ORDER : Petitioner’s husband had applied for grant of a house site ad measuring 30 x 40 Sq. Ft. The husband passed away on 13.12.2006 leaving behind the petitioner herein and two sons. On the application of the deceased husband, the second respondent – BDA had allotted a house site ad measuring 40 x 60 Sq. Ft. in exercise of power under the provisions of the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 after receiving the sale consideration. Subsequently, the Sale Deed came to be duly executed and registered on 27.07.2004. 2. Pursuant to the Sale Deed, the entries in the Property Records also came to be mutated. After the petitioner acquired the title to the said petition site, she has been paying the property tax regularly and without any interruption, which fact is prima facie evidenced by the tax paid receipts at Annexure-E Series. There is also no dispute as to the petitioner having been put in the possession of the site in question. 3. When this was the position, the second respondent BDA vide order dated 26.05.2011 at Annexure-F to the writ petition cancelled the allotment of the said site on the ground that the application of the petitioner’s husband was for the allotment of a site admeasuring 30 x 40 Sq. Ft. whereas, by mistake, a site admeasuring 40 x 60 Sq. Ft. has been allotted. The said order also mentions about the Show Cause Notice dated 10.02.2011 having been sent to the address of the petitioner but remaining unserved. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner widow is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allotment of petition site was made vide allotment letter dated 07.02.2004 at Annexure-A; the BDA has admittedly taken a sum of Rs.4,54,600/as price for the said allotment; pursuant to allotment, the Sale Deed also has been executed and registered on 27.07.2004 at Annexure-E; possession of the site has been delivered to the petitioner on 29.07.2004 vide Possession Certificate at Annexure-D; the Property Records are also changed and that the taxes have been regularly paid and therefore, at this length of time, the power to rescind the allotment could not have been exercised by the statutory authority the second respondent BDA. 5. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that it has long been a settled position of law that the existence of power to do a thing per se, is not a ground for it’s exercise and further that the statutory power cannot be exercised after the lapse of a reasonable length of time, there being no explanation for the enormous delay brooked in the matter. 6. The learned counsel of the petitioner further submits that there does not exist power for passing of the impugned order rescinding the allotment inasmuch as no rule or order is cited in the impugned order to prima facie show that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of site admeasuring 40 x 60 Sq.Ft., the application for the allotment of a smaller site, notwithstanding. Even before this Court also no rule or ruling is cited to prima facie show that petitioner was not entitled to the allotment in question. The learned counsel further submits that the BDA having acted upon the application for allotment of the site and having received the full price for the site in question and having made the petitioner an absolute owner thereof is estopped from taking any action adverse to the interest of the petitioner in the said site. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-BDA vehemently contends that the very application of the petitioner was for allotment of 30 x 40 Sq. Ft. site and therefore he could not have had a site of larger dimension; it is true that BDA has accepted the price for the site of higher dimension, but that does not come in the way of a statutory authority rectifying its own mistake that too on the strength of an order of this Court made on 03.06.2010 in W.P.No.12112/2008; the allotment of site is not purely a contractual matter inasmuch as the same is governed by the 1984 Rules and therefore the plea of estoppel is not admissible. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. have perused the petition papers. 9. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. have perused the petition papers. 9. The first contention of the petitioner that site in question having been allotted way back in the year 2011, the BDA having executed and registered a Sale Deed after receiving the full price and the allottee having been put into possession thereof, it is not open to the BDA to rescind the allotment at this length of time on the ground stated in the impugned order, has force. The English Courts and the Apex Court of our Country have settled the legal position long ago that the statutory power vested in an authority cannot be exercised after the lapse of reasonable period. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned rescinding of allotment is hit by doctrine of estoppel because of series of acts on the part of the BDA having been acted upon by the allottee, is also kept in mind, after adverting to the contra argument of the learned counsel for the respondent BDA that the doctrine is not invokable qua statutory power, in exercise of which the allotment has been cancelled. 11. The striking feature of the impugned order rescinding allotment of the site is the absence of the allegation of fraud or some other culpable act attributable to the allottee whilst his application for allotment was being processed. Merely because this Court in some other writ petition had made certain observations permitting the BDA to rescind allotments of sites where their areal extent is more than what was sought for the allottee, the cancellation of allotment could not have been made. 12. Lastly, the rules governing the allotment of sites notwithstanding, an application for allotment is in the nature of an “invitation to treat”; the allotment letter is in the nature of an offer, which having been accepted by the allottee by paying the sale price, an accomplished transaction in the nature of a contract comes into existence, albeit its having some public law element. Therefore, the allotment could not have been rescinded except on the grounds on which a contract can be avoided. 13. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds; a writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 25.06.2011 issued by the second respondent – BDA at Annexure-F. Costs made easy.