1. The petitioner who is the purchaser of the schedule property to the writ petition from the original allottee is before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned cancellation order made in No.BKI/4553/2014-15 dated 27.02.2015 as per Annexure-E issued by the first respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA’ for short) terminating the allotted site No.196/B, BBMP Katha No.1458/196/B situated at Sector-III, HSR Layout, Bangalore-560 103 measuring East to West 12.19 Mtrs and South to North 18.29 Mtrs, totally measuring 222.95 Sq. Mtrs and also prohibition not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that originally the schedule property mentioned in the writ petition was allotted to the second respondent by the BDA on 07.06.2013 and absolute registered sale deed was executed by the BDA on 25.06.2013 in favour of the second respondent which is titled as Incentive site (XXX) and subsequently issued Possession Certificate on 25.06.2013 as per Annexures-B and C respectively. Thereafter the second respondent had become the absolute owner of the schedule property mentioned in the writ petition. By virtue of allotment letter, sale deed and possession certificate, the second respondent had executed the absolute sale deed dated 17.01.2014 in favour of the present petitioner for a valuable consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Twenty Lakhs only) and the petitioner was put in possession of the property in question.

3. When things stood thus, very strangely, the BDA has cancelled the sale deed dated 25.06.2013 made in favour of the original owner M.Munikrishnappa unilaterally by Cancellation Deed dated 27.02.2015 and the same was registered before the Additional District Registrar, Bangalore Urban District and Sri.M.Nagaraj, Deputy SecretaryI, BDA who has furnished the document in terms of Section 88(1) of the Registration Act without notice either to the original vendor second respondent Munikrishnappa or to the petitioner who is the purchaser of the property in question under a registered sale deed dated 17.01.2014. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The first respondent-BDA filed statement of objections on 02.11.2017 contending that BDA has utilized the land in Sy. No.26/2 of Valagerahalli Village for formation of the Road, without following the acquisition proceedings. Thereafter, one Munikrishnappa, S/o Late. Mariyappa the second respondent submitted the application to the BDA along with some documents pertaining to Sy. No.26/2 of Valagerahalli Village, to show that he is the owner of that land and he is entitled for alternative land on the basis of the documents. Accordingly, on the basis of the documents, BDA has allotted the site which is in dispute in favour of the second respondent. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint filed by one Mr. Jagannath, it came to the knowledge of the BDA that, the second respondent has got the allotment of the said site by producing created documents in respect of Sy. No.26/2 of Valagerahalli Village with the impression that he is the owner of that property. On enquiry, the Superintendent of police of BDA found that the second respondent has got the allotment of the said site by making impersonation. Therefore, immediately the BDA cancelled the sale deed executed on 24.06.2013 in favour of the second respondent on the ground that he has obtained the sale deed from the BDA based on the basis of created and fraudulent documents. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any relief before this court.

5. The BDA has further contended that the petitioner was not the allottee of BDA and he has purchased the site from the second respondent who got allotment of the site from the BDA without having any right by producing fraudulent documents. As such the petitioner has no right to file the presen