereafter, the allotment of site was cancelled, vide Annexure-E. The request mode by the petitioner, that she may be enabled to pay the difference amount and to ratify the allotment by considering her claim in general category, being contrary to the Rules, was not agreed to. It has been further stated that there is misrepresentation and suppression of material fact by the petitioner to obtain the allotment of site and in view of the false particulars furnished in the prescribed Form-II, Rule 13(1) empowers forfeiture of the sital value. 3. Smt. S. Amrutha Sindhu, learned advocate, contended that the petitioner having complied with the requirements as per the Rules and the site having been lawfully allotted, the respondent has no right to pass the order of cancellation. She submitted that the Rules nowhere provide that the income of both the wife and husband should be considered while making allotment under category - EWS. She submitted that the Rules nowhere provide that the income of both the wife and husband should be considered while making allotment under category - EWS. Reliance was placed on an order dated 09.12.2009 passed in W.P. No 34536/2009 (Smt. Push pa V.N., vs. The Commissioner, BDA and another) in support of the contention that the requirements to be taken into consideration for placing the applicant in EWS category is his/her status alone and the income of the spouse is not required to be clubbed. She contended that the decision taken by the respondent being arbitrary and illegal, the impugned site cancellation order is unsustainable. 4. Sri G. Lakshmeesha Rao, learned advocate, on the other hand contended that the Rules made in the matter of allotment of sites to persons belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections, prescribe the eligibility criteria, the principles for selection and the allotment of sites, reservation of sites and the conditions of allotments and sale of sites. He contended that as on the date the petitioner submitted prescribed Form-II, the eligibility criteria in EWS category, entitled only a person with annual income of less than ?ll,800/- to apply and the petitioner's husband being a Government servant and she staying along with her husband in Government quarter, being ineligible to apply, she cannot claim allotment of site under EWS category. He submitted that the order dated 09.12.2009 passed in W.P.No.34586/2009, when relied upon by similarly situated person/s, in W.P.Nos.6932/2012 and 23007/2012, decided on 25.09.2012, was held as unacceptable and cancellation of site/s found allotted in EWS category was not interfered with. 5. Perused the writ record. The question for consideration is whether the BDA is justified in cancelling the allotment of site made, on the ground that the annual income of the 'person' exceeds v11,800/-? 6. Petitioner got herself registered for allotment of a site under Rule 8. Petitioner applied in the prescribed Form-II for allotment of site as a person' belonging to the Economically Weaker Section falling under General Public i.e., in response to the Notification No. BDA/ ADM/ Allot/ Secy/105/2003-2004, dated 09.09.2003. Application No.60567 was made under EWS category. As on the date of making application the petitioner was married and was staying with ner husband She was a Tailor by occupation and, declared the annual income as ?8,000/- only. Application No.60567 was made under EWS category. As on the date of making application the petitioner was married and was staying with ner husband She was a Tailor by occupation and, declared the annual income as ?8,000/- only. Her husband's occupation was shown as 'Attendar with annual income of ?60,000/-' i.e., in column No.24 of the prescribed Form-Ii. 7. The relevant terms defined in Rule 2 of the Rules read thus: "2(d) "Economically Weaker Section", means person considered to be belonging to Economically Weaker Section as notified by Government from time to time", provided that the person satisfies the conditions laid down in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10. 2(e) "Family" in relation to a person means such person, the wife or husband, as the case man be of such person, and the children, parents, sisters and brothers of such person, and wholly dependent on him; 2(f) "Form" means a form appended to these rules; 2(g) "Income" means the annual income of a person." (underlining is by me for emphasis) 8. Rules 4 and 11 being relevant, the same are extracted hereunder fcr ready reference "4. Reservation of sites to economically weaker sections.- (1) The Authority may set apart 40% of the total number of sites in any area for allotment to persons belonging to economically weaker section at 50% of the value of the sites. (2) Out of the sites set apart under sub-rule(l), the Authority shall allot not less than 15%, 3% and 2% of the sites to the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Tribes respectively and the remaining sites to other persons belonging to economically weaker sections." "11. Principles of Selection of applicants for allotment of sites and reservation of sites.- (1) The sites shall be allotted among the different categories as follows: (a) to (i) xxxxx (2) In respect of the categories (a) to (h) fhe Authority shall consider the case of each application on its merits and shall have regard to the following principles in making selection (i) The marital status of the applicant, that is, whether he is married or single and has dependent children, (ii) The income of the applicant and his capacity to purchase a site and build a house thereon for his residence; (5) Subject to the provision of rules 8, 9 and 10 the authority shall allot the sites under category (i)" 9. Indisputably, the petitioner's husband, as on the date the petitioner she submitted Form-II to the BDA, was working as an Attendar, with annual income of 160, COG/- and the petitioner was staying in the official quarter allotted to him. After the site was allotted and when the same was sought to be cancelled, the petitioner submitted a representation, vide Annexure-Rl and admitted that her husband is a Government servant and her annual income being more than til,500/- and she having applied under general public category, requested to ratify the allotment, by undertaking to pay the balance amount, by condoning her lapses. The said representation being material, reads thus: Language 10. While allotting the sites among different categories shown under Clauses (a) to (h) of sub Rule (2) of Rule 11, BDA should consider each application on its merit by having regard to the principles in making the selection, shown in Clauses (i) to (iv) of sub Rule (2), in view of the stipulation in sub Rule (5). The Authority should keep in view the marital status of the applicant, the income and capacity to purchase the site and build a house thereon for his/or her residence, which condition is in applicable to the applicants belonging to SC, ST and Backward Tribes only. Since the marital status of the applicant, along with the definition of the family under 2(e) of the Puies has to be kept in view, the income of both the spouses, children, parents, sisters and brothers of the applicant, not wholly dependent on the applicant, should be taker; into consideration while allotting the site. 11. The application should be presented to the BDA, only in the prescribed Form -II, for allotment of a site. Rule 10 relating to eligibility, also refers to a person. The word person has not been defined in the Rules. The same cannot be given a restricted meaning. Though the ordinary, popular and natural meaning of the word person is a specific individual human being, but in law, the word person has a different connotation and keeping in view the provisions contained in the Rules and the different columns in the prescribed Form - II, it has to be held that the definition of Family defined in Rule 2(e) being a comprehensive one, while construing the income of a person, defined in Rule 2(g), the income of the spouse should also be clubbed. 12. 12. To make available sites to those who do not own a site / house, BDA has been constituted to implement development schemes as per Karnataka Act No.12 of 1976. Sites cannot be allotted to those who own site / house, as it may amount to denial of a site to other deserving person/s who do not own or hold a site / house. The sites are allotted on concessional basis to the allottees and the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules must therefore be interpreted in such a manner as to serve their real purpose, so that the sites are available, as far as possible, to the largest number of persons and for preventing the same family members, husband or wife or dependents as the case maybe, from getting more than one site. 13. In this connection it is appropriate to notice the relevant portion of sub-Rule (3) of Rule 10. The same reads as follows: 10. Eligibility.- No person- (1) xxxxxx (2) xxxxxx (3) who or any dependent 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 Karnaiaka 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." The Rules contemplate allotment of sites to the 'economically weaker sections' at 50% of the price and allotment to others, with higher income, at a normal price. It is in this context, the definition of family and income with reference to a person, defined under Rules 2(e) and 2(g) and the word 'applicant' appearing in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub Rule (2) of Rule 11 have to be interpreted. 14. In. the order dated 09.12.2009 passed in W.P.No.34536/2009, on which reliance was placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, a learned Single Judge has held as follows: "From the above, it is clear that the income of a person concerned has to be taken into consideration for placing him/her under Economically Weaker Section Category. 14. In. the order dated 09.12.2009 passed in W.P.No.34536/2009, on which reliance was placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner, a learned Single Judge has held as follows: "From the above, it is clear that the income of a person concerned has to be taken into consideration for placing him/her under Economically Weaker Section Category. While considering the status of the applicant, the income of both husband and wife are not required to be clubbed together. There is nothing on record to show that the Government has issued a notification to the effect that the income of both the husband and wife should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the economical status of a person . The respondent Authority has not issued any endorsement to the effect that the sale deed cannot be executed...since +he income of the petitioner exceeds Rs. 11,800/- per year. Thus the BDA is not justified in cancelling the allotment of site made in favour of petitioner on the ground that the combined income of petitioner and her husband exceeds Rs. 11,800/-. Similar is the view taken by this Court in number of decisions including the one dated 15.12.2008 passed in W.P.No.6120/07 (EDA)." This order is not a binding precedent, as several relevant provisions of the Rules have not been brought to the notice of the Court. 15. When reliance was placed on the order, noticed in para 14 supra, in W,P.No.6932/2012 by the petitioner therein, similarly situated like the petitioner in the instant case, in the order dated 25.09.2012 passed by another learned Single Judge, it has been held as follows: "5. Notwithstanding the amendment to the relevant Rule, which indicates that the eligibility shall be as notified by the State Government from time to time. In the absence of any such Notification, and the fact that the petitioner's husband's income was far above the minimum prescribed as on the relevant date, the petitioner has not made out a case for allotment. It cannot be said that in the absence of a Notification by the State Government it can be presumed that the income of the spouse was irrelevant. If admittedly the petitioner's husband had an income - which took the family out of the bracket of the economically weaker- section - it would be a mockery of the object sought to be achieved. If admittedly the petitioner's husband had an income - which took the family out of the bracket of the economically weaker- section - it would be a mockery of the object sought to be achieved. Accordingly, the cancellation cannot be found fault with." (emphasis supplied) 16. While deciding W.P. No. 23007/2012 on 25.09.2012, when sustenance was sought to be drawn from the order dated 09.12.2009 passed in W.P.No.34586/2009, noticed in para 13 supra, it has been held as follows: "4. This contention is not acceptable, since if the earlier Rule is seen, it is the income of both the applicant and the spouse, which would be relevant. This Rule is imposed on other bonafide purchasers who are allotted sites to take into account whether any other member of a family has a site in her or his name. If that reasoning is extended to a person claiming under the economically weaker section it should equally apply that, income of all the members of the family should be taken into account. 5. In the absence of a Notification by the State Government, in the opinion of this Court, the above interpretation could be given. Therefore, cancellation of the allotment is in order and there is no warrant for interference." (emphasis supplied) 17. The object of Rule 4 providing for reservation of 40% of the total number of sites in any area for allotment to persons belonging to economically weaker sections and that too at 50% of the value of the sites is, to allot sites to socially and economically weaker sections and not allow the sites to socially and economically advanced person/family to avail the benefit of reservation and obtain the allotment of reserved sites. If an applicant whose spouse is having separate income, is fitted into economically weaker sections category and allotted the site only on the basis of declared income of the applicant, the very object of reservation of sites in the category-EWS would be defeated. It is only to check that there is no concealment of material particulars, Form-II is prescribed which has several columns and out of them columns 12, 13, 14, 20 and 24 are of material importance in the matter of selection for allotment of site, having regard to the principles stipulated in Rule 11. 18. It is only to check that there is no concealment of material particulars, Form-II is prescribed which has several columns and out of them columns 12, 13, 14, 20 and 24 are of material importance in the matter of selection for allotment of site, having regard to the principles stipulated in Rule 11. 18. The instant case is a classic example, as to how the benefit of reservation meant for persons falling under EWS category was sought to be defeated Though the petitioner's husband is a Government servant and has assured income, the petitioner claiming as a tailor and showing the annual income as 8,000/- had become successful in obtaining allotment of a site reserved for EWS category. If the income of the applicant alone is taken into consideration, in disregard of the marital status even though the spouse being employed and having assured income, there can be virtually no allotment in favour of those to whom the reservation is actually meant. 19. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the cancellation of allotment of site made in favour of the petitioner, since the order dated 25.09.2012 passed in W.P.No.34586/2009 has not been followed in the orders subsequently passed by this Court, noticed at paras 15 & 15 supra. The petitioner cannot draw any support from the order noticed at para 14 supra, wherein the relevant Rules and all the columns of the prescribed Form-II, seeking allotment of site, was not brought to the notice of the Court. 20. The sites reserved for allotment to persons falling under the Economically Weaker Sections, cannot be allotted to those person/s, whose and whose family's income is more than the prescribed amount. Merely because the applicant is not an employee or his / her own annual income is less than 11,800/-. the separate income of the spouse cannot be ignored. Such an approach would defeat the very purpose of the Rules and reservation made to Economically Weaker Sections. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. However, BDA is directed to refund the sital value deposited, to the petitioner, upon she submitting the refund voucher in duplicate, accompanied by all the records relating to the allotment of site. No costs.