Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, vs G. Ranga Rao S/O.G.V. Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 4624 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 4624 Tel
Judgement Date : 14 September, 2022

Telangana High Court

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, vs G. Ranga Rao S/O.G.V. Rao on 14 September, 2022

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, C.V. Bhaskar Reddy

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                     AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY


             WRIT APPEAL No.621 of 2007

JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)



     Heard Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant and Mr. Kishore Rai,

learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3.

2. Initially the writ appeal was filed by Andhra

Pradesh Housing Board, which now stands substituted

by Telangana Housing Board.

3. Respondents No.1 to 3 as writ petitioners No.3 to

5 had filed the related writ petition, being W.P.No.8653

of 2005, questioning the letter dated 01.03.2005 of the

appellant as illegal and arbitrary.

4. Respondents No.1 to 3 had purchased High

Income Group (HIG) flats from the erstwhile Andhra

Pradesh Housing Board (Housing Board) following

advertisement and selection. Though they had paid

almost the entire sale amount barring 10% of the cost

as per last instalment, letters of allotment were issued

on 24.09.2002 followed by allotment letter-cum-notice

for payment dated 27.05.2003 wherein it was

mentioned that any payment beyond the schedule date

would attract interest at the rate of 10%. If possession

of the flats was not delivered within the stipulated

period, Housing Board would be under an obligation to

pay Rs.3,000.00 per month to the allottees. Housing

Board informed the allottees, including respondents

No.1 to 3 herein, vide letter dated 01.03.2005 that the

concerned flats would be ready by 11.03.2005.

Therefore, the allottees were required to pay balance

10% of the cost besides further amount towards

maintenance, car parking etc. Contending that the

flats were not fit for occupation, the flat allottees

demanded handing over possession of the flats to them

or alternatively to pay Rs.3,000.00 per month

clarifying that the balance of the instalment amount

would be paid once the flats were ready. This led to

filing of the writ petition.

5. During the pendency of the writ petition,

respondents No.1 to 3 paid the last instalment.

However, Housing Board took the view that

respondents No.1 to 3 were liable to pay the further

sum of Rs.91,000.00 representing the difference of cost

from the leftover 10%.

6. After hearing the matter, learned Single Judge

took the view that the entire controversy could be given

a quietus by directing respondents No.1 to 3 to pay a

further sum of Rs.25,000.00 and at the same time

directing the appellant to deliver possession of the flats

and to execute sale deeds. Accordingly, the writ

petition was disposed of vide the order dated

19.04.2007 in the following terms:

"a) The petitioners shall deposit a further sum of Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) instead of 91,000/- (Ninety one thousand) towards cost of the flats allotted to them, as well as the other stipulated amounts towards cost of car parking, maintenance fund, etc, within four weeks from today.

b) On such payment, the A.P. Housing Board shall deliver the possession of the respective flats to the petitioners and execute the sale deeds, within 15 days, from the date of such payment."

7. It is this order which has been impugned by the

Housing Board in this appeal.

8. On 09.08.2007 the appeal was admitted and as

an interim measure, both the parties were directed to

maintain status quo as on 09.08.2007. Subsequently,

on 08.10.2007, the interim order dated 09.08.2007

was made absolute subject to the following conditions:

"1) If respondent Nos. 1 to 3 pay the balance amount within a period of three months from today, the competent authority of the appellant shall deliver possession to them and

execute the sale deeds in their favour within next two months. The registration expenses shall be borne by respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

2) If the writ appeal is ultimately dismissed, then the appellant shall have to refund the excess amount if any recovered from respondent Nos.1 to 3 with interest @ 9% calculated from the date of deposit."

9. We have been informed at the bar that following

the aforesaid order dated 08.10.2007, respondents

No.1 to 3 had deposited Rs.91,000.00 with the

appellant. Appellant had delivered possession of the

respective flats to respondents No.1 to 3. Thereafter,

sale deeds were executed which have also been

registered.

10. Insofar the second condition in the order dated

08.10.2007 is concerned, refund of the excess amount

i.e., amount paid over and above Rs.25,000.00 which

is Rs.66,000.00 with interest at the rate of 9%, learned

counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 fairly submits that