JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking quashment of two orders both dtd. 21/9/2015 passed by the 2nd Respondent - Karnataka Housing Board whereby they were asked to make payment of 'Guidance Value', if they wanted reconveyance of scheduled lands in their favour. Both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that in similar matters Respondent - Housing Board, has reconvyed the lands to other land owners after getting the sale price back with some interest and therefore, their clients cannot be discriminated against as if they are the children of the stepmother. So contending, they seek indulgence of the Writ Court. 2. Learned AGA appearing on behalf of Respondent - State and the learned panel counsel appearing for the Housing Board opposed the Petitions making submission in justification of the impugned orders. They contend that admittedly the Petitioners having sold their properties and having received the agreed price, they cannot now seek reconveyance in the absence of a condition of enablement in the Conveyances or the law giving such a right. Learned AGA adds that, in matters like this there is no justiciable right which arguably may avail where properties are taken by compulsory purchase under the Land Acquisition laws. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petitions. 3. Both the cases are taken up together with the concurrence of the Bar since they have substantially common fact matrix and relief columns. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission made by the learned AGA and the Panel Counsel. 4. Indubitably, sale is one of the voluntary modes of transfer of property. Sec. 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, defines sale as "a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised." This definition indicates that in order to constitute a sale, there must be transfer of ownership from one person to another, i.e., all rights & interest in the properties possessed by the seller are transferred to the buyer and he does not retain any part of his interest or right in the property sold; or else it would not be a sale. An outright sale is distinguished from a sale with an option of reconveyance, which must be evidenced by the Sale Deed itself. An outright sale is distinguished from a sale with an option of reconveyance, which must be evidenced by the Sale Deed itself. If the sale deed is totally silent about that, the transfer would be an outright sale and not a sale with an option of reconveyance vide VITTAL MAHARM PATIL vs. FAKIRA BHAVSINGH PATIL, AIR 2011 NOC BOMBAY 292. Admittedly, the subject properties were purchased by the Housing Board from the owners thereof after paying the agreed prices. No paragraph from the private conveyances is shown to give the right to previous owners to buy back the property. Such a situation, as already mentioned above, constitutes an outright sale or transfer of property bereft of an option for reconveyance. 5. In support of their clients' claim for reconveyance, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners placed heavy reliance on Sec. 38 of the Karnataka Housing Board Act, 1962. The said sec. reads as under: "Power to dispose of land.- Subject to any rules made by the State Government under this Act, the Board may retain, lease, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of, any land, building or other property vesting in it and situate in the area comprised in any housing scheme (or land development scheme) sanctioned under this Act." The power of the Board to dispose off its property is not absolute, since in so many words, it is conditioned by the rules to be promulgated by the Government under Sec. 74 of the 1962 Act. Rule 9(3) of the Karnataka Housing Board Rules, 1964 provides for sale of land is true. However, such a contention does not come to their aid inasmuch as the aforementioned provisions merely bestow power upon the Board to lease sell or otherwise dispose of any land and not a statutory mandate for reconveyancing of land to the owners from whom the property was bought. 6. Deliberations and decisions as to conveyanceing or reconveyancing of land by the Board has to be carried out by a normative, participative & transparent process spearheaded by the 'public interest' and not by private negotiation within the four corners of the office room. At this juncture, it is relevant to recall Justice Louis Brandeis' phrase 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'. Deliberations and decisions as to conveyanceing or reconveyancing of land by the Board has to be carried out by a normative, participative & transparent process spearheaded by the 'public interest' and not by private negotiation within the four corners of the office room. At this juncture, it is relevant to recall Justice Louis Brandeis' phrase 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'. In 1913 Harper's Weekly article, 'What Publicity Can Do?' he had remarked: "...if the broad light of day could be let in upon men's actions, it would purify them as the sun disinfects..." It is not that such a process is to be carried out by conducting Government business while sitting at the crossroads in public, rather it means that the manner in which the decision is taken, should be knowable to public or at least to all stakeholders involved vide BALCO EMPLOYEES' UNION vs. UNION OF INDIA 2002 (2) SCC 333 . Moreover, such a requirement of transparency is categorically rendered an imperative where the public at large is a stakeholder and where the actions that are carried out are by an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. 7. It has long been a settled position of law that when property is to be disposed off by a public authority, such property can be disposed only by public auction and not otherwise. What the Apex Court observed in SACHIDANANDA PANDEY vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL, AIR 1987 SC 1109 , at paragraph 6.2 is worth reproducing: "...On a consideration of the relevant cases cited at the bar the following propositions may be taken as well established. State-owned or public-owned property is not to be dealt with at the absolute discretion of the executive. Certain precepts and principles have to be observed. Public interest is the paramount consideration. One of the methods of securing the public interest, when it is considered necessary to dispose of a property, is to sell the property by public auction or by inviting tenders. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Though that is the ordinary rule, it is not an invariable rule. There may be situations where there are compelling reasons necessitating departure from the rule but then the reasons for the departure must be rational and should not be suggestive of discrimination. Appearance of public justice is as important as doing justice. Nothing should be done which gives an appearance of bias, jobbery or nepotism." Therefore, the Board Resolutions in question not being consistent with the law declared by the Apex Court cannot be treated as justiciable and thus, they cannot be profitably pressed into service. 8. The subject properties because of the conveyances executed by the owners have become the assets of the Housing Board, which is a statutory authority whose powers are regulated by the provisions of 1962 Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder. The Board, is a legal person, cannot be disputed. A natural person can do all that what is not prohibited by law, and a legal person can do all that which is provided by law vide SATI BHUSHAN MUKHERJEE vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA, AIR 1949 CAL 20 wherein the Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court it had observed as under: "...There is fundamental distinction between the capacity of a natural person and of an artificial person which has been created by Statute or Charter. To a natural person whatever is not expressly forbidden by law is permitted by the law. He has the capacity to do everything save and expect those forbidden by law. In case of an artificial person - e.g., corporation, which can be created either by charter or by statute the rule applicable to a natural person is revered. Whatever is not permitted expressly or by necessary implication by the constituting instrument is prohibited not by any express or implied prohibition of legislation but by the doctrine of ultra vires..." The Board is not only a legal person but an instrumentality of State too under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, it cannot venture into a private transaction for disposal of its property except as provided by law i.e., Sec. 39 of the 1962 Act r/w Rule 9(3) of 1964 Rules. What the Housing Board has said in the subject Resolutions is that, if the Petitioners want the subject properties, they can buy them back for Guideline Value as notified by the Government. What the Housing Board has said in the subject Resolutions is that, if the Petitioners want the subject properties, they can buy them back for Guideline Value as notified by the Government. Therefore, the Petitioners do not have a justiciable right to seek reconveyance of the land on the basis of the Board Resolutions in question, much less by returning the sale price with some interest. An argument to the contrary if countenanced, would not only put all public property at the enormous risk of depletion through dubious process but amount to Writ Court being the protector of the public property placing premium on illegality. 9. The vehement of submission of learned advocates appearing for the Petitioners that the Board on some occasions has sold the property back to the owners thereof after receiving back the consideration with some interest and therefore, Board's insistence on the payment of Guideline Value is discriminatory of their clients, is difficult to countenance. To put forth the plea of discrimination, the person discriminated should show that the comparable act of the authority on which he seeks parity of treatment, is prima facie lawful. However, that has not been so demonstrated here. In some cases, the Board has reconveyed the properties bought earlier, to their erstwhile owners, would not much come to the aid of Petitioners since this Court cannot place its imprimatur on such acts that offend the statutory provisions, to say the least. Admittedly, these properties were not acquired by the State in exercise of its power of eminent domain, but, where bought in the open market. Had they been the so called 'victims of compulsory acquisition', different considerations would have arisen. In the above circumstances, these Writ Petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are, with a warning to the Respondent- State and the Respondent- Housing Board against reconveying the properties bought by sale except by public auction and in accordance with law. The amount if any, deposited by the Petitioners seeking towards the intended reconveyance, whether by interim order of the Court or otherwise, shall be refunded forthwith. For information and needful action, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment immediately by Speed Post to: i) the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, No.10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. ii) the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru. For information and needful action, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment immediately by Speed Post to: i) the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, No.10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. ii) the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru. This Court places on record its deep appreciation for the able research and assistance rendered by its official Law Clerk-cum-Research Assistant, Mr. Faiz Afsar Sait.