ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction and inordinate delay in executing and registering sale deed in respect of Flat No.B2-303, B2 Block, Indu Aranya Pallavi, Survey No.117 (Part) of Tattiannaram village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District in favour of the petitioners despite receiving entire sale consideration as being illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondents to execute and register sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of the above flat. 2. The case of the petitioners is that first respondent is the owner of the land admeasuring Ac.50-00 in Sy.No.117 of Tattiannaram village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District and the said land was given to the second respondent for development. The petitioners have booked the subject flat vide agreement of sale dated 02.3.2009 of the second respondent project for a sale consideration of Rs.22,38,500/-. The petitioners paid the entire amount. The second respondent forwarded the name of the petitioners to first respondent along with revenue share on sale consideration received from the petitioners and requested the first respondent to depute their officials to present the sale deed. The Executive Engineer executed sale deeds in favour of some of the purchasers only but did not execute sale deeds in favour of the petitioners and some others though they have paid the full basic sale consideration of the flat and also the cost of the major amenities like car parking and club house membership fee etc way back in the year 2011. In this connection the petitioners submitted letters requesting the VC&MD of the Housing Board to execute sale deed in their favour but in vain. Hence the Writ Petition. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 3 wherein it was contended that the developer had to complete the project by 25.8.2010, but the developer failed to complete the same. However, in view of the delay in obtaining approvals and implementation of the project, the revenue share payable by the developer has been increased which was accepted by the developer, vide letter dated 03.5.2007. The developer company i.e. the second respondent failed to complete the project even by the extended dated of 30.6.2011. However, in view of the delay in obtaining approvals and implementation of the project, the revenue share payable by the developer has been increased which was accepted by the developer, vide letter dated 03.5.2007. The developer company i.e. the second respondent failed to complete the project even by the extended dated of 30.6.2011. When the developer failed to complete the project, failed to construct the LIG Housing in 5% of the project area, failed to provided the requested information on sales/registration of units etc., and also in view of the short remittances of the revenue share due to APHB, non-payment of interest for the delayed payment of development fee, non-following of transparent method in selection of purchasers and in view of the pending investigations by the Vigilance and Enforcement Department and the CBI and the pendency of the developer’s request for second extension of time with the Government, the APHB took a decision to stop further registrations of the units in favour of the remaining purchasers in the project and insisted on the developer to complete their obligations under the Development Agreement before seeking execution and registration of sale deeds in favour of purchasers. It is further stated that it is the obligation of the developer to facilitate the execution of the sale deed and there is no obligation on the Housing Board and that the prospective buyers are not entitled to seek execution and registration of sale deeds in their favour till compliance of all the obligations of the developer under the Development Agreement. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. D.Ranganatha Kumar learned Government Pleader for Housing. 5. During the course of arguments, the officers of Housing Board, who were present in the Court, have instructed the Government Pleader and upon instructions, it was represented that on receipt of 2% of the sale consideration from the petitioners, the Housing Board would go ahead with the registration. D.Ranganatha Kumar learned Government Pleader for Housing. 5. During the course of arguments, the officers of Housing Board, who were present in the Court, have instructed the Government Pleader and upon instructions, it was represented that on receipt of 2% of the sale consideration from the petitioners, the Housing Board would go ahead with the registration. Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed to the said proposal and again, the officers re-instructed the Government Pleader to enhance the 2% to 4% of the sale consideration and for the said proposal also the learned counsel for the petitioners agreed and a consent order by way of interim direction was passed directing the petitioners to deposit the 4% of the sale consideration with the Housing Board pending disposal of the Writ Petition and on such receipt of the amount, the Housing Board shall proceed with the registration within a period of two weeks thereafter. However, it is also made clear that the registration and stamp duty will be borne by the petitioners. That after passing above order after some time, again, learned Government Pleader came back to the Court and made a submission that the officers have backed up to the above consent order and they are not inclined to receive the money and to proceed with the registration. In view of the said submission, this Court had no alternative except to decide the matter on merits as the pleadings have been completed and arguments were also completed. 6. It is an admitted fact that the case of the petitioners is that they are allottees of the subject property and it is not in dispute that they have complied with their part of obligation by making payment in full consideration as per the agreement. To that effect the petitioners have obtained a communication from the second respondent - developer and the second respondent has forwarded to the first respondent to register the flat in favour of the petitioners. From 2010 onwards the petitioners are repeatedly making representations to the respondents in that regard. 7. As seen from the counter affidavit the entire allegation made by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 is that the second respondent - builder has not complied with the respective provisions of the Development Agreement. From 2010 onwards the petitioners are repeatedly making representations to the respondents in that regard. 7. As seen from the counter affidavit the entire allegation made by the respondent Nos.1 and 3 is that the second respondent - builder has not complied with the respective provisions of the Development Agreement. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the matter was referred to Arbitration and the dispute between the first respondent Housing Board and the second respondent Developer is pending before the Arbitration Tribunal. It is to be seen that the petitioners have paid the entire sale consideration apart from other fee towards amenities etc. It is a matter of specific performance of contract. When the petitioners have paid the entire sale consideration apart from other fees, the respondents are bound to perform their part of contract. When there is a dispute between the first and second respondents, they have to settle their scores between themselves, but they cannot suffer the petitioners who are bona fide purchasers of the flat. If at all the second respondent is liable to pay anything to the first respondent, or if the second respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the development agreement, since the matter has already been referred to an arbitral tribunal, as stated by the learned Additional Advocate General, the parties will be bound by the outcome of the said proceedings. The contention of the respondents that since the agreement contains an arbitration clause, filing of Writ Petition without taking recourse to it is not permissible is incongruous because the arbitration proceedings are between the respondent Nos.1 and 2 but the petitioners are not parties to the same. 8. In the counter affidavit of the first respondent there is no whisper that the petitioners are defaulters. Despite the first respondent receiving the entire sale consideration from the petitioners through its agent i.e. the second respondent, it is not proper on their part in withholding the registration of the flat in favour of the petitioners. The first respondent cannot disown their responsibility and throw the burden on to the second respondent. For no fault on their part, the petitioners cannot be put to sufferance. Already the petitioners are running from pillar to post for the last 10 years or so in order to get registration of their flat. The first respondent cannot disown their responsibility and throw the burden on to the second respondent. For no fault on their part, the petitioners cannot be put to sufferance. Already the petitioners are running from pillar to post for the last 10 years or so in order to get registration of their flat. Only because of the scuffle between the first respondent and the second respondent the petitioners are made scapegoats and have been put to not only mental agony but they are made to spend huge sums of money. Therefore, the respondents are liable to register the subject flat in favour of the petitioners. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the first respondent to the petitioners. The first respondent is directed to register the subject flat in favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the petitioners shall bear the expenses for registration and stamp duty for getting the document registered in their favour. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.