The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the lease-cum-sale agreement and the determination of the Panchayat's right over the property.

JUDGMENT

Maheshan Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner/Town Panchayat, Arkalgud (for short 'the Panchayat) in W.P. No. 22616/2005, is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

"(a) To issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to quash the intimation of allotment of the 1st respondent bearing No. KHB.DC.R /R3/132/2005-06 dated 3-09-2005 respectively issued in favour of respondents 2 to 33 vide Annexures A1 to A32 and

(b) To grant all other consequential reliefs including cost deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

1. The 1st respondent is the Karnataka Housing Board ('the Board' for short) and respondents 2 to 33 are allottees of plots (referred to as 'occupants' hereafter).

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The facts of the case at hand dates back to the year 1965. On 20-03-1965, land measuring 16,399 sq.ft. was granted by the Panchayat to the Board at an upset price of Rs. 9456.50 for the purpose of construction of 16 twin houses to be used under the subsidized rental Housing Scheme ('the Scheme' for short). Pursuant to the said allotment, intimation of allotment is made from the Board to the Panchayat regarding allotment of houses to the Panchayat. On 28-02-1977 lease cum-sale agreement is executed by the Board in respect of 16 twin houses for a period of 29 years beginning from 1-11-1969. On 22-02-1992, on a proposal sent by the Board seeking approval to dispose of 16 blocks or 32 tenements under the Scheme constructed by the Board to the present occupants on lease-cum-sale basis, Government accords sanction in favour of the said occupants. In furtherance of the said sanction so accorded, the Board cancelled the allotment made in favour of the Panchayat earlier and replaced the same with the occupants as was approved by the Government as the new allottees. This was called in question by the residents of Arkalgud Town by way of public interest litigation in Writ Petition No. 38853 of 1993 seeking quashment of the order dated 22-02-1992. This writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 25-11-1996 quashing the said order dated 22-2-1992 and intimation of allotment made to the private allottees therein reserving liberty in the Government and the Board to consider the same afresh after affording opportunity to all the stake holders. All questions were left open.

3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, Panchayat issued notices to the occupants seeking to evict them on the premise that they have not paid the rents. This was called in question by the occupants in Writ Petition Nos. 27823-846 of 1995. This writ petition came to be dismissed by an order dated 11-09-1998 directing appropriate action to be taken against the occupants under the provisions of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act if really the Panchayat is aggrieved by the non-payment of rent and also to evict the occupants. On this premise, the notices that were issued were not interfered with by this Court.

4. Pursuant to the liberty so reserved to the Panchayat a show cause notice was issued by the Board to the Panchayat calling the Panchayat to make remainder of the payment that was due to it, after which, the Panchayat made a payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Board claiming it to be in full and final settlement of all the claims of stake holders. Pursuant to the settlement so made, the Panchayat demanded that possession that was taken away of the 32 houses be given back to it. When that was not acceded to, the Panchayat filed Writ Petition No. 33117 of 2000 seeking a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus to the Board for putting the Panchayat back in possession of the houses which were taken away pursuant to the order dated 22-02-1992. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court on 6-10-2003 holding that there was no reason to restore