ORDER :

S.C. Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition as a PIL and his contention is that a civic amenity site No. 35, situated at 5th phase, Yelahanka New Town, Bengaluru, was allotted by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) to respondent No. 3-Murthy Charitable Trust, represented by its President Smt. Gayathri on 23.08.2004 and there were specific conditions mentioned in the allotment order. The allotment order is on record and the conditions of the allotment order are reproduced as under:

1. The second party shall construct building suitable for Education and public service as the case may be, duly providing for all infrastructures as are relevant to provide facilities to accomplish the said objective, within a period of two years or within such period of further time allowed by the second party, in conformity with the provisions of law in force from time to time.

2. The second party shall not alliance (alienate) the schedule property except by mortgage or creation of charge or lien in favour of schedule bank or any statutory lending agencies for the construction of buildings in the schedule property.

3. The second party is bound by the provisions of Karnataka Housing Board Act and Rules framed there under.

4. The site which been designed as one unit shall not be split into two or more sites on any condition."

The other condition i.e., Condition No. 8 which relates to Lease-cum-sale is also reproduced as under:

"8. The allotment of C.A. Site is on Lease Cum Sale basis for a period of five years from this day. The allottee shall pay the entire cost of the C.A. site on or before in one lump. During this period the allottee shall put the land in use for the purpose for which it is allotted. After completion of period of 5 years, the allottee shall apply for issue of Absolute Sale Deed. Failure to comply with any one of the conditions of this deed the allotment will be cancelled without any notice and the board has right to resume back the said site in its possession."

2. The four conditions in the allotment order makes it very clear that the allottee was required to construct a building suitable for Education and public service within a period of two years and condition No. 8 provides that the Housing Board shall be entitled to cancel the allotment without issuing any notice after expiry of five years.

3. Undisputedly, no construction has been carried out and the KHB has now executed an absolute sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 on 23.07.2020 for a sum of Rs. 3,87,000/-. The value of the land is more than 10 Crores and an additional amount was received by KHB i.e., Rs. 18,00,000/- for additional area allotted to respondent No. 3. Undisputedly, at no point of time, the procedure provided under the Karnataka Housing Board (allotment) Regulations, 1983 was followed.

4. It is argued before this Court that respondent No. 3 has been favoured by KHB only because the President of respondent No. 3 Smt. Gayathri, is the wife of member of Parliament.

5. In the present case, the basic issue involved is whether the Rules were followed in the matter of allotment or not.

6. Reply has been filed by the KHB and the KHB has made a submission that the PIL is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioner cannot seek cancellation of a registered document in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner has to take shelter of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. The reply of the KHB is silent in respect of the procedural rules relating to allotment i.e., KHB (allotment) Rules, 1983 and it has been stated that respondent No. 3 has approached KHB for allotment of Civic Amenity site with a noble cause. Therefore, the site was allotted. It has also been stated that there was some litigation in respect of some other sites and therefore the matter was delayed and they have executed a fresh sale deed in favour of respondent No. 3 subsequently in the year 202