IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 6095 of 2005 Between: M.A. Nayeem, S/o. M.A. Sami, R/o.5-9-199/202, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice-Chairman, HUDA, Paigah Palace, Police Line, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. 2 The Estate officer, HUDA, Paigah palace, police Line, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. ...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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in non executing a registered sale deed in respect of quarter No.79 LIG Madhuban residential complex, situated at Kattedan, RR Dist., in favour of the petitioner having received the total cost of construction along with the registration charges as being illegal, arbitrary, capricious and malafide and pass such other or orders or orders in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SYED SHAREEF AHMED Counsel for the Respondents: M.DHANANJAY REDDY(SC FOR HUDA) The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not executing a registered sale deed in respect of the quarter No.79, LIG Madhuban residential complex, situated at Kattedan, Ranga Reddy District in his favour having received the total cost of construction along with registration charges as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Counter has been filed stating that the petitioner was allotted house No.79 in LIG category with tentative cost of Rs.18,000/- vide allotment notice dated 20.02.1985 and the petitioner paid the EMD & ID of Rs.200/- and Rs.3,550/- resepectively. The quarterly installment of Rs.390.20 per 52 quarters was fixed commencing from 31.03.1985. It is stated that there was a differential cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid before taking physical possession of the house and final cost of the LIG houses was arrived at Rs.26,000/- each and after leaving the initial and part of different cost of Rs.6,550/- a balance of Rs.19,450/- was intimated to the petitioner vide notice dated 21.08.1985. It is stated that the petitioner was not regular in payment of installments, therefore a show cause notice was issued on 01.12.1992 for payment of Rs.1,670.85, thereafter another show cause cum cancellation notice was issued on 31.03.1994, which was affixed on the door of the house of the petitioner. Thereafter, due to non-payment of any amount the allotment was cancelled by order dated 14.09.1994 and again on 05.06.2000. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the petitioner admittedly resides in the said house, the question of affixing the notice on the door does not arise; therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had any knowledge or information either with regard to the show cause notice or with regard to the cancellation of allotment. He further submits that the petitioner is very much residing in the said allotted house. 4. As the scope of the writ petition is only with regard to the non-execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and as now it is stated that after issuing show cause notice, the allotment was cancelled on 14.09.1994 and 05.06.2000, I am not inclined to express any opinion though it appears that there is something fishy about the way in which the show cause notice is said to have been affixed on the door and about the manner in which the allotment was cancelled, not once but twice, on 14.09.1994 and 05.06.2000. However, as the entire file has been produced before this Court along with the concerned Officer, the respondents are directed through their counsel to supply the aforesaid file to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner so as to enable him to question the legality and validity of the said orders. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 3, 2008 DSK