Telangana Housing Board Formerly ... vs Mr. R. Venugopal Reddy And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2294 Tel

Item No.29

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                         AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

                           W.A.No.268 OF 2021

JUDGMENT : (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

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 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 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.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

_______________________ A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J

06.08.2021 Lrkm/vs