Allowed

Smt. R. Bhadramma, VISAKHAPATNAM-1. v. the A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Mar 2023WP/4174/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Article 226, the court directed the A.P. Housing Board to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner or her nominee for a quarter in Kurnool, as the petitioner had paid all dues and transfer fees under the applicable Government Order, despite respondents citing signature discrepancies and another pending suit.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner or her nominee for the quarter No.38, M.I.G.B.Camp, Phase III, Kurnool within 3 months.

Smt. R. Bhadramma, VISAKHAPATNAM… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.4174 of 2009 VS,J

¶3

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.4174 of 2009

¶5

ORDER:

¶6

The present writ petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶7

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶8

“…to issue any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings dt.17.07.2004, dt.01.11.2004, dt.06.09.2006, 18.02.2008 and the letter dt.02.06.2008, issued by the 2^nd respondent refusing to execute registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner or her nominee inspite of her paying all the dues demanded by them on behalf of the 3^rd respondent by virtue of the agreement of sale dt.02.11.1991, executed by R3 in her favour, as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of G.O.Ms.No.67 Housing (HB.II) Department dt.08.09.2001 and consequently to set aside the said proceedings and consequently to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to execute a registered sale deed for the quarter No.38 M.I.G.B.Camp, Phase III, Kurnool, in favour of the petitioner or her nominee within the time stipulated by this Hon’ble Court …”

¶9

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased a quarter No.M.I.G.38 from the 3^rd respondent herein, who was allotted the same by the 1^st respondent in B-Camp, Kurnool to an extent of 306 sq.yards, for a sum of Rs.2,10,000/vide agreement of sale dated 02.11.1991 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 3^rd respondent had agreed to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.10,000/- within 6 months and to

¶10

¶11

W.P.No.4174 of 2009 VS,J

¶12

get the registered sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner. But, however, the 3^rd respondent could not get the registered sale deed executed within the time of 6 months.

¶13

The respondent No.3 had addressed a letter dated 24.04.1992, by giving reply to the letter addressed by the petitioner dated 04.04.1992, acknowledging and confirming the execution of the agreement of sale and receiving of the consideration and assuring to get the sale deed executed. Later, the petitioner had addressed a letter to the respondent No.3 authorizing Mr. P. Apparao to take delivery of quarter No.38 on her behalf, for which the respondent No.3 had delivered possession of the quarter No.38 to the petitioner through her authorized representative i.e., Sri. P. Apparao on 03.06.1992. As the 3^rd respondent had not paid the full consideration to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, he could not get the sale deed in his favour by the date of agreement of sale and by the date of delivery of possession.

¶14

While the matter being so, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.67, authorizing the respondent Nos.1 & 2 to directly execute registered sale deed in favour of the 3^rd parties who entered into agreements of sales with the original allotees on condition of the 3^rd party paying 7% towards transfer

¶15

¶16

W.P.No.4174 of 2009 VS,J

¶17

fees on the market value of the quarters or houses. In view of the said G.O., the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 12.11.2001 and a reminder letter dated 22.11.2001 to the 1^st respondent intimating about the agreement of sale she entered into with the 3^rd respondent and had requested the 1^st respondent to inform her the amount payable by the 3^rd respondent to the board, to enable her to get the registered sale deed in her favour. In response to the representation made by the petitioner, the 1^st respondent had addressed a letter to the 2^nd respondent dated 18.12.2001 marking a copy to the petitioner, requesting the respondent No.2 to take action in terms of the guidelines in office order No.PR/PC/2001, dated 20.09.2001 for transfer of the house in the name of the person other than the allotee.

¶18

Based on the letter addressed by the 1^st respondent dated 18.12.2001, the petitioner had addressed a letter dated 25.12.2001 to the 2^nd respondent requesting him to intimate the balance of sale price payable by her to get the registered sale deed in her favour for quarter No.38. The 2^nd respondent on 01.01.2002, had addressed a letter to the petitioner stating that the 3^rd respondent has to pay an amount of Rs.72,913/- as on 18.03.2002, for which the petitioner had paid a sum of

¶19

¶20

W.P.No.4174 of 2009 VS,J

¶21

Rs.50,000/- and received a receipt issued by the 2^nd respondent dated 18.01.2001. There upon, the petitioner had requested the respondent No.2 to waive the interest part if possible through her letter dated 19.01.2002. As the respondent No.2 had not accepted the request made by the petitioner, the petitioner had paid the entire balance amount of Rs.22,913/- and obtained receipt of acknowledgment dated 01.02.2002, wherein, the name of the 3^rd respondent was printed showing his address as c/o petitioner.

¶22

The main grievance of the petitioner is that, as she paid the entire amount due by the 3^rd respondent to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 have to execute the regular sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Later, the petitioner had addressed letter dated 24.04.2002, requesting the respondent No.1 to execute a registered sale deed in her favour as she had paid the entire amount that was due. As there was no reply from the 1^st respondent, the petitioner had addressed reminder letters dated 24.08.2002, 24.12.2002, 04.01.2003, 11.02.2003, 21.10.2003, 24.10.2003, 29.10.2003, 31.10.2003, 25.12.2003, 09.02.2004 and 21.02.2004. The respondent No.2, in reply to the petitioner’s letters, had issued a reply letter dated 14.06.2004, stating that the registered sale deed cannot be

¶23

¶24

W.P.No.4174 of 2009 VS,J

¶25

executed in favour of the petitioner as the quarter No.38 is under the physical possession of the respondent No.3.

¶26

Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 16.08.2004 to the 1^st respondent, for which the 2^nd respondent had issued a reply dated 01.11.2004, stating that the signature of the 3^rd respondent available in their office is not matching with the signatures on the agreement of sale and the letter issued by him to the petitioner and further stated that an amount of Rs.10,000/- was yet to be paid by the respondent No.3, as such the sale deed cannot be executed in favour of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 17.11.2004 to the 2^nd respondent requesting to execute the sale deed and stating that the petitioner had no knowledge about B.Seshanna filing O.S.46/2002 against R-3 for specific performance. The representations and reminder letters addressed to the respondents by the petitioner, were rejected by the respondent Nos.1&2 by giving inconsistent reasons.

¶27

It is the further case of the petitioner that, the respondent Nos.1&2 have also issued a notification in Eenadu dated 18.03.2002, calling for objections for entertaining 3^rd party registrations and the name of the petitioner is shown in serial No.26 as 3^rd party purchaser under agreement of sale against the

¶28

¶29

W.P.No.4174 of 2009 VS,J

¶30

3^rd respondent for quarter No.38, M.I.G. B.Camp, Kurnool, Phase III. It is clear that the respondent No.1&2 are bound to execute the sale deed in favour of the petitioner or her nominee. Also, the fact that in one Dr. B.Sesanna who has filed O.S.no.46 of 2002 against the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein for specific performance under an agreement of sale dated 12.02.1999 was decreed only for the alternative relief of refund of advance amount paid by the said Sesanna to respondent No.3 along with interest and the main relief of specific performance is rejected by judgment dated 11.11.2002 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool by referring to the agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner was already in existence. The said judgment and decree became final as either of the parties of the suit have not challenged in an appeal. In view of the above, the respondent No.1&2 have no legal impediment or factual difficulty in executing a regular sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed a counter admitting the facts as stated by the petitioner, but, however, stated as follows:

¶32

“ When the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the A.P. Housing Board as long back on 14.06.2004, this Writ Petition filed in the year 2009 is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. Merely submitting representations periodically to which A.P.H.B has been

¶33

¶34

W.P.No.4174 of 2009 VS,J

¶35

giving replies that her claim was already rejected and intimated to her, will not keep the cause of action alive. In any case, the agreement of the Petitioner is with the Third Respondent and not A.P.H.B and her remedy lies against the Third Respondent only. She has no right to file the present Writ Petition against the A.P. Housing Board. 11. I respectfully submit that the A.P. Housing Board is contractually, and also by virtue of Rule 27, bound to register the houses in favour of the Third Respondent. At the request of the Third Respondent, it can be registered in favour of his wife, son or daughter. If an allottee dies, A.P.H.B has to register the house in favour of his nominee and if there is no nomination, in favour of his legal heirs. If the Third Respondent has sold the house to a third party, then A.P.H.B can register the house in favour of the Third Party by collecting transfer fees. The Petitioner is claiming that the Third Respondent has sold the house to her. However, the signatures on the documents produced by her are not tallying with the signatures of the Third Respondent available on record. Hence, the said documents cannot be accepted as genuine and have to be treated as fake and fabricated. Further, she has produced only Xerox copies and not the original documents. Further, the other circumstance such as the fact that even subsequent to the date of the alleged agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner, the Third Respondent has been paying the installments and corresponding with the A.P.H.B, and with the Competent Authority, the fact that the house is not in the possession of the petitioner but is in the possession of the tenant of the Third Respondent etc., also show that the claim of the petitioner is false. Therefore, there is a question mark as to whether the Third Respondent has sold the house to the petitioner or not. Unless the same is proved, the petitioner cannot demand registration of the house in her name. If the Third Respondent appears and confirms that he has sold the

W.P.No.4174 of 2009

VS,J

said house to the petitioner, or if the petitioner obtains a declaration from any Court to that effect, then, subject to receipt of the amounts due to it, A.P.H.B can have no objection to transfer the house in favour of the petitioner. But without getting the Third Respondent or any Court order and in the absence of tallying of the signatures on the documents submitted by her, the petitioner cannot seek registration of the house in her favour.”

¶40

As per the facts of the present case, it appears that

¶41

the petitioner has purchased the said property from the 3^rd respondent herein, by way of an agreement of sale dated 02.11.1991. But, however, though the said possession of the house was handed over by the 3^rd respondent to the petitioner on 03.06.1992, the 3^rd respondent could not get the said property registered in his favour due to non-payment of full sale consideration to the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶42

The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.67, authorizing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to directly execute the registered sale deed in favour of third parties who entered into agreement of sale with the original allottees on condition of the third party paying 7% towards transfer fee on the market value of the quarters or houses. The petitioner has submitted representations on 12.11.2001 and as well as 22.11.2001 to register the said house in her favour in accordance with G.O.Ms.no.67, dated 08.09.2001 and thereafter, on the request of

¶43

¶44

W.P.No.4174 of 2009 VS,J

¶45

the respondent Nos.1 and 2, the petitioner has also paid the amount of Rs.72,912/- along with interest payable by the 3^rd respondent to the 2^nd respondent herein.

¶46

But, in spite of that, the 2^nd respondent has failed to register the said plot in favour of the petitioner. On a representation made by the petitioner dated 16.08.2004, the 2^nd respondent-A.P. Housing Board, Kurnool, vide proceedings dated 01.11.2004, had rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that the signature of the 3^rd respondent available in their office is not matching with the signature on the agreement of sale. It is further stated that one Mr. B. Sesanna has filed O.S.No.46 of 2002 for specific performance and because of which they could not register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶47

Admittedly, the case of the petitioner is that the said O.S.No.46 of 2002 filed by Mr. B. Sesanna was decreed. But, however, only for the advance amount paid by the said B. Sesanna to the 3^rd respondent. But, however, the main relief sought in the said suit was rejected by way of a judgment dated 11.11.2003 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, which has become final as none of the parties have challenged the same in an appeal.

W.P.No.4174 of 2009

VS,J

In view of the fact that the petitioner has already paid the amount of Rs.72,912/- as demanded by the respondents, the respondents are bound to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. But, when the petitioner is willing to pay 7% towards transfer fee on the market value of the quarter or houses as under G.O.Ms.No.67, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to execute the registered sale deed for the quarter No.M.I.G.38, Phase-III, Kurnool, in favour of the petitioner or her nominee, without raising any objection that the signature of the 3^rd respondent is not tallying with the agreement of sale that is presented by the petitioner. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶52

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶54

_________________ V. SUJATHA, J

Date: 21.03.2023.

GSS

W.P.No.4174 of 2009 VS,J

¶59

236

¶60

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V. SUJATHA

¶61

W.P. No.4174 of 2009

¶62

Date: 21.03.2023

¶63

GSS

Smt. R. Bhadramma, VISAKHAPATNAM-1. v. the A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. R. Bhadramma, VISAKHAPATNAM-1. v. the A.P. Housing Board, Hyderabad, and 2 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tadepalli Tataji Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohamed Abdul Malik Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Steel Exchange India Limited, Vs The Special Chief Secretary

R Jagadeesan Vs the State of Ap

Lakkaraju Sanyasi Rao, Visakhapatnam District Vs Md, Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. (Vizag Steel Plant) and 3 Other

S. v. B. Anand, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh