( 1 ) THIS writ appeal preferred by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short, 'bda'), is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 19-12-2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 28479 of 1999.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are: in response to an application made by the respondent herein, she was allotted a site bearing No. 2268/c admeasuring 30' x 40' in HAL II stage, Bangalore, by the Chairman of the BDA on 28-1-1978. The respondent paid the value of the site and thereafter, lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 26-2-1979. The respondent was put in possession of the site vide possession certificate dated 7-3-1979 marked as Annexure-C. The respondent has been paying assessment after she was put in possession of the site. In support of it, the respondent has produced a certificate dated 19-6-1981 marked as Annexure-D issued by the Revenue Officer, BDA, Bangalore. After the respondent was put in possession of the site, she mobilised funds and put up construction after getting the plan approved by Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP ). The construction of the ground floor was completed in the year 1983. Subsequently, she constructed first floor after obtaining permission and getting the plan sanctioned. It is stated that the respondent had spent more than Rs. 28,00,000/- towards the cost of construction of the house.

( 3 ) WHEN the matter stood thus, in the year 1996, the Deputy secretary, BDA issued a show-cause notice marked as Annexure-L, dated 12-4-1996 to the respondent alleging that the respondent has suppressed the fact that her husband had applied for a site and he was also allotted a site and this fact was not disclosed in her application made to the Chairman of the BDA for allotment of a site. It was pointed out that the respondent ought to have disclosed that fact in her application as required under the provisions of the Bangalore development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1984 (for short, 'the rules' ). In response to that show-cause notice, the respondent submitted her reply on 30th April, 1996 stating that at the time she made the application to the Chairman of the BDA she was not living with her husband due to certain serious differences between the two and she was staying with her parents. She also contended that she was not aware of the application made by her husband to the BDA nor the fact of allotment of a site to her husband. She also contended that her husband was not supporting her on the date when she made the application to bda for allotment of site and she was not a dependent on her husband. The BDA did not take any immediate action after the receipt of the reply of the respondent to the show-cause notice dated 12-4-1996. According to the respondent, she believed that the BDA being convinced by the explanation offered by her in her reply dated 30-4-1996, dropped the proceedings. When the matter stood thus, the respondent received the order of the BDA dated nil, on 23-7-1999, marked as Annexure-N cancelling the allotment made in favour of the respondent and directing her to handover the possession of the site along with the building constructed thereon.

( 4 ) THE respondent being aggrieved by the order of the BDA, annexure-N, preferred Writ Petition No. 28479 of 1999. In the writ petition, it was contended that the Rules are not applicable to the facts of the case inasmuch as the allotment was made under the provisions of the City of Bangalore Improvement (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1972 and, therefore, only those rules would apply; that the respondent did not suppress any material particulars required to be disclosed by her when she made application for allotment of a site and that she was not aware of her husband also making an application to the Chairman of the BDA or the Chairman of the BDA allotting a separate site to him and, therefore, clause (9) of Rule 13 of the Rules has no application; that the respondent at the time of making applic