THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.40033 of 2018

O R D E R

The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not executing the registered sale deed, pursuant to agreement of sale dt.24-08-2011 in respect of Flat No.304, 3^rd floor, admeasuring 1024 sq. ft. of Vasantha Bhavana Apartment situated at part of Sy.No.135/2, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in spite of receipt of entire sale consideration.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that 1^st respondent- Telangana Housing Board, is the owner of Ac.4.23 guntas of land in part of Sy.No.135/2, Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and the said land was given to the 2^nd respondent for development for construction of multi-storied apartment complex; that the petitioner, who intend to purchase the flat so developed by the 2^nd respondent, has made booking for the same with the 2^nd respondent, who was authorized by the

1^st respondent to effect sales and paid the entire sale consideration for the flat booked by him; an that even after payment of the total consideration, and in spite of petitioner making requests to register the sale deed in his favour, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not coming forward to register the sale deed in his favour and are postponing the same, which action, it is contended as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Per contra, on behalf of 1^st respondent, it is contend that the covenants of the agreement, under which the subject land was given in development to the 2^nd respondent, provides for the developer to bind the purchasers of flats, like petitioner, by the terms of agreement entered into between the housing Board and the developer; and that inasmuch as disputes have arisen between 1^st and 2^nd respondents with regard to the development agreement and the matter having been referred to arbitration as provided thereunder, the petitioner cannot be permitted to plead that the said agreement entered into between the developer and the Telangana Housing Board does not bind him.

4. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and noted their respective submissions.

5. The subject matter relates to specific performance of contract. When petitioner has paid the entire sale consideration apart from other fees, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are bound to perform their part of contract. When there is a dispute between the respondents Nos.1 and 2, they have to settle their scores between themselves, but cannot make purchasers like the petitioner to suffer who purchased the flat by investing his hard earned monies to find a shelter under a bona fide belief that at least the title of the property would not be called in question. The contention of the respondents that since, the development agreement entered into between respondent Nos.1 and 2 contains an arbitration clause, filing of Writ Petition, without taking recourse to it, in the considered opinion of this Court is not only permitted, but such contention raised by the respondents shall be incorrigible approach of the respondents as arbitration proceedings are between the respondents 1 and 2 in relation to the disputes arising under development agreement, to which the petitioner is not a party.

6. The respondents do not dispute that that petitioner is not in default for any payments due under the entered agreement into by him with the 2^nd respondent, who was authorized by the 1^st respondent to enter into such agreement of sale for the flats. Despite the respondents receiving the entire sale consideration from the petitioner through their agent i.e. the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent could and ought not to have withheld the registration of the flat in favour of the petitioner. The 1^st respondent cannot disown its responsibility and throw the burden on to the 2^nd respondent and for no fault, the petitioner cannot be put to sufferance. Therefore, respondents are liable to register the subject flat in favour of the petitioner.

7. In respect of si