JUDGMENT P B Bajanthri, J. - In the instant petition the petitioner has assailed the endorsement dated 31.05.2013, in No.MUDA/VaAaKa-6/2013-2014, Annexure-H, and further sought for a direction to accept the payment of the amount due in allotment of the site No:1212 of Laliltadrinagar-South Layout Mysuru, in terms of the allotment letter at Annexure-D, dated 02.11.2012, pursuant to the allotment of site. 2. The petitioner is one of the applicant who had submitted an application under 'physically handicapped quota'. He was allotted site No.1212 of Lalitadrinagar-South Layout Mysuru on 02.11.2012, while imposing various conditions including that within what date he is required to pay the entire amount i.e., 90 + 30 days = 120 days. The petitioner could not remit the payment within the time limit stipulated therein. Thus, there is a delay in remitting the balance amount for about 54 days. In view of these facts and circumstances, the respondents have issued an endorsement dated 31.05.2013, through Annexure-H, which is the subject matter of the present petition. The petitioner had the benefit of interim relief on 12.07.2013. Consequently, the petitioner approached the respondent on 24.07.2013, with a Demand Draft. The same was not accepted. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no question of delay in remitting the sital value pursuant to Rule-19 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority (Site Allotment) Rules 1991 (for short Rules, 1991). It was submitted that the State has evolved reasonable classification among the general and SC/ST/physically handicapped persons/defence persons. In respect of mode of payment for the special categories like SC/ST or defence persons, she/he should have been LRs of the person who died in the defence department/physically handicapped. They are entitled to remit the sital value within a period of three years. Such payment was to be made within 36 installments. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the status of the petitioner that his application is under the 'physically handicapped persons' the respondents should have appreciated Rule-19 while demanding the sital value. Period of 120 days transaction is applicable to the 'general category' and not for the persons who fall under the 'special category'. It was also submitted that there is no separate quota for 'physically handicapped persons' under 'defence services quota'. Rule-13 among other category provides only for 'physically handicapped persons'. Period of 120 days transaction is applicable to the 'general category' and not for the persons who fall under the 'special category'. It was also submitted that there is no separate quota for 'physically handicapped persons' under 'defence services quota'. Rule-13 among other category provides only for 'physically handicapped persons'. In other words, there is no sub-classification as 'physically handicapped persons' under Defence/Exserviceman/ LRs of Ex-serviceman quota, so as to distinguish that the petitioner is not entitled to have the benefit of the one of the proviso under Rule-19, which was incorporated on 19.07.2008. Thus, the endorsement is contrary to Rule-19 read with Rule- 13 of Rules-1991. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that as per the conditions imposed in the allotment letter, the petitioner is bound to remit the sital value within 120 days. The 'special category' clause incorporated under Rule-19 is not applicable to the petitioner's case. Such a provision refers to only in respect to (SC/ST) / defence persons and 'physically handicapped persons'. 6. Further, he relied on Rule-13 to contend that reservation of 2% is given to the 'physically handicapped persons'. It was pointed out from statement of objection that this court in Writ Petition No.24386 of 2013, dated 31.07.2013, wherein it was conteded that a question of extending time for payment of sital value beyond stipulated period cannot be considered by the respondent-authorities. In other words, any extension of time for payment of sital value beyond the stipulated period under Rule- 19 amounts to violation of Rule-19. Further, he relied on the decision rendered in Writ Appeal No.499 of 2011 and connected matters, so as to substantiate impugned endorsement dated 31.05.2013. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. The crux of the matter in the present petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to avail time limit of three years for remittal of the sital value or not? Undisputedly, the petitioner applied for a site under the 'physically handicapped persons' on 20.10.2012. A site was allotted on 02.11.2012. While imposing certain conditions including mode of payment i.e., within 120 days, the respondents have committed an error to the extent that the petitioner's claim is under 'physically handicapped' under Rule- 19. Undisputedly, the petitioner applied for a site under the 'physically handicapped persons' on 20.10.2012. A site was allotted on 02.11.2012. While imposing certain conditions including mode of payment i.e., within 120 days, the respondents have committed an error to the extent that the petitioner's claim is under 'physically handicapped' under Rule- 19. Proviso to Rule-19 provides for three years time to remit the sital value in respect of SC/ST/LRs of the defence persons / physically handicapped persons, which has not been noticed while imposing conditions. Such relaxation is given to the special category, w.e.f. 19.07.2008. As on the date of the allotment on 02.11.2012, the aforesaid proviso was very much existing. Extract of Rule-13 and Rule-19 of Rules, 1991, is reproduced herein: (1) After the receipt of the allotment letter the allottee shall pay to the Authority sital after deducting the initial deposit made by him within 90 days. Thereafter, the authority shall call upon the allottee to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in form III. If the allottee fails to execute the lease-cum-sale agreement within 60 days after the authority has called upon him to execute such agreement, the registration fee paid by the allottee may be forfeited, and the allotment of the site cancelled, and the amount paid by the allottee, may be refunded by the Authority after deducting such expenditure as might have been incurred by the Authority: Provided that the authority may extend the time-limit specified in sub-rule (1), by 30 days and levy an interest at 18% for the extend period: Provided that the authority may on application of the allottee permit him/her to execute a lease-cum-sale agreement in Form III in the joint name of the allottee and him/her spouse. 9. From the aforesaid provisions, it is crystal clear that the State has taken a policy decision to extend certain relaxation in respect of payment of sital value by extending time limit of 120 days to three years for special category persons including physically handicapped persons. The same has not been taken note of by the respondent authority while imposing conditions on the petitioner, when the site was allotted to him. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that Rule-19 is applicable to the petitioner. The same has not been taken note of by the respondent authority while imposing conditions on the petitioner, when the site was allotted to him. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that Rule-19 is applicable to the petitioner. That he is required to remit the sital value within 120 days and he has tried to make payment beyond the time limit stipulated, which cannot be accepted in terms of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.24368 of 2013 and connected matters. The aforesaid decision is of no assistance to the respondent for the reason that the issue before the learned Single Judge and in writ appeal are concerned, the site allotment is prior to 19.07.2008. As on that date, there was no provision of relaxation of time limit for special category persons. That the aforesaid writ petition and writ appeal are not in respect of any special categories. Therefore, the aforecited decisions are of no assistance to the respondents. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NAIR SERVICE SOCIETY vs. DR.T.BEERMASTHAN AND OTHERS, (2009) 5 SCC 545 , at para- 48 held as follows: "48. Several decisions have been cited before us by the respondents, but it is well established that judgments in service jurisprudence should be understood with reference to the particular service rules in the State governing that field. Reservation provision are enabling provisions, and different State Governments can have different methods of reservation. There is no challenge to the Rules, and what is challenged is in the matter of application alone. In our opinion the communal rotation has to be applied taking 20 vacancies as a block." Even though the aforesaid decision is relating to service matter, the principles laid down therein is interpretation of relevant provisions, which are governing. For the purpose of deciding the time limit for payment of site value and the relevant date that should be taken into consideration by the respondent to take the date of cause of action. Rules-13 and 19 of Rules, 1991 provided for relaxation of time limit to special category persons. Such provision in respect of physically handicapped category is incorporated by the State Government on 19.07.2008, in the light of the then Section 43 read with Section 73 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Rules-13 and 19 of Rules, 1991 provided for relaxation of time limit to special category persons. Such provision in respect of physically handicapped category is incorporated by the State Government on 19.07.2008, in the light of the then Section 43 read with Section 73 of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Section 43 reads as under: "43. Schemes for preferential allotment of land for certain purposes.- The appropriate Governments and local authorities shall by notification frame schemes in favor of persons with disabilities, for the preferential allotment of land at concession rates of- (a) house; (b) setting up business; (c) setting up of special recreation centers; (d) establishment of special schools; (e) establishment of research centers; (f) establishment of factories by entrepreneurs with disabilities." It would thus be seen that the aforesaid provision provides for framing of scheme whereby disabled persons get preference in the allotment of land for the purpose of constructing houses, shops, offices and recreation centers, as well as establishing special schools, research centers and factories. The State has carried out necessary amendment in the Rules, 1991 in terms of Section-73 relates to "Power of appropriate Government to make Rules". 12. In view of these factual aspects and the aforesaid provision of law, petitioner has made out prima facie case. Accordingly, the order dated 31-5-2013, vide Annexure-H, is set-aside. i) The writ petition stands allowed. ii) The respondent No.1 is hereby directed to accept the balance amount from the petitioner along with 18% interest per annum. The petitioner is directed to remit the balance amount along with interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order further MUDA is directed to complete further formalities like handing over possession etc., within a period of 4 months, in accordance with law.