WP/32/2003 of Mahesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, on 29 December 2008

ORDER:

One Sri Rajaratnam was allotted a house bearingNo.70/RT constructed over an area of 500 square yardsof Sanjeevreddy Nagar by the A.P. Housing Board, 1[st]respondent herein, in the year 1970. Even before the 1[st]respondent executed a sale deed or issued orders of finalallotment in favour of Rajaratnam, the latter is said to haveentered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner, inrespect of 250 square yards, initially on 12.09.2001 andthereafter on 29.11.2001. The petitioner approached the1[st] respondent for execution of the sale deed in hisfavour. Rajaratnam died on 11.10.1981. The 4[th]respondent is the wife, respondents 3 and 5 are the sonsand the 2[nd] respondent is the daughter of Rajaratnam.

The petitioner states that though Rule 27(iii) of theA.P. Housing Board Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) providesfor execution of sale deed in favour of transferees fromallottees, the 1[st] respondent is taking steps to execute thesale deed in favour of the legal representatives ofRajaratnam. This writ petition is filed with a prayer todeclare such action as illegal and arbitrary, and forconsequential direction to the 1[st] respondent to executesale deed in his favour.

The 1[st] respondent filed a counter affidavit, statingthat the execution of sale deed in favour of a transferee toan allottee would be possible, if only there are no disputesbetween the parties. He contends that the legalrepresentatives of Rajaratnam, the original allottee, hadseriously contested and they are not agreeable forexecution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner.Reference is also made to a suit, being O.S.No.455 of2004, filed by the petitioner in the Court of II AdditionalChief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabd for specificperformance of the agreement of sale.

Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counselfor the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st]respondent and Sri Ch.Samsan Babu, learned counsel forrespondents 2 to 5.

The allotment by the 1[st] respondent in favour ofindividuals is tentative in nature at the initial stage. Finalallotment or execution of the sale deed would take its owntime. The claims for compensation of the land have to beadjudicated finally, before the actual cost is arrived at. Incertain cases, it takes even decades together. Theallottees are however permitted to enjoy the premises.

Though an individual can transfer any property, afterhe becomes the absolute owner, provision is made in the Rules enabling the allottees to transfer their limited interestin favour of the third parties. In such cases, the finalallotment or execution of the sale deed would be made infavour of the transferees, provided there are no disputesas regards such transfers. Naturally, in the event of therebeing any disputes, the parties have to resolve the samein a civil Court.

The grievance of the petitioner is that though heentered into agreement, as regards 250 square yards,with Rajaratnam, steps are being taken for execution ofthe sale deed in favour of his legal representatives. ThisCourt would certainly have considered the feasibility ofdirecting the 1[st] respondent to take steps in accordancewith Rule 27(iii) of the Rules, if only there did not exist anydisputes. Having realized that the petitioner can derivehis rights only on the basis of a decree for specificperformance, he filed O.S.No.455 of 2004 in the Court of IIAdditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.Having filed a suit for specific performance, the petitionerhas to naturally await the outcome thereof. Till his rightsare determined in that suit, no relief can be granted to himas prayed for in this writ petition.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however,by directing that the entitlement of the petitioner to insiston registration of the property in his name by the 1[st]respondent would depend upon the outcome of the pending suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

JSU

_________

29.12.2008

Conclusion

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

JSU

Writ Petition No.32 of 2003

Date: 29.12.2008