THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.31799 OF 2024

ORDER

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Housing appearing for respondent No.1, Sri C. Buchi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Housing Board appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners in brief, is that they have purchased flats in building named as “Sampoorna” situated at Phase XV, Ven-III in Sy. Nos.962/P and 1009 at KPHB Colony, Moosapet Circle 23, Medchal Malkajgiri District constructed by the 2^nd respondent; that the tentative cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.30,80,000/-; and that the respondent authorities thereafter informed the petitioners that the final cost has been determined at Rs.47,85,000/-.

3. Petitioners further contend that on the respondent authorities intimating the final cost as Rs.47,85,000/-, the petitioners have made the aforesaid payment of final price and on such payment the respondent authorities have also executed the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners during the year 2022-2023.

4. Petitioners further contend that notwithstanding the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioners on payment of the final price of the flat as communicated by the respondent authority, the respondent authority is not returning the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) collected an amount of Rs.2,76,000/- from each of the petitioners in the year 2017 before finalization of the final cost of flats sold to them, despite the petitioners approaching the respondents and seeking for return of the fixed Deposit receipts, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

5. Counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is filed.

6. By the counter-affidavit, it is contended that initially the tentative/estimated cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.30,80,000/- and thereafter the final cost was arrived at Rs.47,85,000/- which the buyers of the flats like petitioners are required to pay. 7. By the counter-affidavit, it is contended that on a challenge being made to the final cost intimated by the respondent authority, some of the flat allottees have approached this Court earlier by filing a Writ Petition, vide W.P. No.39114 of 2013 and this Court had directed the petitioners therein to furnish the FDRs towards the differential cost as the Contractor engaged by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had claimed the additional amounts.

8. The respondents by the counter-affidavit while not disputing the fact of petitioners having paid the amount of Rs.47,85,000/- being the final cost intimated to them would however, claim that since the claim of the Contractor against the Housing Board is yet to be adjudicated, the petitioners are not entitled to seek return of FDRs and thus the present Writ Petition as filed is without any merit.

9. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

10. It is to be noted that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein had invited applications for allotment of flats being constructed by them from the intending purchasers on the promise that the aforesaid flats would be constructed and delivered to them in a time bound manner with a tentative/estimated cost of Rs.30,80,000/-. Many aspiring purchasers had shown interest to purchase the aforesaid flats as the same are being constructed by the 2^nd respondent herein who is an instrumentality of the State. However, the intending purchasers like the petitioners were in for a surprise on account of the 2nd respondent not only having failed to deliver the constructed flat within the time mentioned, but on the other hand were issued with intimations informing them that the final cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.47,85,000/- and directing him to pay the difference amount.

11. Upon the respondent issuing such intimation, about 135 flat purchasers have approached t