JUDGMENT : (KARDAK ETE, J.) Heard Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned State Counsel appearing for the State respondent, Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 and Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the letter dated 29.02.2020, issued by the Managing Director, Assam State Cooperative Housing Federation Ltd., Assam (in short “the HOUSFED”), by which the flat owned by the petitioner’s late father has been allotted to the respondent No.5, namely, Samarendra Kalita. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent Nos.1 & 2, to cancel the allotment of Flat No.C-702 in favour of the respondent No.5 and for its restoration in favour of the legal heirs of Late Abdul Muhib Mazumdar i.e. the petitioner and her younger sister. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the late father of the petitioner Abdul Muhib Mazumdar become the lawful owner of the Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment and possessed and occupied the said flat premises for his use and that of his family. Her Late father used to pay all the monthly charges, bills, taxes, etc. to the concerned authorities. The father of the petitioner, due to various old age ailments, was under medical treatment till 03.11.2021, at the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), when the petitioner used to take care of him being his daughter and died Intestate on 03.11.2021, leaving behind his two daughters i.e. the petitioner and her younger sister as legal heirs and successors of the said flat premises. 4. After the death of her father, the petitioner visited the concerned HOUSFED Office at Beltola, Guwahati and met the officer on duty. The petitioner was shocked to know when she was informed that the said flat has already been transferred on 29.02.2020 in the name of one Sri Samarendra Kalita, the respondent No.5 herein and thus informed that the said flat is no longer standing in the name of the petitioner’s deceased father. The petitioner was surprised by the information as her father had never sold out and transferred the said flat to any person during his lifetime. The petitioner was surprised by the information as her father had never sold out and transferred the said flat to any person during his lifetime. It is the contention of the petitioner that after coming to know of such information about the transfer of the said flat to the respondent No.5, she immediately filed an application under the Right to Information Act with the HOUSEFED and collected all the documents and lodged an objection for further transfer of the said flat premises vide her letter dated 15.11.2021, requesting not to create any further transfer of the said flat. The petitioner have been furnished with the documents relating to allotment letter dated 08.12.2016 to her deceased father, affidavit of her late father dated 19.09.2019, letter dated 19.09.2019 to the HOUSEFED authority by her late father seeking permission to sale the said flat, affidavit of respondent No.5 dated 19.09.2019, authority letter in favour of one Nurul Rahim Mazumdar dated 19.09.2019, letter dated 12.09.2020 to HOUSEFED on behalf of her late father by one Nurul Rahim Mazumdar to transfer the property to respondent No.5 and the impugned re-allotment letter 29.02.2020, issued by the HOUSEFED to the respondent No.5. 5. Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that after perusal of the above documents, it is revealed that there was no sale deed nor any registered documents with regard to the sale of the said flat from the petitioner’s deceased father’s name to that of the respondent No.5, as required under the Assam Apartments (Construction and Transfer of Ownership) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Assam Apartment Act, 2006’) and Rules, 2010 enacted there under. Therefore, it is clear that the transfer of the said flat from the petitioner’s father’s name to that of the respondent No.5 has been carried out in clear violation of the said Act and the Rules. The absence of registered sale deed or any documents indicates that some officers in the HOUSEFED authorities transferred the said flat in fraudulent, unauthorised and illegal manner. 6. The absence of registered sale deed or any documents indicates that some officers in the HOUSEFED authorities transferred the said flat in fraudulent, unauthorised and illegal manner. 6. The petitioner filed a written complaint dated 17.12.2021, before the Dispur Police Station, Guwahati against all the accused persons, she believed may have been involved in the fraudulent transfer of the said flat including the respondent No.5 for creating forged and fabricated documents and using them then as genuine for the purpose of transfer of the flat belonging to the petitioner’s late father. Accordingly, a case has been registered being Dispur P.S. Case No.4483/2021, under Section 406/423/ 465/468/471 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC, 1860 which is still pending. 7. Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although the respondent No.5 has claimed to have paid certain amounts through cheque as well as cash, on the perusal of the bank account of the petitioner’s late father does not disclose that any such amount was taken, received or deposited from the respondent No.5 against the sale of the said flat at any point of time. It only reveals the agreement to sale which is also undated and unregistered. 8. Ms. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the alleged transfer of the flat in favour of the respondent No.5 is in violation of the provisions of the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 and the Rules, 2010 enacted there under, as the alleged transfer from the petitioner’s late father to the respondent No.5 is said to have been effected in the year 2019, so the same could not have been done against the provisions of law. As per Section 5(2) of the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , or in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of section 14 of this Act, any person shall be the owner of the apartment, by, purchase through a registered sale deed duly registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. In the instant case, there is no registered sale deed to show that the apartment in question has been legally transferred in favour of the respondent No.5. In the instant case, there is no registered sale deed to show that the apartment in question has been legally transferred in favour of the respondent No.5. She submits that the transfer of the flat of the petitioner’s deceased father has been carried out and completed by the concerned authorities in collusion with the respondent No.5, on the basis of false, fabricated and forged documents and in complete violation of the said act, which clearly reveals a cognizable offence. 9. Ms. Borgohain, learned counsel submits that the respondent authorities have failed to fulfill the statutory duties cast upon it under the law and thereby had perpetuated an illegality, as the materials on record indicates that the authorities who are under the statutory obligation to implement the provisions of the law, may have abated the violation of law, while effecting the transfer in favour of the respondent No.5 and despite being pointed out such illegalities, have failed to take any action, is a pointer to the fact that the authorities may have colluded with the transfer or effecting the transfer. She further submits that the act of the respondent No.3 in effecting the transfer in favour of the respondent No.5, has defeated the very object of the enactment of the Assam Apartment Act, 2006. Under such circumstances, she submits that the authorities are liable to be directed to cancel the transfer of the flat in question effected in favour of the respondent No.5 and to restore the same to the petitioner and her sister, as they are the legal heirs of her deceased father. She further submits that as per the prescribed law of the land for sale/transfer of an apartment or flat, it is required to be duly stamped and by a registered sale deed, duly registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and/or vide any other legal documents. She further submits that as per the prescribed law of the land for sale/transfer of an apartment or flat, it is required to be duly stamped and by a registered sale deed, duly registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and/or vide any other legal documents. But in the present case, the HOUSEFED authorities have transferred the flat in absence of any registered document, sale deed, etc., thereby flouting the prescribed Rules, Regulations and Laws for effecting transfer of the said flat, since the transfer/allotment of Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment belongs to deceased father of the petitioner, discarded the established lawful system and practice, while recording in the name of the respondent No.5, as owner or occupier of the said flat, in absence of any other relevant and legal documents, required for transfer of a flat premises, is required to be interfered with to obliterate the act of injustice to the petitioner and to her sister. Therefore, since the entire action of transferring/allotting the said Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon belong to the deceased father of the petitioner, in violation of provisions of the law, may be interfered with and the impugned letter 29.02.2020 may be set aside and quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to restore the same to the petitioner and to her sister. 10. Ms. D. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of her submissions, has placed reliance on the judment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Sharma vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and others , reported in 2024 Supreme (Online)(SC) 12571 , corresponding to 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 1326 , wherein, in paragraph 27, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “27. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , defines a “sale” as the transfer of ownership in exchange for a price that is either paid, promised, or part-paid and part-promised. This provision further describes the manner in which a sale is effected. It stipulates that, in the case of tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, the transfer can be made only through a registered instrument. The use of the term “only” signifies that, for tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, a sale becomes lawful only when it is executed through a registered instrument. It stipulates that, in the case of tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, the transfer can be made only through a registered instrument. The use of the term “only” signifies that, for tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, a sale becomes lawful only when it is executed through a registered instrument. Where the sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered, even if possession is transferred, and consideration is paid without such registration. The registration of the sale deed for an immovable property is essential to complete and validate the transfer. Until registration is effected, ownership is not transferred”. 11. Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 submits that the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 is not applicable in the present case in as much as the law related would be the Assam Co-operative Societies Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 ’). While referring to the provisions of the said Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 , he submits that the transfer or charge of share or interest of the member can be made validly in case the member has held such share or interest for not less than one year and the transferor or mortgagor is either a member of such society for a person when application of the membership has been accepted. He further submits that if the byelaws of the registered society so permit, any member of the society may, in accordance therewith nominate a person in whose favour the society shall dispose of the shares or interest of such member, on his death. He submits that when a member of the registered society dies, his shares and interest in the society shall, subject to the provisions of the said Act, be transferred to person, if any nominated, in accordance with the provision of Section 55 or if there is no nomination or if nomination is not available, is difficult to be ascertained by managing body etc., the transfer of interest on the death of member shall be made to the person, as may appear to the managing body to be the legal heir or legal representative of the deceased member. Therefore, the law regulates the transfer or charge of charge and interest of the member is regulated by the Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 and not under the Assam Apartment Act, 2006. 12. He submits that the flat in question was already transferred in the name of respondent No.5, during the lifetime of the petitioner’s father with his due intend and consent, which is evident from the letter dated 19.09.202019, written by the deceased father of the petitioner under his letter pad and duly signed by him to the respondent No.3, wherein the petitioner’s father had expressed his intend to transfer the flat in question the respondent No.5 and to that effect, he requested the respondent No.3 to do the needful. Pursuant to such letter, legal formalities were carried out and eventually the request of the petitioner’s father was accepted by the HOUSEFED, Assam and the same was communicated to the petitioner’s father vide letter dated 22.11.2019, wherein the petitioner’s father was also requested to deposit the transfer charge of Rs.1,60,690/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand six hundred ninety) only, being the 7% of the flat value of Rs.22,95,580/- (Rupees twenty two lakh ninety five thousand five hundred eighty) only to the HOUSEFED, Assam for further processing the transfer of the flat, standing in the name of the petitioner’s father, in favour of the respondent No.5. Thereafter, on payment of the transfer charge by the petitioner’s father made on 07.12.2019, vide letter dated 29.02.2020, the respondent No.5 was conveyed that the Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment Phase-II has been transferred from the petitioner’s father to the respondent No.5 and request was made to take over possession of the allotted flat vide letter dated 29.02.2020. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner to the extent that the petitioner’s father had never sold out or transferred the said flat to any person during his lifetime, is not tenable and contrary to the documents which lent ample testimony to such transfer of the flat by the petitioner’s father himself. 13. Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel submits that the allotment of the flat was given to the deceased father of the petitioner, who in the subsequent course of affair had requested the HOUSEFED, Assam to transfer the said flat to the respondent No.5. 13. Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel submits that the allotment of the flat was given to the deceased father of the petitioner, who in the subsequent course of affair had requested the HOUSEFED, Assam to transfer the said flat to the respondent No.5. There was no occasion of sale so far as or there to be any sale deed require to be executed under the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 and the Rules, 2010, made there under. He submits that the allegation of the petitioner, which has been registered as the Dispur P.S. Case No.4483/2021, under Section 406/423/ 465/468/471 read with Section 120(B) of the IPC, 1860, is still pending investigation. Until the time, the allegations of creating forged and fabricated documents and used them as genuine for the purpose of alleged fraudulent transfer of the said flat in the name of the respondent No.5, is proved, the petitioner cannot contend that there was a fraudulent transfer of the said flat, in the name of respondent No.5. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, while subscribing to the submissions of Mr. D. Chakrabarty, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 i.e. the HOUSEFED, Assam, submits that the respondent No.5 has purchased the said flat from the father of the petitioner by paying the consideration of the said flat. After compliance of all legal requirements, the flat in question has been transferred during the lifetime of the petitioner’s father after complying all the legal formalities, as the sale was effected on the basis of agreement to sale. The petitioner nowhere made any claim and she was not close to her father and it was the respondent No.5, who had a very close relation with the father of the petitioner and look after him during his ailment. The transfer was effected by the respondent authorities on the basis of the letter issued by the father of the petitioner and other legal documents. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the legally effected transfer and as such, the writ petition may be dismissed. 15. Due consideration has been made to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. Therefore, the petitioner has no locus to challenge the legally effected transfer and as such, the writ petition may be dismissed. 15. Due consideration has been made to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 16. The father of the petitioner was the lawful owner of the Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment, Phase-II and he died Intestate leaving behind his two daughters i.e. the present petitioner and her younger sister, namely, Ms. Heema Mazumdar as legal heirs and successors on 03.11.2021, due to various old age ailments. The petitioner informed the HOUSEFED, Assam to record the death of the petitioner’s father, so as to enable them to transfer the said flat in the name of legal heirs of the deceased father of the petitioner as successor. It is the contention of the petitioner that she has been informed that the said flat has already been transferred/allotted to the respondent No.5. After obtaining the documents through RTI, according to the petitioner, it reflects that all the documents pertaining to transfer are either forged or fabricated and the impugned transfer effected in favour of the respondent No.5 are based on fraudulent means. 17. Record reveals that on 11.09.2019, the father of the petitioner has written a letter to the HOUSEFED, Assam asking for inormation regarding the balance amount due in respect of the Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment, so as to enable him to pay the same. The father of the petitioner had paid Rs.1,95,580/- (Rupees one lakh ninety five thousand five hundred eighty) only to the HOUSEFED, Assam. Thereafter, on 19.09.2019, the father of the petitioner had written a letter for transfer of the said flat in the name of the respondent No.5 vide letter dated 19.10.2019, a letter of authority was given whereby his nephew Nurul Rahim Mazumdar was authorized to deal with all the matters pertaining to Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment, which also states that no other person is authorized to take any action in connection with the aforesaid flat. 18. 18. Upon such letter for transfer dated 19.09.2019, the Managing Director, HOUSEFED, Assam has directed the father of the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.1,60,690/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand six hundred ninety) only, @ 7% of the flat value of Rs.22,95,580/- (Rupees twenty two lakh ninety five thousand five hundred eighty) only, for further processing of transfer of the flat in the name of respondent No.5, to which the father of the petitioner had deposited on 07.12.2019. Thereafter, on being authorized, one Nurul Rahim Mazumdar vide letter dated 12.02.2020, has written a letter to the Managing Director, HOUSEFED, Assam to proceed with the process of transfer of the said flat in the name of the respondent No.5. Finally, vide impugned letter dated 29.02.2020, the said Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment was transferred from the father of the petitioner to the respondent No.5 and request was made to take over possession of said flat. 19. On consideration of the above documents, it shows that the transfer of the said flat has been affected on the request of the father of the petitioner during his lifetime. However, the issue to be determined in the present proceeding is as to whether the transfer has been affected in accordance with the law and whether the provisions of the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 or the Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 would be applicable for its valid transfer, in addition to the general provisions of law. To appreciate, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant provisions of both the Acts. 20. The preamble of the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 reads as under: “Preamble Whereas it is expedient to provide for the regulation of the haphazard and unplanned construction of apartment/ buildings in the areas covered by Guwahati Metropolitan Development area and all urban areas of Assam, to specify modalities of transfer of such apartment buildings and for the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto and to regulate the promotion of construction and sale of apartments In multistoried buildings on ownership basis and to provide for transferability and heritability by the individual purchaser not only for particular apartment but also the fractional Interest to it on the common area and facilities”. 21. Section 5 of the said Act provides as under: “5. 21. Section 5 of the said Act provides as under: “5. (1) An apartment together with its undivided interest on the common area and facilities, shall constitute heritable and transferable Immovable property within the meaning of the relevant law for the time being in force. Provided that no apartment, and the percentage of undivided Interest in the common area and facilities of apartment shall be partitioned or sub-divided for any purpose whatsoever unless the property is withdrawn from the provisions of this Act under section 14. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , or in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of section 14 of this Act, any person shall be the owner of the apartment, by, - (a) purchase through a registered sale deed duly registered under section 17 of Registration Act, 1908. (b) taking lease for a period of not less than thirty years or more of an apartment comprised in a property, by a registered deed of lease registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. (3) To effect sale or purchase or lease for more than one year of the said apartment, the Competent Authority shall determine and fix the proper market value of the apartments for sale or purchase and the annual rent for the purpose of transfer of the apartment on lease to the Intending buyers or lease holders as the case may be, so that during transaction none of the parties i.e. the seller or the buyer or the lease holder as the case may be, could conceal proper valuation of the apartment to evade due payment of stamp duty and registration fee. (4) An instrument of sale or purchase or lease shall be registered in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, undertaking to comply strictly with the bye- laws and with covenants, conditions and restriction set forth in the declaration”. 22. Section 22 of the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 provides that the provisions of the Act shall also apply to the apartment being constructed by Assam State Housing Board, Housefed and any other Government or Semi Government Department and organizations. 23. On bare perusal of the above provisions and its preamble, the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 reflects that the provisions of the Act shall apply to the apartments being constructed by the Housefed. 23. On bare perusal of the above provisions and its preamble, the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 reflects that the provisions of the Act shall apply to the apartments being constructed by the Housefed. It also provides that any person shall be the owner of the apartment, purchased through a registered sale deed duly registered under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, taking lease for a period of not less than thirty years or more of an apartment comprised in a property, by a registered deed of lease, registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, notwithstanding anything contained in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , or in any other law for the time being in force, but subject to the provisions of Section 14 of this Act. Section 14 of the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 provides for withdrawal from the provisions of the Act. 24. Having perused the said provisions, I am of the considered view that the Assam Apartment Act, 2006 shall apply in the present case in as much as the Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment, in question is under the HOUSEFED, unless there is a withdrawal under Section 14 of the Assam Apartment Act, 2006. There is no record to show that the said property has been withdrawn. 25. Coming to the Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 , Section 53 provides as under: “ 53. Validity of transfer or charge of share or interest - Except otherwise provided in this Act no transfer or charge of his share or interest by a member of a society with unlimited liability shall be valid unless- (a) he has held such share or interest for not less than one year; and (b) the transferor or mortgager is either a member of such ~ society or a person “mere application for membership has been accepted”. 26. Section 55 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 provides that: “ 55. Nomination of Transferee - If the bye-laws of a registered society so permit, any member of the society may, in accordance therewith, nominate a person in whose favour the society shall dispose of the shares or interest of such member on his death”. 27. Section 56 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 , provides that: “ 56. Nomination of Transferee - If the bye-laws of a registered society so permit, any member of the society may, in accordance therewith, nominate a person in whose favour the society shall dispose of the shares or interest of such member on his death”. 27. Section 56 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2007 , provides that: “ 56. Transfer of Interest on Death of Member - When a member of a registered society dies, his shares and interest in the society shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be transferred- (a) to the person, if any nominated in accordance with the provision of Section 55; or (b) if there is no such nominee or if the nominee is not available, or is difficult to be ascertained by the managing body, or if for any other cause such transfer cannot be made without unreasonable delay, the transfer of interest on death of a member shall be made to the person as may appear to the managing body to be the legal heir or legal representative of the deceased member, provided that ninety days have elapsed from the date of the member’s death and no new claim shall be entertained after the said period of ninety days”. 28. Bare perusal of the above provisions indicates that the same would apply in so far it relates to transfer or charge of share or interest and its validity. It would not, in my considered view apply to the transfer of the property like the flat in the present case. Therefore, the submissions of learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2—4 is not acceptable. 29. On consideration of the materials and the law relating to transfer of the property and the Assam Apartment Act, 2006, it transpires that no valid transfer has been affected, as there is no registered sale deed, which would have given a right to the respondent No.5 to get the flat in question, transferred in his favour. Although, there is one agreement to sale but it is undated and unregistered, which cannot be said to be a valid agreement to sale. Even, if it is accepted that there is a valid agreement to sale, unless the same is validly made as per the law, no transfer could have been affected. 30. Although, there is one agreement to sale but it is undated and unregistered, which cannot be said to be a valid agreement to sale. Even, if it is accepted that there is a valid agreement to sale, unless the same is validly made as per the law, no transfer could have been affected. 30. On the pointed query made to the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2—4 with regard to the power and authority enclothed with the authorities of the HOUSEFED, no plausible explanation has been rendered so as to show that the authorities of the HOUSEFED could transfer the said flat in favour of the respondent No.5, even if it is made at the request of the father of the petitioner, as the transfer has to be effected as per the law. Thus, there is no valid transfer in the eyes of law, although the same might have been affected at the request of the father of the petitioner. 31. Having viewed above, it is to be observed that since the allegation of fabricated and forged documents for transfer of the said flat in the name of the respondent No.5, is said to be pending in view of the registration of the case being Dispur P.S. Case No.4483/2021, the genuineness or otherwise of such allegations of documents would be a subject matter of such investigation and trial, which this Court refrain from making any consideration and comment to that effect. 32. It is to be noted that Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 , defines a “sale” as the transfer of ownership in exchange for a price that is either paid, promised, or part-paid and part-promised. This provision further describes the manner in which a sale is affected. It stipulates that, in the case of tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, the transfer can be made only through a registered instrument. The use of the term “only” signifies that, for tangible immovable property valued at one hundred rupees or more, a sale becomes lawful only when it is executed through a registered instrument. Where the sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered, even if possession is transferred, and consideration is paid without such registration. The registration of the sale deed for an immovable property is essential to complete and validate the transfer. Where the sale deed requires registration, ownership does not pass until the deed is registered, even if possession is transferred, and consideration is paid without such registration. The registration of the sale deed for an immovable property is essential to complete and validate the transfer. Until registration is affected, ownership is not transferred. 33. In view of the above discussions made herein above, I am of the view that the transfer of the Flat No.C-702 at Rukminigaon Housefed Apartment, Phase-II in favour of the respondent No.5 is not validly transferred and therefore, the same cannot be sustained. Moreover, no power or authority to transfer of the said flat by the respondent HOUSEFED is discernable. Consequently, the transfer having been not validly affected, same is set aside. However, since the allegation of documents being forged or fabricated and also on fraudulent transaction, is under investigation or trial by the competent authority/Court, it would not be appropriate to direct the flat to be restored in the name of the petitioner. At the same time, it would be appropriate to provide that the parties would be at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy for the title and ownership of the said flat before the appropriate forum, as may be permissible under the law. 34. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of. No order as to cost.