IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5154 of 2003 Between: A.Satyanarayana S/o.Kondaiah R/o.H.No.27-B, Ashoknagar, Eluru. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice- Chairman-cum-Managing Director A.P.Housing Board Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dist. 3 The Dy.Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board Vatluru, Eluru, W.G.Dist. 4 Smt.S.Ramana W/o.Jogaiah R/o. Eluru, W.G.Dist. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue order or orders or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned order dt.25.11.2002 in transferring the petitioner house MIG-3, at Satrampadu in favour of the 4th respondent without consent and permission of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same and consequentially direct the respondents 1 to 3 to register the regular sale deed in favour of the petitioner house bearing No.MIG-3 at Satrampadu forthwith and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.L.ALI Counsel for the Respondents: MR.D.RANGANATHA KUMAR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.5154 of 2003 ORDER: Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) developed a housing scheme at Satrampadu in Eluru. The petitioner was allotted a house bearing No.MIG – 3 in 1977. As per the allotment letter the petitioner entered into hire purchase agreement with APHB. This provides for payment of balance sale consideration in installments. The petitioner alleges that he addressed a letter to respondent No.2 requesting for execution of sale deed and he also sent a demand draft for Rs.7,942/- on 24.04.2001, besides Rs.200/- for other charges. In response thereto, respondent No.2 sent a notice dated 20.11.2001 informing that respondent No.4 represented that she purchased the house from the petitioner and requested for execution of sale deed as per G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 08.09.2001. The petitioner was also directed to appear before respondent No.2. He ﬁled objections and also sent two legal notices dated 18.07.2002 and 06.11.2002. The petitioner was asked to appear, but he did not appear and sent another legal notice through a Counsel. In response thereto, respondent No.1 sent proceedings dated 25.11.2002 informing that allotment of MIG – 3 to the petitioner was cancelled and the same is transferred to respondent No.4 as per Regulation No.27(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of HIG, MIG, LIG and EWS Houses or Flats) Regulations, 1997 (Regulations, for brevity) as amended by G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 08.09.2001. This order is assailed in the writ petition. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled by respondent No.2. It is admitted that MIG – 3 at Phase I, Satrampadu, was allotted to the petitioner. Other allegations made by the petitioner are denied. It is stated that the writ petition is not maintainable as the relationship between the petitioner and APHB is contractual. A reference is made to Bareilly Development Authority v Ajay Pal Singh[1] a n d Delhi Development Authority v Ashok Kumar Behal[2]. In justiﬁcation of the action in canceling the allotment of the petitioner and transferring the house to respondent No.4, the case of APHB is as follows. Originally, the house was allotted to the petitioner on hire purchase basis (20% initial payment and balance 80% in installments). He executed lease – cum – sale agreement dated 16.08.1977 and took possession of the house on 12.10.1977. As per the agreement, allottee shall remain as a lessee until entire amount is paid. Clause Nos.10 and 21 of the agreement prohibit allottee from assigning, relinquishing, mortgaging, subletting or transferring or parting with possession of any portion of the property. Petitioner, however, sold his rights of the house to respondent No.4 on an agreement of sale dated 16.09.1979 executed on a stamp paper. She had been paying installments in respect of the house. She approached APHB with a copy of agreement of sale in her favour executed by the petitioner, challans, ration card and other evidence of possession and requested for execution of sale deed in her favour. On inspection by Executive Engineer it was found that respondent No.4 was in possession of the house. Subsequently, the original allottee submitted demand draft, which was returned informing that S.Jogayya, husband of respondent No.4, paid the amount. After receiving the representation of respondent No.4 notices were sent to petitioner on 20.11.2001 and 22.07.2002 requesting to appear before the authorities. He did not do so. Therefore, a newspaper notiﬁcation was published on 25.10.2002 inviting objections. The petitioner only sent legal notices raising untenable pleas. Therefore, allotment was cancelled and house was transferred in favour of respondent No.4 as per Regulation No.27(iii) of the Regulations. The sale deed was also registered on 26.11.2002 in the Oﬃce of Sub Registrar, Eluru, in favour of respondent No.4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that without the consent of the petitioner, respondents could not have transferred the allotted house to respondent No.4. He also submits that the amendment made vide G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 08.09.2001, is contrary to law and in any event, transfer of allotted houses in favour of third parties can be entertained only at the instance of original allottees. APHB has no such right to transfer the house without the consent of original allottee. These contentions are refuted by learned Standing Counsel for APHB. There is no dispute that allotment of house to the petitioner is regulated by the Regulations made by APHB under Section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956. Regulation No.2(i) of the Regulations, declares that these regulations shall apply to the allotment and sale of houses and ﬂats constructed by APHB. Therefore, Regulation No.27 of the Regulations, as amended from time to time, also applies to the allotment originally made in favour of the petitioner. Regulation No.27 of the Regulations was amended by G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 08.09.2001. After amendment, Regulation No.27 of the Regulations reads as below. 27(i). On payment of sale price as ﬁnally ﬁxed, the house shall be transferred in the name of the allottee by executing a “Conveyance Deed” at his cost. (ii) In case the allottee so wishes by submitting a written application, prior to execution of the conveyance deed, the house or plot or ﬂat shall be transferred in the name of Husband or Wife or Son or Daughter as the case may be. (iii) In case the allottee has transferred the ﬂat or plot or house to a third party, through a sale agreement, either on white paper or stamp paper signed by the allottee, the same will be transferred to the purchasee after levying transfer fee from the transferee at 7% of the present market value of the plot or flat or house as the case may be. (iv) In case of death in harness, the house or ﬂat or plot shall be transferred in favour of the nominee, nominated by the allottee in favour of his/her family member. The allottee is at liberty to change the nomination during his/her lifetime. (v) If the allottee dies without leaving a nomination or a will, the normal legal procedure shall be followed. (NB: Clause (ii) was substituted for the original clause (ii) and clauses (iii) to (v) were added). A plain reading of the above would show that the allottee is given option to make a representation prior to execution of conveyance deed to transfer the house in the name of husband or wife or son or daughter, as the case may be. In case the allottee has transferred the house to a third party through a sale agreement, the same can be transferred to the purchaser after levying transfer fee from the transferee at 7% of the market value of the house. The purpose behind making Regulation No.27(iii) of the Regulations appears to be sound. More often than not, the original allottees, who got houses under APHB at considerably lesser price, enter into agreements of sale with third parties, who ultimately pay the hire purchase installments or balance sale consideration, and in such cases if the allotted houses are not transferred to the subsequent agreement holders, it would cause hardship to them. Secondly, when an original allottee sells the house under agreement of sale, he cannot do so without violating the terms and conditions of allotment as well as lease – cum – sale agreement (hire purchase agreement). If such lapse on the part of original allottee is contained and the conveyance deed is executed in his favour in spite of the fact that he/she sold away the allotted house to the third party, it shall be inequitable. The law does not recognize rights of those persons who violate the legally binding regulations as well as contractual obligations. The petitioner transferred the house in favour of respondent No.4 and executed agreement of sale. Therefore, he cannot be said to have any right to question the action of APHB in canceling the allotment. When once the house is cancelled, petitioner cannot question the transfer of house in favour of respondent No.4. The submission that even when the allotted house is transferred to third party under Regulation 27(iii) of the Regulations, conveyance deed can be executed with the consent of the original authority, is without any basis, and is misconceived. APHB continues to be the owner till a conveyance deed is executed, and if the original allotment is cancelled and house is transferred to a third party, the original allottee cannot have any grievance. Furthermore, respondent No.2 issued two notices and also published paper notiﬁcation. Except sending legal notices, petitioner did not choose to appear before the authorities. The legal notices sent by him do not furnish any justification for violating conditions of allotment and relevant covenants in the lease – cum – sale agreement executed by him. This Court, therefore, does not ﬁnd any inﬁrmity in the impugned order, which is strictly in accordance with Regulation 27(iii) of the Regulations. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14.10.2008 vs To 1 The Vice- Chairman-cum-Managing Director A.P.Housing Board Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board Tadepalligudem, W.G.Dist. 3 The Dy.Executive Engineer, A.P.Housing Board Vatluru, Eluru, W.G.Dist. 4 2CCs to 5 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KMR} [1] AIR 1989 SC 1076 [2] AIR 2002 SC 2940