M.L. Lingaiah &
Ors. Vs. Town Panchayath, Arkalgud & ANR.  INSC 589 (23 March 2009)
JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1787 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.5443 of
2007) M.L. Lingaiah & Ors. ...Appellant(s) Versus Town Panchayath, Arkalgud
& Anr. ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel
for the parties.
Board (for short, "the Board") constructed 32 houses under the
subsidised rental housing scheme. The same were allotted to Town Panchayat,
Arkalgud, District Hasan. The said allotment was cancelled on 22.2.1992 on the
ground of default in the payment of instalments by the allottee. Thereafter,
the Board allotted the houses to the appellants herein. Writ Petition No.
38853/1993 filed by R.K. Ramanna and others in the name of public interest
litigation was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order of
cancellation as also the intimation of the allotment issued to the appellants
were quashed. Thereafter, Town Panchayat filed writ petition no. 33117/2000 for
being put in possession of 32 houses. The same was disposed of by the learned
Single Judge with the observation that with the quashing of cancellation of
allotment, the Town Panchayath will be deemed to be in possession of the houses
and it is free to take appropriate ...2/- -2- action against the private
respondents. Writ Appeal No. 8037/2003 filed by the appellants was disposed of
by the Division Bench on 22.5.2005 with the direction that pending
consideration of allotment of houses, the appellants shall not be dispossessed.
However, on an
application made by the respondent in the writ appeal, that order was recalled
and the writ appeal was placed for fresh hearing. By the impugned order, the
Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal with an observation that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge will only amount to recognition of the right
of the Town Panchayat as the allottee and to take appropriate action against
Learned counsel for
the appellant pointed out that during the pendency of the writ appeal, the
Board had executed sale deeds in favour of the appellants but this fact has
been overlooked by the Division Bench. He referred to copies of some of the
sale deeds which have been filed with the special leave petition.
Since the High Court
disposed of the writ appeal without considering the effect of the sale deeds,
which are said to have been executed by the Board in favour of the appellants,
the order under challenge is liable to be set aside with direction to the High
Court to decide the writ appeal afresh.
appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to
the High Court for disposal of the writ appeal in accordance with law.
It is directed that,
till the disposal of the writ appeal, the appellants shall not be dispossessed
from the houses in question.