THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.32 of 2003 ORDER: One Sri Rajaratnam was allotted a house bearing No.70/RT constructed over an area of 500 square yards of Sanjeevreddy Nagar by the A.P. Housing Board, 1st respondent herein, in the year 1970. Even before the 1st respondent executed a sale deed or issued orders of final allotment in favour of Rajaratnam, the latter is said to have entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner, in respect of 250 square yards, initially on 12.09.2001 and thereafter on 29.11.2001. The petitioner approached the 1st respondent for execution of the sale deed in his favour. Rajaratnam died on 11.10.1981. The 4th respondent is the wife, respondents 3 and 5 are the sons and the 2nd respondent is the daughter of Rajaratnam. The petitioner states that though Rule 27(iii) of the A.P. Housing Board Rules (for short ‘the Rules’) provides for execution of sale deed in favour of transferees from allottees, the 1st respondent is taking steps to execute the sale deed in favour of the legal representatives of Rajaratnam. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare such action as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential direction to the 1st respondent to execute sale deed in his favour. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the execution of sale deed in favour of a transferee to an allottee would be possible, if only there are no disputes between the parties. He contends that the legal representatives of Rajaratnam, the original allottee, had seriously contested and they are not agreeable for execution of sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Reference is also made to a suit, being O.S.No.455 of 2004, filed by the petitioner in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabd for specific performance of the agreement of sale. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and Sri Ch.Samsan Babu, learned counsel for respondents 2 to 5. The allotment by the 1st respondent in favour of individuals is tentative in nature at the initial stage. Final allotment or execution of the sale deed would take its own time. The claims for compensation of the land have to be adjudicated finally, before the actual cost is arrived at. In certain cases, it takes even decades together. The allottees are however permitted to enjoy the premises. Though an individual can transfer any property, after he becomes the absolute owner, provision is made in the Rules enabling the allottees to transfer their limited interest in favour of the third parties. In such cases, the final allotment or execution of the sale deed would be made in favour of the transferees, provided there are no disputes as regards such transfers. Naturally, in the event of there being any disputes, the parties have to resolve the same in a civil Court. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he entered into agreement, as regards 250 square yards, with Rajaratnam, steps are being taken for execution of the sale deed in favour of his legal representatives. This Court would certainly have considered the feasibility of directing the 1st respondent to take steps in accordance with Rule 27(iii) of the Rules, if only there did not exist any disputes. Having realized that the petitioner can derive his rights only on the basis of a decree for specific performance, he filed O.S.No.455 of 2004 in the Court of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Having filed a suit for specific performance, the petitioner has to naturally await the outcome thereof. Till his rights are determined in that suit, no relief can be granted to him as prayed for in this writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, by directing that the entitlement of the petitioner to insist on registration of the property in his name by the 1st respondent would depend upon the outcome of the pending suit. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 29.12.2008 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.32 of 2003 Date: 29.12.2008 JSU