CCP No.02 of 2025 dt.12.02.2025 closed on memo Cc

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 12th day of FEBRUARY, 2025.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
Between:

C.C.P.No.02/2025/TG RERA
1) Sri Krishna Kant Sharma S/o late Vijay Sharma, aged: 32 yrs,
Occ: Service.
2) Smt.Nidhi Khanna W/o Krishna Kant Sharma, 40 yrs, Occ: Service.
Both R/o C2305, Mantri Celestia, Nanakramguda, ISB Road,
Financial District, Hyderabad 500 086.

and

…Complainants.

M/s.SMR SM Estates, a Partnership Firm having its office at SMR House,
5th Floor, Plot No.73, Nagarjuna Hills, Punjagutta, Hyderabad, rep., by
its Managing Partners (1) Sri Saireddy Ram Reddy S/o late Malla Reddy,
aged 64 yrs, occ: Business, R/o Vinay Nivas, Plot No.275, Road No.25,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, and (2) Sri K.Madhusudhan Reddy S/o late
K.Yadi Reddy, 56 yrs, Occ: Business R/o Villa No.22, Keerthi West
Winds, Manchirevula, KV.Rangareddy District.
…Respondent.
This complaint came up for hearing before me on this day in the presence of
complainant No.1 himself in person and none appeared on behalf of the respondent,
upon perusing the memo filed by the Complainant No.1 and after hearing and having
stood over for consideration, the following order is passed:

ORDER
The present complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) read with
Rule 35 of the Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred as “the Rules”) to grant compensation.
2.

It is the case of the complainants that the respondent is the absolute owner and

possessor of land admeasuring Ac.0-25 Gts in Sy.No.13/A and Ac.1.20 Gts in Sy.No.13/A

Page 1 of 3

---

---

After issuance of notices to both parties, Sri G.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate filed a

memo offering Vakalat on behalf of the respondent. Sri Dominic D Souza, Marketing
Head of Respondent Company also appeared and the case adjourned to 12.02.2025 for
Vakalat and counter.
4.

When the matter was called on Bench on 12.02.2025, the complainants filed a

memo stating inter alia that during pendency of the case, negotiations took place
between them and the respondent and the matter has been settled out of Court. Hence,
the complainants prayed to close the complaint.
5.

Heard the complainant.

6.

Perused memo. In the facts and circumstances stated in the memo and the fact

that the dispute between the complainants and the respondent settled out of the Court
and the complainants themselves filed a memo to close the case, the memo has to be
allowed and the case has to be disposed off as settled out of Court.
7.

In the result, the complaint is disposed off as matter settled out of Court. No

costs.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 12th
day of FEBRUARY, 2025.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL

ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.

ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
Cc.

Page 3 of 3

---