ORDER : 1. Leave granted. The present case arises out of an order in O.S.A. No.24/2014 by which the appeal of the appellant was partly allowed in the following terms: “Order dated 28.2.2014 in Company Application No.14/2014 is modified to the extent that deed of conveyance shall be for transfer of 'leasehold rights' of the Company in Liquidation for the land in question. It is clarified that after acquisition/transfer of 'leasehold rights' in favour of Respondent No.2, it would be open to Respondent No.2 to pursue the matter for execution of Sale Deed as per agreement of lease deed and at that stage rights and contentions of appellant and Respondent No.2 shall remain open. Appeal partly allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.” 2. The appellant is aggrieved because, according to the appellant, the notice inviting tender made it clear that the property was for 'sale and not merely 'lease'. It is on this basis that, in the auction held on 8th February, 2012, the appellant was the highest bidder, for a sum of Rs.45.90 crores, which has admittedly been paid by the appellant on the due date. In addition, the appellant has paid Rs.10,23,871/-which was outstanding dues owing to the respondent on 30th May, 2012 and in answer to the demand for a sale deed had also paid Rs.54,363/-by way of interest on 30th November, 2012. 3. However, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of The Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (for short the 'KIADB') has drawn our attention to the order dated 2nd December, 2011, by which sale tenders were to be invited taking into account the objections that were filed by the KIADB, and according to the respondents the major objection is that such sale deed would only follow when a project has been set up. 4. It appears that a project was so set up by the predecessor of the appellant, but that had ultimately failed as a result of which the predecessor went into liquidation, it is as a result of this that the present auction took place. 5. We are of the view that at this stage, it would be most unjust if the appellant was merely to get leasehold rights instead of rights on the basis of a sale. 5. We are of the view that at this stage, it would be most unjust if the appellant was merely to get leasehold rights instead of rights on the basis of a sale. The appellant has paid a huge amount of money for purchase of the property, and has met all other demands of the KIADB. 6. Accordingly, we allow the appeal. It is clarified that the transfer to the appellant of the property which is the subject matter of the present appeal is not only leasehold but would be a sale thereof. The execution of the sale deed as per agreement will, therefore, be done within a period of eight weeks from today. We are informed that the appellant is in possession. We clarify that whatever sums have been returned to Shri Dave's client in the interregnum, will be returned back to KIADB. within a period of four weeks from today.