IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 29988 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.S. SUKUMARAN, MATTAPPALLIL VEEDU, HOUSE NO. B.2070, SATELLITE TOWNSHIP, PADAMUGAL, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB SRI.G.G.MANOJ SRI.P.M.BENZIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695 001. 2. THE REGIONAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI 682 036. ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR, SC KSHB, TVM FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.29988 of 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 4th December, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be an owner in possession and enjoyment of the residential Plot No.B.2070 having an area of 191.88 square meters in Thrikkakara Housing Accommodation Scheme and the buildings situated therein. The said plot was originally allotted to Sri.Krishnan Nair, an Advocate, earlier practicing before this Court. It seems that as per the terms of the allotment, the original allottee assigned his right in favour of the petitioner as early as in 1983 as evidenced by Exhibit P1 agreement. It is the petitioners case that Exhibit P1 agreement was supported by consideration and the amounts payable therein were paid to the Housing Board. 2. This writ petition has been filed essentially seeking a direction to the Housing Board to complete the process of allotment in question in favour of the petitioner and execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner. W.P ( C) No.29988 of 2008 2 3. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents. Respondents refute the petitioner’s contention. It is also contended that the assignement of the rights of an allottee before execution of the sale deed is in contravention of the terms of allotment and terms of the agreement. There is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the Housing Board. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Exhibit P6 representation submitted before the Chairman of the Housing Board who, it is urged, has jurisdiction to take a decision in the matter. 5. Having heard the counsel on both sides, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent – Secretary of the Housing Board to look into Exhibit P6,hear the petitioner and take an appropriate decision within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Contentions available to the petitioner otherwise are left open. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.29988 of 2008 3 W.P ( C) No.29988 of 2008 4