1. The property in question is a site bearing No. 3 situate in Gokul I Stage; I Phase, Yeshwantpur, Bangalore measuring East to West 60' and North to South 40'. This site was allotted to one Muniyappa, husband of Sharadamma, the mother of the petitioners herein on 29-3-1978 by the then City Improvement Trust Board (hereainfter referred to as the 'Board'). The allottee Muniyappa requested the Board to transfer the site in question in the name of his wife Sharadamma and accordingly the site was transferred in the name of Sharadamma and possession certificate was also issued on 20th May, 1971 as per Annexure - A. Some persons tried to illegally build sheds and interfere with her possession of the site in question and therefore, Sharadamma filed O. S. No. 1121/71 in the Court of the Munsiff, Bangalore against L. Rama Reddy, Anjanappa, Subadra Bai, City Improvement Trust Board, Appaswamy, Y. Krishonoji Rao, Shavaji and Tukaram for permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction for demolition of the sheds unauthorisedly constructed on the site. The said suit was decreed on 18-1-1977 as per Annexure - B.

2. In the meanwhile, Subadra Bai who was defendant No. 3 in the said suit had sold this site to H. B. Nagesh Rao - respondent No. 2 herein on 24-2-1972. The possession certificate was also issued in his name by the Board on 20-8-1975. Respondent No. 2 - H. B. Nagesha Rao filed O. S. No. 5446/80 on the file of the learned XIV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore against Sharadamma. Muniyappa, Subadra Bai and Bangalore Development Authority for declaration and permanent injunction. That was filed on 7-9-1978. The said suit was decreed by the Civil Court on 13-9-1988 as per Annexure - E. Sharadamma, the mother of the petitioners herein and her husband Muniyappa filed R. F. A. 109/89 before this Court against the said decree and the petitioners herein were brought on record as the L. Rs. of Sharadamma and Muniyappa in the said appeal.

3. The prayers of the petitioners in this petition are as follows :
(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing the allotment dated 20-8-1975 in Annexure - C and the resolution dated 2-3-1973 Annexure - D cancelling the said site as illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional, void and as offending the Rules of Natural Justice;
(ii) consequently to declare that the decree obtained in O. S. No. 5446 of 1980 (Annexure - E) by the second respondent as unconstitutional.

4. The only two contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that before cancellation of the site allotted in favour of Muniyappa, he ought to have been heard by the Bangalore Development Authority. The site in question was allotted to respondent No. 2 herein without hearing the earlier allottee viz., Muniyappa or his wife Sharadamma. Hence, the Memo Annexure - C and the extract of the proceedings of the meeting of the Board dated 2nd May, 1973 - Annexure - D are liable to be quashed. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills etc., v. Union of India etc., AIR 1981 SC 818.

5. The Memo Annexure - C produced in this petition was marked in the suit O. S. 5446/80 as Ex. P - 4 and Annexure - D was marked as Ex. P - 35.

6. This Court has recorded a finding in RFA 109/89 as follows :
'Having sought for an alternative site and an alternative site was reconveyed and allotted in his favour in exchange for the suit site on his own application made to the CITB as per Ex. P32, the appellants now cannot contend that the cancellation of the earlier allotment was done without the knowledge of late second respondent. When the second defendant himself voluntarily surrendered the earlier allotment and filed an authority and sought for alternative allotment, now it is too late for the appellants to question the cancellation and allotment made in favour of the plaintiff.'
The second defendant in the said suit