Judgment :- (This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 25.8.2007 vide Annexure-H issued by the respondent.) The petitioner's application - Annexure-A dated 10.10.2003 fructified into an allotment of site no.1070 in IV T Block, Further Extension of BSK VI Stage measuring 6 X 9 metres (EWS) under allotment letter dated 5.2.2004 - Annexure-B, following which the respondent - Bangalore Development Authority issued a NOC dated 04.02.2004 -Annexure-C permitting the petitioner to mortgage the property allotted for raising a loan to meet the value of the site being Rs.56,700/-. The Bangalore Development Authority having noticed the vacillatory statements made over the income of the petitioner, both, in the application and the certificate, called upon the petitioner to appear before the authority for an explanation over the said statements, by endorsement dated 16.12.2005 - Annexure-D, to which the petitioner addressed a reply dated 3.2.2006 -Annexure-E stating that she had deposited Rs.10,000/- and Rs.25,000/- and that the balance of Rs.14,900 /- was deposited under Challan No.12305 dated 3.2.2006 with the Canara Bank totalling to Rs.49,900/-. By another letter dated 25.2.2006 - Annexure-F, petitioner is said to have enclosed a NOC and sought for execution of the documents relating to the allotment. It appears the petitioner having made available a income certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk certifying the petitioner's annual income as Rs.11,000/-according to her sworn statement, the discrepancy in the income of Rs.11,800/-, shown in the application - Annexure-A was sought to be clarified by letter dated 21.12.2006 - Annexure-G. The Bangalore Development Authority having considered the explanation offered by the petitioner over the discrepancy declined to accept the same and accordingly by order dated 25.8.2007 - Annexure-H cancelled the allotment. Thereafter wards, the petitioner is said to have made a representation dated 18.7.2008 - Annexure-J to withdraw the cancellation order which when not considered has resulted in this writ petition to quash Annexure-H and for a writ of mandamus directing the Bangalore Development Authority to issue an absolute sale deed of the site allotted to the petitioner. 2. Thereafter wards, the petitioner is said to have made a representation dated 18.7.2008 - Annexure-J to withdraw the cancellation order which when not considered has resulted in this writ petition to quash Annexure-H and for a writ of mandamus directing the Bangalore Development Authority to issue an absolute sale deed of the site allotted to the petitioner. 2. The petition is opposed by filing statement of objections of the respondent Bangalore Development Authority inter alia not denying the facts of the application, allotment and the communications, but that the income certificate furnished by the petitioner in the application discloses annual income of Rs.11,000/- while in the applications, the petitioner's income is shown as Rs.11,800/-, and that of her husband as Rs.11,800/-, hence, being in excess of Rs.11,800/-, the cancellation of allotment under the EWS category. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 4. Although the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the annual income of Rs.11,800/- mentioned in the application - Annexure-A is that of her husband by name Mallikarjunaiah, a coolie by avocation, nevertheless the Tahsildar has certified that it is the petitioner and her parents as well as dependants have an annual income of Rs.11,000/-, which is based upon the petitioners' declaration. 5. There is no dispute that the application - Annexure -A was filed by the petitioner for allotment of a site meant for Economically weaker sections under the General Category, having an annual income of less than Rs.11,800/-, in accordance with The Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of sites) Rules 1984, for short 'Rules'. The term "Economically Weaker Section" is defined under Rule 2(d) to mean a person whose total annual income and that of the members of the family does not exceed Rs.11,800/-. 6. A perusal of the contents of the application Annexure -A discloses that against column No.13 the petitioner has disclosed her occupation as 'House wife', while against the next column No.14, annual income as Rs.11,800/-and against column No.24, indicated the name of her husband, the date of birth and his annual income as Rs.11,800/- which his occupation as a coolie. The certificate enclosed to the application, a copy of which is made available by the learned counsel for the BDA, certifies the petitioner's annual income as Rs.11,000/-(supra). 7. The certificate enclosed to the application, a copy of which is made available by the learned counsel for the BDA, certifies the petitioner's annual income as Rs.11,000/-(supra). 7. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner declared her occupation as house wife, and annual income of her husband as Rs.11,800/-, the annual income of Rs.11,800/-shown against Column No.14 ought to be read as income of the husband, is countered by the learned counsel for the BDA as a specious plea, in the light of the certificate of the Tahsildar certifying petitioner's annual income as Rs.11,000/- and not that of her husband. 8. If the petitioner had no income of her own then petitioner ought to have obtained a certificate from the Tahsildar, certifying the annual income of her husband which included the petitioner wife, to be less than Rs.11,800/-in order to claim a right to an allotment for Economically Weaker Section, under the General Category, as set out in the Rules. Petitioner having submitted a certificate issued by the Tahsildar, certifying her annual income, along with her parents and dependants as Rs.11,000/- cannot be heard to contend that the certificate is to be read as that of her husband's annual income. If the argument is accepted then there can be no sanctity attached to the contents of the certificate, which is impermissible. The authority invested with the jurisdiction to certify the annual income of a person, has issued the certificate, indicating petitioner's annual income, it cannot be read as income of the petitioner's husband. Admittedly petitioner did not furnish the annual income certificate of her husband. 9. Reckoning the admitted facts that against Column No.14, in the application Annexure - A, petitioner declared her annual income as Rs,11,800/-(which she should not have mentioned if she had no income of her own), and the annual income of Rs.11,800/-of her husband as declared at Column No.24, while the annual income of Rs.11,000/-of the petitioner, her parents and dependants, as certified by the Tahsildar, no exception can be taken to the cancellation of the site allotted to the petitioner, on the premise that there are vacillatory claims to annual income, and that the total income of the petitioner and her husband, put together is Rs.22,800/- (Rs.11,000/-+ Rs.11,800), for in excess of Rs.11,800/- fixed by the State Government to claim to belong to the Economically Weaker Section. 10. 10. It must be noticed that Economically Weaker Section, is a special category, of persons having annual income of less than Rs.11,800/-and therefore, there is a need to strict adherence to proof of belonging to such category, more so since special provision is made for allotment of sites to such persons. In other words, calls for careful scrutiny of applications for allotment of sites in that special category, so as to weed out applications which do not confirm to the strict requirement of annual income, and make allotment to persons who establish their right to such allotments. If a person is unable to establish proof of his annual income to be less than Rs.11,800/-and if an allotment of a site is made, then a person who is otherwise eligible will be deprived of a legitimate allotment. Such a course of action would be detrimental to the policy of the State and tantamount to deprivation, which is illegal. 11. In the facts and circumstances, petitioner has not made out a case for interference, with the order of cancellation of allotment of a site for Economically Weaker Section, under the Rules. Petition devoid of merits is rejected.