KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER-COMPANY seeking to quash Annexure-D dated 25-4-1994 issued by the first respondent. Annexure-D is the intimation of allotment by the Karnataka housing board to one of the allottees. ( 2 ) WRIT petition No. 14049 of 1994 was filed by the petitioner-company seeking to quash Annexure-D which was also an intimation of allotment by the Karnataka housing board to one of the allottees. ( 3 ) WRIT petition nos. 826 to 830 of 1997 were filed by the petitioner-company seeking to quash annexures e-1 to e-5 all dated 21-5-1994. Annexures e-l to e-5 are sale deeds executed by the Karnataka housing board in favour of respondents 3 to 7. ( 4 ) IN all these writ petitions, the common question that arises for consideration is whether the Karnataka housing board is competent to sell the tenements built by the Karnataka housing board on a land belonging to the petitioner-company to the workman of the petitioner-company. The second question that arises for consideration is whether this court exercising powers under article 226 of the Constitution can cancel the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the workman/respondents. Since all these writ petitions deal with the same question as to the competence of the housing board to sell the tenements to the workmen, common order is passed. ( 5 ) THE facts very briefly are as follows: the petitioner is a public limited company. In the year 1974, the management of the company was taken over by the hindustan paper corporation ltd. , and was run under the name and style of 'the mandya national paper mills ltd. '. The company, in order to provide shelter and accommodation to its large work force of the company, entered into an agreement with the kamataka housing board. The scope of the agreement was that the petitioner-company should provide the land to the k. h. b. for putting up as many as 300 houses consisting of two bed rooms and single bed room accommodation in the colony called the mandya national paper mill housing colony'. the task of putting up 300 houses was taken up by the k. h. b. under a scheme known as 'subsidized industrial housing scheme' in short, 'sihs'. the task of putting up 300 houses was taken up by the k. h. b. under a scheme known as 'subsidized industrial housing scheme' in short, 'sihs'. ( 6 ) THE company entered into an agreement in pursuance of the said scheme on 15-7-1972 with the k. h. b. to construct in a phased manner 300 houses for its employees. About 32 acres and 31 guntas in survey nos. 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 106 to 111 and 121 and others of belagola village, owned by the company was handed over to the k. h. b. for development under the scheme. ( 7 ) AFTER completion of construction the k. h. b. " handed over possession of the houses to the company. The company in turn allotted the houses to its workers under the definition of workmen as per Section 2 (1) of the factories Act, 1948. The entire cost of construction was borne by the k. h. b. the company provided amenities such as lighting, water, sanitation and roads etc. , in the said colony for the benefit of its workers. ( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, the petitioner-company became a sick industrial company within the purview of sick industrial company's (special Provisions) Act, 1985, on account of the mismanagement and financial crunch. The matter was also before the bifr and the canara bank, Bangalore, was asked to examine the viability of rehabilitation of the company. In fact, the canara bank was appointed as operation agency. ( 9 ) AS the matter stood thus, the k. h. b. claiming to be absolute owners of all the houses sought to sell some of the houses in favour of the allottees who are the workmen of the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company objected to the sale of the houses to the workmen and offered the k. h. b. to pay the entire cost of construction in order to get back houses built by the k. h. b. ( 10 ) IT is in these circumstances, the petitioner-company has filed these writ petitions challenging the action of the k. h. b. in attempting to sell the houses to the workmen. ( 11 ) THE main ground of attack of the petitioner-company was that the company is before the bifr and the matter is pending before the bifr in appeal. ( 11 ) THE main ground of attack of the petitioner-company was that the company is before the bifr and the matter is pending before the bifr in appeal. When the matter was pending before the bifr, it was submitted that the k. h. b. had no power or authority to execute the sale deeds in favour of the workmen. such an action according to the petitioner was contrary to Section 22 of the sic act. Section 22 deals with suspension of legal proceeding and contracts during the pendency of an enquiry before bifr. According to the petitioner-company, the contracted sales that have been entered into by the k. h. b. in favour of the workmen is contrary to law and violative of section 22 of the sic act. It is in these circumstances the petitioner has sought for a relief to quash the sale deeds entered into between the k. h. b. and the workmen concerned. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has relied on a certain letter dated 6-3-1975 addressed to the petitioner-company by the Karnataka housing commissioner. Letter dated 6-3-1975 stated that there was a proposal to transfer the ownership of houses to the company on an outright sale. The provisional cost was determined at Rs. 19,92,530-68. Another letter dated 20-4-1987 is also brought to my notice where the state government was considering in principle for the petitioner-company to purchase the houses on an outright basis. another letter purported to have been written by the company to the government in the year 1982 is produced to show that the company was willing to purchase 300 tenements from the k. h. b. ( 13 ) ON the basis of these letters and other letters it was submitted that the k. h. b. had no power to sell houses to the workmen of the petitioner company since the land belonged to the company. It was strenuously submitted that the land admittedly belonged to the company although the houses were built by the k. h. b. under the sihs scheme and therefore, no legal right accrued to the k. h. b. to sell the tenements to the workmen directly. Any attempt by the k. h. b to sell the tenements would be contrary to law. Any attempt by the k. h. b to sell the tenements would be contrary to law. It is in these circumstances, the petitioners have sought relief from this court to quash the sale deeds executed by the k. h. b. in favour of the workmen. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the k. h. b. , submitted that there was a letter by the petitioner-company dated 6th of february, 1974 addressed to the deputy commissioner, mandya district, mandya. The said letter dated 6-2-1974 gives an impression that the land on which the houses were built by the k. h. b. were in fact gifted to the k. h. b. ( 15 ) PARAGRAPH 2 at Annexure r-2 reads as follows:"an extent of 25 acres and 11 guntas of land was gifted to Mysore housing board for construction of industrial tenements for workers, three hundred tenements were constructed by the housing board who gave possession of 200 tenements to the company for occupation of industrial workers of the company". ( 16 ) ANNEXURE r-6 is the balance sheet of the petitioner- company as on 31st march, 1984. Notes at Annexure r-6 para (3) reads as follows:"land includes 26 acres 11 guntas costing Rs. 34,837/- (previous year Rs. 34,837/-) transferred to" karnataka housing board in the year 1963 without any consideration for construction of industrial tenements for workers". ( 17 ) BY these documents, learned counsel for the k. h. b. and the learned counsel for the allottees contended that the land was gifted to the k. h. b. and the k. h. b. pursuant to the gift had decided to sell the houses to the allottees who were workmen of the petitioner-company and therefore it was submitted that the k. h. b. had acted in accordance with law. It was also submitted that the meetings were held between the company, housing board and the union on 29-7-1993. The stand of the managing director of the petitioner-company was as borne out from the minutes which reads as follows:"the managing director has stated that he has not seen the agreement of 1972. If the ownership vests with the k. h. b. and if it is the policy of the central and state governments to dispose of the houses to the allottees of industrial workers and their legal heirs, there is no objection to take up follow-up action". If the ownership vests with the k. h. b. and if it is the policy of the central and state governments to dispose of the houses to the allottees of industrial workers and their legal heirs, there is no objection to take up follow-up action". ( 18 ) VOLUMINOUS documents were produced both by the petitioner-company and by the k. h. b. to establish their title. while the stand of the petitioner-company was that the land belongs to the company and the housing board built the houses free of cost for the benefit of the workmen only on a rental basis. the stand of the housing board and the allottees were that the housing board undoubtedly built tenements for the benefit of the workmen and the land was gifted by the company to enable the k. h. b. to sell the tenements to the workmen working in the petitioner-company. ( 19 ) IN view of the controversy raised in these writ petitions, it would be difficult to hold one way or the other on the basis of the letters and other documents which have not been duly proved in a court of law. These are matters that cannot be gone into in a writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of india. This is particularly so, when the court is required to set aside the sale deeds executed by the k. h. b. in favour of the allottees. there are uncorroborated documents on both the sides which require proper consideration to determine whether the petitioner company has gifted the land to the k. h. b. to enable the k. h. b. to sell the tenements to the allottees. ( 20 ) THE proper thing in my opinion would be to refer the parties to a properly constituted civil suit in view of the raging controversy between the parties. It cannot be denied that there are some documents which give an impression that the company had gifted the land to the k. h. b. but these are the documents that have not been tested by oral evidence and subjected to cross examination. It cannot be denied that there are some documents which give an impression that the company had gifted the land to the k. h. b. but these are the documents that have not been tested by oral evidence and subjected to cross examination. Equally there appears to be some force in the stand of the petitioner-company that those admissions by the company gifting the land cannot be taken on face value unless there is a gift deed in favour of the k. h. b, ( 21 ) THE Supreme Court in the case of state of rajastan v bhavani singh and others , has held that the disputed questions relating to title cannot be gone into or adjudicated in writ petition. A writ petition seeking declaration of title of petitioner to the disputed property is misconceived, under article 226 of the constitution. in the case of union of India v t. r. verma , the supreme court has held that where there is a question on which there is a serious dispute, which cannot he satisfactorily decided without taking evidence, it would not be proper for the court to decide such matters in a writ petition. ( 22 ) I have given my careful thought to the contentions raised by the parties. In my view the correct thing would be to refer the parties to approach a properly constituted civil court in view of the raging controversy. ( 23 ) A curious aspect in this case was that the petitioner-company had earlier filed writ petition No. 5903 of 1991 and sought to quash communication permitting the k. h. b. to sell tenements to the workmen on lease-cum-sale basis. The said writ petition was withdrawn on 6th july, 1994, with liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if it was in accordance with law. It is not known why the said writ petition filed seeking for almost an identical prayer was withdrawn in 1994. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is serious controversy between the parties with regard to both the veracity of the documents produced in court and the circumstances under which these documents were given. ( 24 ) APART from this, none of the documents placed before me would clinch the matter in controversy. Therefore, it is practically impossible in the light of the raging controversy to determine these cases one way or the other. ( 24 ) APART from this, none of the documents placed before me would clinch the matter in controversy. Therefore, it is practically impossible in the light of the raging controversy to determine these cases one way or the other. The scope of article 226 of the Constitution is well-settled. If there is a controversy with regard to the facts, the writ petitions are not the proper relief. Further, in these cases the relief sought for by the petitioner-company is to quash the sale deeds duly executed. In my opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case such a thing will be well nigh impossible. ( 25 ) IN these circumstances the writ petitions stand dismissed with a liberty to the parties to move the civil court if so advised. it is needless to say that the civil court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this court in disposing of the matter in accordance with law. ( 26 ) WITH the above observations the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. --- *** --- .