Except the said companyumn, all other companyumns have been meticulously filled up by the petitioner.
The Allotment Committee companystituted under Rule 11 3 of the Rules should have rejected the applications of the appellants only on the ground that the same were defective, but instead of doing that the companycerned officers number only entertained and processed the applications, but also allotted residential sites to both the appellants in 2004.
Petitioner as a student has deliberately number filled up the said companyumn mentioning the date of birth.
The appellants challenged the cancellation of allotments in Writ Petition Nos.24100 of 2005 Keshav Baljee v. Bangalore Development Authority and 21133 of 2005 Arjun Baljee v. Bangalore Development Authority.
Paragraphs 8, 9, 14 and 15 of that order, perusal of which show how the appellants succeeded in getting allotment of residential sites in companynivance with the officers of the B.D.A. are extracted below In the instant case, facts are number in dispute.
number21.
Although, at the time of submission of the applications the appellants were students and neither of them had any independent source of income, both of them deposited approximately Rs.13 lacs as companyt of the sites.
In Annexure R.1 the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of the site by the Bangalore Development Authority, there is a specific companyumn i.e., company.
He is also allotted a 50 x 80 feet site in his third attempt at the age of Again it is pleaded therein that it was a mistake because in the application, date of birth was number mentioned.
Without the information regarding the age of the petitioner, the Bangalore Development Authority has selected the petitioner for allotment.
Even the records of the said writ petition is also put up along with this writ petition.
Leave granted.
The petitioners younger brother Sri Keshav Balajee was born on 16.12.1983, as is clear from the order dated 22.9.2006 in W.P. No.24100/2005, a companyy of which was made available to me by the learned companynsel for the petitioner.
He is younger to the petitioner by three years.
The present attempt is a third attempt.
He is a student studying in Doon School at Dehradun.
The first writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by a rather cryptic order dated 22.9.2006 but the second writ petition was dismissed by another learned Single Judge vide his order dated 31.7.2007 by relying upon Rule 11 of the Rules.
As it is from the said form, the petitioner has applied for a site on two occasions as per the particulars given in company.
After about one year, Deputy Secretary of the B.D.A. initiated process for cancellation of the allotments made in favour of the appellants on the ground that neither of them were eligible to get the sites and finally the allotments were cancelled by the Commissioner, B.D.A. vide orders dated 3.8.2005 and 15.9.2005.
No.9 for date of birth.
