JUDGMENT : Krishna S. Dixit, J. - The petitioner who happens to be the widow of one Mr. late Madaiah, is calling in question the endorsements dated 16.10.1998 and 03.05.2017 issued by the respondent- BDA at Annexures-P & V respectively which come in the way of consideration of petitioner's claim for grant of the site in her favour on the ground that the applicant husband is dead. 2. The latest endorsement dated 03.05.2017 which is self explanatory, issued by the respondent - BDA at Annexure-V reads as under: Vernacular Matter Omitted "Rule 8-A of BDA (Allotment of sites) Rules, 1984 is inserted in the Rules by notification No. UDD 411 MNJ 2000 (P) dated 2310-2000 with effect from 24-10-2000. Thus, the said provision is prospective in nature and therefore, it cannot be applied with retrospective effect. As it is well established principle of law as laid down in the decision reported in (2016) 2 SCC 129) (sic) the applicability of law is always prospective in nature unless it is expressly or by intendment provided to the contrary. For the aforesaid reasons Smt. Nanjamma w/o deceased Madaiah is not entitled to allotment of site as claimed by her." Vernacular Matter Omitted 3. The respondent having entered appearance through its counsel opposes the writ petition on the ground stated in the aforesaid impugned endorsement itself. In short, it is submitted that the applicant - husband having died before he was allotted a site, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of site on the basis of the said application is impermissible inasmuch as Rule 8-A of the 1984 Rules being prospective is not invocable. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of the Court to the legal opinion tendered by the law department of the respondent-BDA vide paragraph Nos. 101 and 102 dated 03.08.016 at Annexure-T to the writ petition which read as under: 101. - "Rule 8-A of BDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1984 provides that when a person who has registered himself under Rule 8 dies before withdrawal of registration, his or her spouse and if there is no surviving spouse, his or her dependent children shall be deemed to be persons registered fro the purpose of these rules and shall be entitled to apply and for being considered for allotment of site in accordance with the provisions of the rules. Here in this case deceased Madaiah applied for a 20x30 feet dimension site under EWS category and said application was not withdrawn by him during his life time. Where the said application was still pending he died in the year 1992. His wife Smt. Nanjamma applied for allotment of site in her favour. AS per Rule 8-A her plea for allotment of site may be considered." Vernacular Matter Omitted 5. Apparently, the legal opinion is favourable to the petitioner whereas, in the impugned endorsement dated 03.05.2017 at Annexure-V which is already reproduced above mentions wrongly that the said legal opinion is disfavourable to the petitioner. This is first error apparent on the face of the record. Thus the said endorsement also mentions a decision of the Apex Court i.e, (2016) 2 SCC 129 (sic). There is no such reported judgment. Even in the AIR of the said year at the same page, there is no judgment that touches the subject-matter stated in the impugned endorsement. This is the second error apparent on the face of the record. 6. Petitioner admittedly is the widow of late Madaiah who had applied for allotment of a site ad measuring 20 x 30 Sq. ft. in HBR Layout, II Stage, Bengaluru. A notice was sent by the BDA on 13.08.1997 asking the said applicant to furnish an Income Verification Certificate authenticated by the Tahsildar. However, the said notice returned un-served inasmuch as the applicant by that time had closed his eyes once for all. 7. The above apart, the text of Rule 8-A cannot be construed pedantically to deny benefit to the Class -1 Heir under the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, i.e., the petitioner widow of the applicant who died later. The reason given in the endorsement thus is legally unsustainable. Matter needs reconsideration in the right perspective. 8. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned endorsement dated 03.05.2017 issued by the respondent -BDA at Annexure-V with a direction to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, afresh and further, to inform the petitioner, the result thereof, forthwith. 9. It is open to the respondent-BDA to solicit any information or document as is necessary for due consideration of the matter; however, no delay shall be brooked in that guise. Costs made easy.