IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6315 of 2002 Between: 1 Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, S/o Kanhyalal Gupta R/o 21-2-579, Urdu Shareef, Patel Market, Hyderabad. 2 Ramanlal Agarwal, S/o Kanhyalal Gupta, R/o 21-2-579, Urdu Shareef, Patel Market Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Rep. by its Vice-Chairman cum Commissioner Housing, "Gruhakalpa", Mouzamjahi Market Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Board in not executing the sale deed in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the proceeding Memo No.11733/J7/85 dt: 27-7-2001 as absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and also violative of Rule 29(iv) of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Rules 1959 and consequently direct the respondent Board to execute the sale deed for the property bearing Municipal No. 21-1-699, situated at Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad and deliver the Possession forthwith in the interest of justice, Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent: MR.C.V.RAJEEVA REDDY The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION No.6315 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioners’ grandfather was a lessee of a mulgi bearing Municipal No.21-1-699 situated at Rikab Gunj, Hyderabad. The lease commenced in 1957. After his death, his son Kanhyalal Gupta succeeded to the lease, which was recognized by Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB). In 2001, APHB conducted public auction to transfer the mulgi by way of sale. The petitioners herein who are sons of Kanhyalal Gupta were successful bidders. They submitted representation for execution of sale deed, in vain. Apprehending threat of dispossession, they ﬁled an injunction suit, being O.S.No.840 of 2001, on the ﬁle of the Court of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the suit, there were negotiations, as per which the petitioners were required to pay the entire amount. On 27.07.2001, APHB issued a memo for sale of garage No.21-1- 699. The amount was paid and in spite of the sale, the sale deed was not executed. Aggrieved by the inaction, the present writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus to APHB to execute the sale deed. A counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled virtually admitting the petitioners’ case. However, in paragraph 6 of the counter- aﬃdavit, the Vice-Chairman and Housing Commissioner of APHB made the following averments. While so, a legal notice was got issued by Smt. Hafeezunnisa Begum w/o Late Mohd. Sabith Ali Khan stating that she ﬁled O.S.No.509/95 against the respondent Board before the City Civil Court for declaration of title to the 5 mulgies bearing No.854 to 858 (old) corresponding to Municipal No.677 to 681 (new), {which now corresponds to Nos.701 to 704 and 699} standing on a plinth area of 918 Sft. in Ricab Gunj, which was dismissed on 23.04.98. Against the said dismissal, C.C.C.A.No.158/98 was ﬁled along with the CMP.No.1822/99 seeking injunction restraining the respondent Board from alienating or creating any 3rd party interest with regard to the above mentioned Mulgies pending CCCA. The Hon’ble High Court in the said CMP has passed interim direction dated 15.06.99 restraining the respondent Board from alienating or creating any third party interests over the mulgies mentioned therein, which includes the subject mulgi. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for APHB and perusing the aﬃdavit and evidence on record, it becomes clear that APHB is restrained by this Court by reason of order dated 15.06.1999 in C.M.P.No.1822 of 1999 in C.C.C.A.No.158 of 1998 from alienating or creating any third party interest. As the petitioners are not parties to the said proceedings and also having regard to the fact that the sale in favour of the petitioners was ﬁnalized in 2001, APHB may move appropriate application in pending C.C.C.A., obtain necessary orders and proceed further. It shall also be open to the petitioners to get impleaded in the said C.C.C.A. and seek modiﬁcation of the orders. In this writ petition, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 25th September, 2008 IBL