HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.971 of 2006 Date : 13.09.2010 Between : G. Lakshmi. …..Petitioner And Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Secunderabad, rep. by its Vice Chairman & others. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.971 of 2006 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions by way of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents in not executing the conveyance deed in favour of petitioner in respect of Plot No.313 in LIG category at Nallagandla residential complex in Ranga Reddy District, having received the total sale consideration amount from the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary, and for a consequential directions to the respondents to register the said property in favour of the petitioner. The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, which is constituted under the provisions of the A.P. Urban Areas Development Act of 1975, has developed the land into house sites within the revenue limits of Nallagandla village in Ranga Reddy District. It has allotted plots by way of draw, on 15.07.1997 and the petitioner was allotted the plot bearing No.313 in LIG category, to an extent of 135 sq. metres at the rate of Rs.300/- per square metre. The total consideration of Rs.40,500/- was paid and accordingly, provisional allotment letter, dt.17.07.1997, and final allotment letter, dated 23.09.1997, were issued. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has paid full consideration amount. On the ground that she has not taken possession within a period of one month from the date of final allotment letter, respondents have also collected an amount of Rs.52,230/- towards watch and ward charges from the petitioner. After paying the entire consideration amount, when the petitioner has made a request to transfer the plot in her favour by executing the registered conveyance deed, respondents are not acceding to her request, as such, she approached this Court by seeking a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents as illegal and arbitrary. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Secretary, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority. In the counter, it is admitted that the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid plot and that she has paid the entire sale price. Respondents also admitted in the counter that they collected an amount of Rs.52,230/- from the petitioner, towards the watch and ward charges. While referring to the application of the petitioner for registration of plot on 14.07.2005, it is stated that the 3rd respondent herein, who is impleaded subsequent to filing of the writ petition, has filed a representation on 3rd of August 2005, in which, he made a request to register the aforesaid plot in his favour, by extending the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.62, MA, dated 21st February 2004. Precisely, it is the case of respondents that in view of the claim made by respondent No.3 that he has entered into an agreement to purchase the aforesaid plot from the petitioner, no sale deed is executed in favour of petitioner, and that G.O.Ms.No.62, MA, dated 21st February 2004 permits the authorities to execute the sale deed in favour of a third party. Further representations of the petitioner, dated 4th August 2005 and 19th August 2005, are also referred to, wherein, the petitioner has stated that some unauthorized persons are claiming title in respect of the plot in question, by submitting false documents. It also stated that in the said representations, the petitioner requested to transfer the plot in her favour. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also Sri M.Dhananjay Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for HUDA. There is no representation on behalf of the impleaded respondent No.3. The Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.62, MA, dated 21st February 2004, granting approval to the Urban Development Authorities to amend their allotment regulations, by incorporating the provisions as indicated below: “i) 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. ii) 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. iii) 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 life time. iv) If the allottee dies without leaving a nomination or a Will, the normal legal procedure shall be allowed.” In this writ petition, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is allotted Plot No.313, she has paid the entire sale price and she was also issued the provisional and final allotment letters, and further, an amount of Rs.52,230/- was also collected from the petitioner towards watch and ward charges, on the ground that the petitioner has not taken possession of the plot within a period of one month from the issuance of final allotment letter. As evident from the counter affidavit, the only reason for not executing the conveyance deed in favour of petitioner, appears to be the claim made by respondent No.3 stating that the petitioner has entered into an agreement with him for sale of the said plot, which is disputed by the petitioner. As per the case of the petitioner, she has not executed any agreement of sale, and that the documents are fabricated. Although there is a claim by respondent No.3, stating that he has paid the security and development charges, but the fact remains that the allotment is made in favour of petitioner and the sale price is also paid by the petitioner, and even the development charges are received in the name of the petitioner. The orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.62, MA, dated 21st February 2004 merely permits for amendment of regulations on par with the regulations of the A.P. Housing Board, permitting the transfer of property to the nominee of the allottee or to any third party, in case, if there is sale of property in favour of the third party. But, in cases where there is a dispute with regard to sale itself, merely because a claim is made by a third party claiming that he has entered into agreement of sale with the petitioner, which is in dispute, the same is no ground for not executing the registered conveyance deed in favour of petitioner. The power to transfer the property in favour of the nominee of the allottee or any other third party by the respondent-authorities, shall be construed as only subject to the consent by the original allottee, but not otherwise. When the original allotment is in favour of the petitioner and the allotment as well as receipt of sale price from the petitioner is not in dispute, the respondent cannot refuse to execute the registered conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner, merely based on the disputed claim of respondent No.3 that he has entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner. If respondent No.3 claims any right pursuant to the agreement of sale alleged to have been entered into with the petitioner, it is for respondent No.3 to work out the remedies in a Civil Court, but when the agreement itself is in dispute, same cannot be the reason for not executing the conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner. As much as the entire sale price is paid, so also the watch and ward charges to the tune of Rs.52,230/-, the only reason stated by the respondents for not registering the property, cannot be accepted. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as sought for in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to convey Plot No.313 in LIG category, to an extent of 135 sq. metres, at Nallagandla residential complex in Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the petitioner, without reference to the claim made by respondent No.3, and execute the registered conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that if any expenses are to be incurred by the petitioner as per the regulations, respondents may insist for payment of said charges or any other amounts due from the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed with the directions referred above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 13th September 2010 ajr