THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.A.No.589 of 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Learned counsel for the State of Telangana, at the outset,
has drawn the attention of this Court towards the order dated
06.08.2021 passed in W.A.No.268 of 2021 and he has stated that
the controversy involved in the present case stands concluded by
the aforesaid order. He has stated that an identical issue has been
decided by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench has
upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.268 of 2021
is reproduced as under:-
"1. The appellants No.1 and 2/Telangana Housing Board (in
short, Board) and the appellant No.3/State Government are
aggrieved by the judgment dated 10.03.2021, passed by the
learned Single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by the
respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners who were aggrieved by
the delay on the part of the respondent No.3/Developer (impleaded as the respondent No.2 in the writ petition) in failing to execute and register a Sale Deed in respect of the flat allotted to them, despite receiving the entire sale consideration.
2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and turned down the plea of the appellants that as the respondent No.3/Developer has not complied with the relevant provisions of the Development Agreement and there is a dispute between the parties that has been referred to arbitration, a Sale Deed cannot be executed and registered in favour of the writ petitioners.
3. It is not in dispute that the entire sale consideration payable by the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners has already been paid. Despite that, the sale deed has not been registered in their favour for over a decade only on the plea taken by the appellants that the respondent No.3/Developer has failed to complete the project and there are short remittances of the revenue share due to the appellants No.1 and 2/Board. Holding that the 2 respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners cannot be made scapegoats at the hands of the appellants and the respondent No.3/Developer, the writ petition has been allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- imposed on the appellant No.1/Board payable to the writ petitioners and with a further direction to the appellant No.1/Board to register the subject flat in their favour within one week.
4. Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants assails the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned Single Judge ignored the fact that there is an arbitration clause governing the appellants and the respondent No.3/Developer and that arbitration proceedings are pending between the said parties. He concedes that the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners are not parties to the said arbitration proceedings, but submits that they ought to await its outcome. Another plea taken on behalf of the appellants is that there was an alternate remedy available to the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners before the civil court or Consumer Forum and therefore, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained. It is stated that the respondent No.3/Developer has defaulted in completing the entire project on time and huge amounts are payable by it to the appellants Nos.1 and 2/Board. Till the said amount is paid, the appellants are unwilling to execute any sale deed in favour of the allottees of the flats. Learned Special Government Pleader also alludes to the recommendations of a Cabinet Sub-Committee that had heard the appellants No.1 and 2/Board and the respondent No.3/Developer and recommended that only after the Developer pays the entire dues owed to the Board, should the sale deeds be executed in favour of the allottees. Stating that the said recommendations have been approved by the appellant No.3/State Government and duly communicated to the appellants No.1 and 2/Board and the respondent No.3/Developer vide letter dated 28.02.2019, learned counsel submits that the appellants are not in a position to execute a Sale Deed in favour of the writ petitioners.
5. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners had entered into a sale agreement with the appellants No.1 and 2/Board and the respondent No.3/Developer in the year 2009 in respect of the subject flat. The last instalment towards the sale consideration of the said allotted flat due and payable by the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners was paid on 31.01.2011. Even after a decade reckoned from the date of paying the entire sale consideration, the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners are being harassed due to 3 the on going disputes between the appellants and the respondent No.3/Developer.
6. We are of the opinion that any unilateral decision taken by the State Government that amounts to creating an impediment for a bona fide allottee who has paid the entire sale consideration of the flat, as demanded in terms of the contract executed with the appellants No.1 and 2/Board and the respondent No.3/Developer, cannot bind the said party. There is no question of the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners being relegated to invoking civil remedies against the appellants or being made to await the outcome of the arbitration proceedings pending between the appellants No.1 and 2/Board and the Developer, as sought to be argued by learned Special Government Pleader. The entire approach of the appellants to the difficulties faced by genuine flat allottees who have discharged their part of the obligation under the contract executed with the appellants No.1 and 2/Board and the respondent No.3/Developer has been most unreasonable, absurd and deserves to be deprecated. The appellants have been making allottees like the writ petitioners herein, who have paid the entire sale consideration in respect of the subject flats in terms of the contract, to run from pillar to post for execution and registration of the Sale Deeds, for no fault of theirs.
7. When the appellants are not disputing the fact that the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners have paid the entire sale consideration of the flat as was demanded, there is no good reason asto why any recommendations made by a Sub-Committee of the Cabinet and endorsed by the State Government, can come in the way of the execution and registration of the Sale Deeds in their favour. We are therefore of the opinion that the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference.
8. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications, if any, with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) proposed on the appellants to be deposited with the Telangana Bar Association within one week from today for spending the same on the welfare of COVID affected Lawyers. Further, noting that in the impugned judgment, a period of one week was granted to the appellants No.1 and 2/Board to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2/writ petitioners and the said period has long since expired, a period of two more weeks is granted to the appellants to make compliances."
4In the light of the aforesaid and in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ appeal stands dismissed and the judgment delivered in W.A.No.268 of 2021 on 06.08.2021 shall be applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case also.
The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 08.11.2021 JSU