/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATX? T BANGALORE DATED ‘IHIS ThE 5TH DAY (F JUPE 1998 BEFORE T HON BLE R*JUSTiCE A.J. SADASHIVA WRIT PETITION No. 35662/1997 BEThEEN: Sri.Y.Sadashiva, s/o Neela Nayaka, aged 48 yrs,, r/a No.135, II Main Road, M 0 C. Layout, Vij ayandgara Bangalore—40. •0 Petitioner (By Sri P.K.Ponnappa, ?dv.,> AND: 1. The Bangalore Development Authority, Kumara Park lieet, T,Chowdaiah Road, Banga1ore20. by its Chairman. 2. The Special Land cquisition Officer, Banalcre Development Authority, Kumara Park West, T.howdaiah Road, Bangalore—20. .. Respondents (By Sri N,K,Patil, Adv.,) This Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayirg to quash Annexure—A, B, C, D, E and F pased by the respondents I and 2 dated 5.2,92, 19/20.8.92, 12.1.93, 15,6.93, 5.7.93 respectively and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court rade the following :— ORDER Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the site after the declaration was published under sub—section (1) of section 18 of the City of Bangalore Imoroveirent Act, 1945. On the strength of the sale In his favour by the previous owner of the land, he filed applications before the Bangalore Development Authority for re—allotment of the said site or allotment of an alternate site, His applications were rejected by the Bangalore Development Authority as per Annexuras—A, B, C, D, E and F. Having been aggrieved by the said annexures, the petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India by quashing the annexures by a writ of certiorari, with a further writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Bangalore Development Authority to allot a site measuring 30’ x 40’ In Sy. No.108/I of Katharaguppe Village as an elternative/ in lieu of the site acquired by the Bangciore Development 1uthority. 2— It is clear from the f dots stated above that no land belonging to the petitIoner was acquired. On the 3 other hand he purchased a part of the land which was acquired by the Bangalore DeveloTment Authority and claims berefit under Rule 11(iv) of the Bangalore Development Authority Allotment of Sites Rules, 1984. Sri.P.K.Ponnappe, the learned Counsel appering for the petitioner, has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court In STATE OF U.P. Vs. PISTA 0EV! & ORS., (AIR 1986 SC 2025). Neither the Rules of the Bangdlore Development Authority of Sites Rules (hereinafter called “the Rules”) nor the decision of the Supreme Court upon jhich the petitioner relies are applicable to/facts of this case as they could be distinguished from each other, The Rules and the decision of the Sureme Court would be attracted in respect of personihose lands have been acquired by the Authority. They are totally inapplicable in respect of persons who acquired the property in total disregard to the Rule of law keeping their eyes wide onen to the fact that their vendors dad not have title to the property in question. In the absence of any statutory provisions for allotment of alternate site in favour 0