Corrected Order in Complaint No.41 of 2021

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 18th day of OCTOBER, 2024.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
Complaint No.41 of 2021/TG RERA
Between:
Sri Boyenepally Sri Jayavardhan S/o Sri B.Sampath
Kumar, H.No.1-10-145/A, Street No.8, Ashok Nagar,
Hyderabad-500 020.

…Complainant.
and
1) Sri P.Raja Rao S/o late P.Nagabhushanam, R/o C-14,
Road No.10, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
2) M/s. Sri Sai Ram Projects Limited, rep., by its
Managing Director Sri Satyanarayana Reddy, having its
Registered Office at 8-3-678, G-1, Pearl Block, Sri Sai Ram
Manor, Sri Nagar Colony Road, Hyderabad - 500 045.
3) M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP, rep., by its Designated
Partner Sri Vijay Kumar Yerram, # 8-2-120/86/9/A/1,
12 and 2/13, First Floor North End, Anilathmaja
Housing Society, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034.
…Respondents.
This complaint came up for hearing before me on 06.09.2024, 20.09.2024
and 30.09.2024 in the presence of Sri N.Chandrasekhar, Counsel for Complainant
and of Sri D.Madhava Rao, Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Respondent
No.1 remained ex parte; and upon perusing the material papers on record and
upon hearing arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till
this day, the Tribunal passed the following:

ORDER
This complaint has been filed u/s 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) read with Rule 35 of
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter
referred as “the Rules”) to award compensation, viz., to direct Respondent No.3 to
allot an extent of 3,57,200 Sq.ft of super built-up area in terms of Deed of

---

Agreement-cum-GPA

dt.04.07.2019

(document

No.10) i.e., as is allotted to co-plot owner @ 44.65 Sq.ft per Sq.Yard or in the
alternate to direct Respondent No.3 to pay compensation @ Rs.6,500/- per Sq.ft in
respect of 3,57,200 Sq.ft, i.e., Rs.6,500/- x 3,57,200 = Rs.232,18,00,000/- (Rupees
Two hundred and Thirty Two Crores and Eighteen Lakh only) as per prevailing rate
as on date of payment or whichever is higher to the complainant.
CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT:
2(a).

The case of the complainant as revealed from the complaint is that

Respondent No.1 and his father late P.Nagabhushanam, during his life time, jointly
executed an Agreement of Sale in favour of the complainant on 14.12.2007
agreeing to sell an extent of 8000 Sq.Yards of land out of Sy.Nos.105 to 109 and
111 to 114 of Hafeezpet village, Sherilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for
a total consideration of Rs.1,65,00,000/- (Rs.One Crore and Sixty Five Lakhs only).
The complainant mentions the mode of payment of said amount and states that the
said Agreement of Sale is filed on record (Document No.1).
2(b).

It is stated that later the complainant gave an extent of 1826 Sq.yards +

1229.50 Sq.Yards i.e., 3055.50 Sq.Yards of land out of said land purchased under
Agreement

of

Development

Sale

dt.14.12.2007

Agreement-cum-GPA

to

Respondent

bearing

No.2

Document

under

Registered

Nos.4940/2008

and

4941/2008 respectively, both dated 20.06.2008 (Document Nos.2 and 3) and
Respondent No.2 agreed to deliver in lieu of said land certain constructed area to
the complainant. The said Registered Development Agreements dt.20.06.2008 were
executed by Respondent No.1, his father, Respondent No.2 and the complainant
and there is reference to agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 in said Development
Agreements. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 did not develop the said extent of

---

In the meanwhile, Respondent No.2 entered into two Supplementary

Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorneys Registered Document
Nos.1270/2013 and 1271/2013 dt.09.01.2013 (Document Nos.4 and 5) in favour
of the complainant.
Agreements

Respondent No.2 has also executed 2 nd Supplementary

Document

Nos.10744/2014

and

10745/2014

on

30.08.2014

(Document Nos.6 and 7) in favour of the complainant, wherein allotments of Flats
were made to the complainant even before any construction is made. Respondent
No.2 has also issued Allotment Letters (Document Nos.8 and 9) giving particulars
of Flats to be allotted to the complainant in respect of 1826 Sq.Yards + 1229.50
Sq.Yards = 3055.50 Sq.Yards of land.
3.

It is pleaded that Respondent No.2 entered into several Registered

Development Agreements, similarly, with other plot owners on various dates.
According to Respondent No.2, he has clubbed all the plots and adjoining pathways and open spaces and sought to develop the entire land, hereinafter called as
“Project area”, but did not develop at all for more than a decade. The complainant
from time to time demanded for allotment of flats, but in vain.
4.

Later, the complainant came to know that Respondent No.2 along with

Respondent No.3 formed a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) under the name and
style of M/s.Vasavi Realtors LLP, i.e., Respondent No.3, without informing to the
complainant. The complainant also learnt that Respondent No.2, who entered into
Development Agreements with complainant under Document Nos.2 and 3, has also
entered into agreements with all plot owners during the year 2008. Respondent
No.2 along with Respondent No.3 entered into a new document afresh under the
name and style of “Deed of Assignment-cum-Development Agreement-cum-General

---

It is stated that being aggrieved with the dishonest intention of Respondent

No.2 in not delivering the flats as agreed under said document Nos.2 to 9 in favour
of complainant, the complainant got issued a legal notice to Respondent No.2 on
01.02.2020 demanding delivery of flats allotted under Document Nos.6 to 9, but no
reply was given inspite of its receipt.

The complainant has filed a copy of said

notice as Document No.11.
6.

It is then pleaded that when the complainant specifically asked Respondent

No.1 to deliver balance extent of land of 4944.50 Sq.Yards, he has stated that the
entire land was taken by Respondent No.2 for development of the Project inclusive
of the said land, i.e. 4944.50 Sq.Yards, as all the plots and open places were
amalgamated by Respondent No.2 and permission for construction of flats was
sought from GHMC in respect of entire land belonging to all landholders by
Respondent No.2. Thus, the said extent of 4944.50 Sq.Yards was also taken by
Respondent No.2 into the Project area.
7.

It is also pleaded that Respondent No.2 to knock away the land belonging to

the complainant did not enter into Deed of Assignment-cum-Development
Agreement-General Power of Attorney afresh, as it entered with other land owners
during the month of June, 2019 in respect of 3055 Sq.Yards of land.

Further,

---

The complainant further alleges that according to Respondent No.2, it has

joined with Respondent No.3 by virtue of Resolution dt.28.12.2017 passed by the
Board of Directors of Respondent No.2 Company.

Thus, Respondent No.2 and

others constituted into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) under the name and
style of M/s.Vasavi Realtors LLP and got the same registered with Registrar of
Companies vide Deed of Assignment-cum-Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney dt.04.07.2019 between Akella Sri Rama Chandra Murthy and
Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 at Page 3 (Document No.10). As per this
document, it is Respondent No.3 who agreed to construct and deliver the flats to
the owners.
9.

The complainant further pleads that having vexed with the attitude of the

Respondents, he got issued a legal notice to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on 06.06.2020
and 10.06.2020.

Respondent No.1 did not receive the notice.

However,

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have received the notice, but did not give any reply. Copy
of said notice is filed as Document No.12 and returned envelop by respondent No.1
and documents showing receipt of notice by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are filed as
Document Nos.13 to 15 respectively.
10(a). According to complainant, Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act
came into operation from 01.01.2017.

The RERA has given approval for Real

Estate Project sought to be developed by Respondent No.3 on 07.02.2020.

For

assignment of the Project in favour of Respondent No.3 by Respondent No.2,

---

---

It is further stated that Respondent No.3 has allotted an area of 44.65 Sq.ft

per one Sq.Yard to the co-land owner under Document No.10 dt.04.07.2019. In the
same ratio, the complainant is entitled for his land, i.e., 8000 Sq.Yards X 44.65
Sq.ft = 3,57,200 Sq.ft of Super built up area or in the alternate, the complainant is
entitled for compensation @ Rs.6,500/- per Sq.ft prevailing as on the date of
payment, i.e., Rs.6,500/- x 3,57,200 = Rs.232,18,00,000/- or at such other rate
whichever is higher. Hence, the complaint.
NOTICES TO THE PARTIES:
12.

After this case was made over to the under-signed by the Hon’ble Authority,

notices were issued to both the parties. The complainant and Respondent Nos.2
and 3 have appeared and learned Counsel appearing on their behalf have filed
Vakalats.

Notice sent to Respondent No.1 more than once, returned un-served

with Postal endorsement as ‘No such person at the address’. At last, at request of
learned Counsel for the complainant, the case was adjourned for steps and a
petition for substituted service on Respondent No.1 was filed and allowed.
Accordingly, a publication as ordered in “Namasthe Telangana” Telugu Daily of

---

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed their separate counters.

14.

No doubt, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed separate counters. But the

pleas advanced by them are almost similar. As such, the contents of counter of
Respondent No.2 are referred while referring to the contentions of Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
15.

Respondent No.2 while denying the material contentions of complainant

contends that the complainant has suppressed the facts concerning to execution of
Registered Agreements of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing Document
Nos.3324/2020 and 2992/2020 dt.06.02.2020, wherein the complainant has
admitted to execute Registered Cancellation Deeds to cancel the previous
transactions under Registered Development Agreement Nos.4940 and 4941/2008,
Supplement Agreement Nos.1270/2013 and 1271/2013 and 2nd Supplementary
Agreement Nos.10744/2013 and 10745/2013, i.e., Document Nos.2 to 7 filed by
the complainant as referred in the complaint. It is stated that the complainant has
admitted about the knowledge regarding development being carried by Respondent
No.3 after execution of fresh development Agreement by original land owner, i.e.,
Respondent No.1. The complainant has deliberately suppressed these material
facts to mislead and play fraud on the Authority.

It is contended that the

complaint must fail on this ground.
16.

It is further contended that the complainant if at all seeks to redress any

grievance against Respondent No.1 (Land owner) or Respondent No.2 (previous
Developer), he has to resort to legal remedies before the Arbitral Tribunal. The

---

It is also pleaded that the complainant while asserting his rights as land

owner cannot initiate complaint under Section 31 of the Act as it is settled law that
land owner cannot be considered as a consumer or buyer.
18(a). According to Respondent No.2, he had originally entered into various
Registered Development agreements with several land owners of varied extents and
thereby consolidated various land parcels to develop Project land area in
Sy.Nos.104 to 109 and 111 to 115 situated at Hafeezpet village, Sherilingampally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Among them, Respondent No.2 entered into
Registered

Development

Agreement

bearing

Document

Nos.4840/2008

(for

development of land admeasuring 7304 Sq.Yards between Respondent No.2 and
land owners) and (complainant-Agreement holder for an area of 1826 Sq.Yards) and
4841/2008 (for development of land admeasuring 4918 Sq.Yards between
Respondent No.2 and land owners) and (complainant-Agreement holder for an area
of 1229.50 Sq.Yards), both these documents dt.20.06.2008, thereafter Registered
Supplementary
documents

Agreements

dt.09.01.2013

bearing
and

2nd

No.1270/2013

and

Supplementary

Nos.10744/2014 and 10745/2014 dt.30.08.2014.

1271/2013,

Agreements

both

bearing

Under these documents, the

original land owners along with complainant for an extent of 3055 Sq.Yards was
made a party towards recognizing the rights as an Agreement of Sale holder
dt.14.12.2007.

---

However, the development activity could not be

commenced by Respondent No.2 due to unforeseen reasons beyond its control. In
the interest of all the stakeholders, it was decided that fresh Development
Agreements will be executed in favour of Respondent No.3 (Vasavi Realors LLP). As
such, even before the Project was registered as per provisions of Section 5 of the
Act, it was decided between the land owners and previous developer, i.e.,
Respondent No.2 to give fresh development rights in favour of Respondent No.3.
18(c). It is stated that all the land owners holding various extents of land have
executed Registered Development Agreements in favour of Respondent No.3 and
Respondent No.3 agreed to develop the land.

Building Permit application was

made on 20.08.2018 vide File No.1/HO/15979/18 and File No.1/HO/15700/18
and permissions were obtained from GHMC through Proc./Building Permit
No.1/C20/01691/2020
admeasuring

in

File

No.1/HO/15979/18

30,268 Sq.Mtrs-Vasavi

No.1/C20/01690/2020

in

File

Lake

City

dt.07.02.2020

East

No.1/HO/15700/18

for

and Building

dt.07.02.2020

area

Permit

for

area

measuring 34,598.75 Sq.Mtrs-Vasavi Lake City West.
18(d). It is then pleaded that after obtaining above permissions from GHMC,
Respondent No.3 made application to RERA authority seeking Registration of
Project in accordance with Sec.5 of the Act and Rules and RERA Registration
Certificate Nos.P02500001819 (Vasavi Lake City West) and P02500001821 (Vasavi
Lake City East) dt.20.03.2020 with validity from 20.03.2020 to 07.02.2025 were
issued. Thereafter, development work has commenced and is being carried out as
per terms and conditions.

---

Registered Agreements of Sale-cum-General Power of

Attorney bearing document Nos.3324/2020 and 2992/2020 dt.06.02.2020 entered
in between original land owner, i.e., Respondent No.1 and the complainant and a
reading of contents of these documents would defeat the claim of the complainant.
19(b). The claim of the complainant that he is owner with respect to 8,000
Sq.Yards of land is totally false. Respondent No.1 and the complainant has already
executed Registered Development Agreements with respect to said total area and
the complainant has received new revised allocation/area for which he was entitled
under

Agreement

of

Sale-cum-GPA

bearing

Document

No.3324/2020

and

2992/2020 dt.06.02.2020. Respondent No.2 refers to such relevant contents in
said documents. It is stated that Respondent No.2 has already issued legal notice
dt.31.07.2020 calling upon the complainant to perform his obligation of executing
Registered Cancellation Deeds, but the complainant is evading.
20.

It is contended that the claim of complainant on the land admeasuring

4944.50 Sq.Yards is imaginary.

There is no such land belonging to the

complainant that has been taken into the Project. The complainant has no right,
title or interest on any land which is being claimed.

The complainant asserts

merely on the basis of agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 to lay claim over 8000
Sq.Yards of land.

The complainant without getting his rights determined in

competent civil Court cannot seek compensation before this Authority. The bar
under Section 79 of the Act does not get attracted in deciding inter se civil rights
between the parties.

---

While replying to the pleas raised by the complainant regarding violations of

the provisions of the Act and Rules, Respondent No.2 contends that the pleas are
misplaced and misconceived. It is stated that Respondent No.3 for the first time
applied and obtained Registration of Project u/s 5 of the Act on 07.02.2020. All the
transactions complained are of the period prior to obtaining Project registration.
Respondent No.3 has disclosed all the details of the persons who own the land.
The complainant is not a land owner. Respondent No.1 is the original land owner
and his details have been disclosed by Respondent No.3. In view of this and in
view of admissions made by the complainant in two (2) Registered Agreements of
Sale-cum-GPA document No.3324/2020 and 2992/2020 dt.06.02.2020 entered
between the complainant and Respondent No.1, the allegations of violations must
fail. The complainant categorically admitted his status of being only an Agreement
of sale holder vide unregistered agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 and he has
received entire entitlement based on agreement from Respondent No.1 under above
Registered Documents and the total area received by the complainant from
proposed development from the exclusive share of Respondent No.1 is 27,745 Sq.ft.
Therefore, all allegations of violations under Sections 4 and 11 (1) (f) of the Act read
with Rule 3 of the Rules are not sustainable.
22.

Respondent No.2 also contends that Adjudicating Officer has no jurisdiction

to decide present complaint as there are no violations under Sections 12, 14, 18
and 19 of the Act. The complainant has already filed Complaint No.2/2020 before
the Authority and the same is pending for consideration. The present complaint is
on same set of allegations and as such, not maintainable.
No.2 prays to dismiss the complaint.

Hence, Respondent

---

REJOINDER BY THE COMPLAINANT:
23.

The complainant has filed a rejoinder to the counter filed by Respondent

No.3. The complainant has also filed a memo adopting the rejoinder filed by him to
the counter of Respondent No.3 as rejoinder to the counter of Respondent No.2.
24(a). In the rejoinder filed to the counter of Respondent No.3, the complainant
contends that neither Respondent No.2 nor Respondent No.3 are concerned with
Registered

Document

Nos.3324/2020

and

2992/2020

dt.06.02.2020,

i.e.,

Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of the
complainant and as such they cannot make use of these documents to claim
discharge of their liability under Document Nos.2 to 7 filed by the complainant. As
a matter of fact, Respondent No.2, who earlier entered into Development
Agreement-cum-GPA and other documents, i.e., Document Nos.2 to 7 filed by the
complainant, is not a party to the parent document of these two AGPAs, i.e.,
Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney bearing
Document

No.990/2020

dt.22.01.2020

and

Document

No.989/2020

dt.22.01.2020. Thus, both the transactions, i.e., transactions under Documents 2
to 7 filed by the complainant entered in between complainant and Respondent No.2
and transactions entered in between Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 vide
Document No.990/2020 dt.22.01.2020 and No.989/2020 dt.22.01.2020 are
different. The flats fallen to the share of Respondent No.1 under said document
Nos.990/2020 and 989/2020 are given to his agent, i.e., the complainant, which is
altogether a different transaction, un-connected to Respondent Nos.2 and 3, in the
wake of Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3, in turn discharging their liabilities
under Documents 1 to 7 filed by the complainant.

---

As per terms of these documents, the

complainant has to receive sale consideration in full or part, to collect rents,
deposits etc and to look after and take necessary steps and to protect the property
from illegal encroachments. No consideration is paid under the said documents
and the complainant is answerable to Respondent No.1. Under Document
Nos.990/2020 and 989/2020, it is nowhere mentioned that the complainant shall
be given certain flats in discharge of Respondent Nos.2’s or 3’s liability in discharge
of liabilities created under Document Nos.2 to 7 filed by the complainant and,
therefore, the transaction under the Document Nos.990/2020 and 989/2020 are
altogether different and distinct and un-connected to Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
25.

In reply to the contention of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 that the Adjudicating

Officer has no jurisdiction as provisions of Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Act do
not attract, the complainant contends that Section 79 of the Act bars the
jurisdiction of civil court and the provisions of Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016 will prevail over other Acts, inasmuch as Real Estate
(Regulation & Development) Act is a subsequent legislation and, therefore, the
contention of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not tenable under law.
26. It is also contended that the Act came into force on 01.01.2017. The Project is
an on-going Project. According to the complainant, Respondent No.2 having taken
permission from Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation under Document
dt.18.05.2018 ought to have registered the Project with Real Estate Regulatory
Authority within three months from the date of commencement of the Act. It is
stated that the complainant is an allottee so far as the extent of 3055.50 Sq.Yards
of land is concerned as defined under Section 2(d) of the Act. Respondent No.2 has

---

It is also contended that it is utterly false that the complainant has already

received the entire area in lieu of Agreement of Sale dt.14.12.2007.

The

complainant has nothing to do with the Documents executed between Respondent
Nos.1 and 3, i.e., Document Nos.990/2020 dt.22.01.2020 and Document
No.989/2020 dt.22.01.2020.

Respondent No.3 has deliberately avoided to enter

into Deed of Assignment-cum-Development Agreement-cum-GPA along with
Respondent No.2 in favour of complainant by giving such enhanced area as is given
to

all

other

land

owners

in

place

of

original

development

agreements/supplementary agreements, i.e., Document Nos.2 to 7 filed by the
complainant. Since Respondent No.3 is not a party to Document Nos.2 to 7 filed by
the complainant, Respondent No.3 cannot absolve its liability and obligation as
contemplated under Section 15 (2) of the Act, as Respondent No.3 itself submitted
to the jurisdiction of RERA. At last, the complainant prays to allot the extent of
super built-up area as is allotted to co-plot owners or in the alternate, grant
compensation as prayed.
Enquiry:28.

When the case posted for enquiry, both the parties have placed reliance only

on documentary evidence produced by them.

Exs.A1 to A27 on behalf of

---

Learned Counsel for the complainant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed

brief written arguments.
30.

On the basis of rival contentions of the parties and law on the subject, the

Points that arise for consideration in this case are as under:i) Whether the Agreement of Sale dt.14.12.2007 (Ex.A1) enables the
complainant to enter into transactions under Documents Exs.A2 to A7, A21
(Ex.B2) and Ex.A22 (Ex.B1)?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? and if so, for what
amount?
31(a). POINT Nos.1 and 2:
Point Nos.1 and 2 are connected to each other. Any discussion on any point
would be relevant for other. As such, it is just and appropriate to decide both the
points by a common discussion.
31(b). In the light of Point No.2 as framed, it is incumbent on the part of this
Authority to look into Agreement of Sale Ex.A1 and consider it.
31(c). A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that it is an un-registered Agreement of
Sale executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. The terms and conditions
1, 3, 4 and 5 of Ex.A1 read as under:
“1. That the sellers of the first and second part shall sell free of all
encumbrances, charges and liens whatsoever the schedule
property, i.e., the land admeasuring 8000 Sq.Yards……….. and the
purchaser shall buy the same at the said price and condition.
…………
3. That the purchaser has this day on execution of this agreement
has paid the total consideration amount of Rs.1,65,00,000/- as
specified hereunder:
……………

---

31(d). There is no dispute that subsequent to execution of agreement of sale Ex.A1,
a registered sale deed has not been executed by the vendors in favour of the
complainant or his nominee/s as mentioned in Ex.A1. Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Haryana” held that the sale transactions
in the name of General Power of Attorney will have no legal sanctity and immovable
property can be sold or transferred only through registered sale deeds. It is also
observed in said decision that the transactions of the nature of General Power of
Attorney Sales or Sale Agreement/General Power of Attorney/Will transfers do not
convey title and do not amount to transfer nor can they be recognized or valid mode
of transfer of immovable property. Their Lordships further held that the courts will
not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances
as they neither convey title nor create any interest in any immovable property.
Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that such transactions cannot be relied upon
or made the basis for mutations in municipal or revenue records. Their Lordships
further

reiterated

that

immovable

property

can

be

legally

and

lawfully

transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance.
31(e). The contents of Agreement of Sale Ex.A1 are as noted in Para 31 (c) supra.
The settled proposition of law on the subject as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court is as mentioned in Para 31 (d) above. Now the question is whether the
Agreement of Sale Ex.A1 enables the complainant to enter into other transactions
under said documents Exs.A2 to A7, A21 and A22 and rely.

This Authority is

---

To decide disputes between the buyers and developers, the

Authority and the Adjudicating Officer are the authorities created under the Act.
As such, I am of the considered view that the Adjudicating Officer has to consider
any document relied by the parties in the light of contentions advanced and law on
the issue.

Therefore, and in view of the fact that the Agreement of Sale Ex.A1 is an

un-registered document and contents thereof are to the above effect and Hon’ble
Supreme Court has laid down law as above, it has to be held that the Agreement of
Sale Ex.A1 does not enable the complainant to enter into other transactions under
Exs.A2 to A7, A21 and A22 without getting a registered conveyance deed executed
from the vendors as mentioned in Agreement of Sale Ex.A1.
32(a). In the present case, subsequent to execution of documents, viz., Agreement
of sale Ex.A1, Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorneys Exs.A2
and A3, Supplementary Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorneys
Exs.A4 and A5, Second Supplementary Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorneys Exs.A6 and A7 and issuance of Allotment Letters Exs.A8 and
A9, the complainant and Respondent No.1 entered into Registered Agreement of
Sale-cum-General Power of Attorneys Document No.2992/2020 and Document
No.3324/2020 both dated 06.02.2020 Ex.A21 and Ex.A22.

In these documents

Exs.A21 and A22, the complainant and Respondent No.1 at Page (3) of both
documents in bottom have mentioned that in pursuant to earlier Development
Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney vide Document No.4940/2008 (Ex.A2)
and Supplementary Development Agreements vide Documents No.1271/2013 and
10744/2014 (Exs.A5 and A6) executed for Residential Flats were allotted in favour
of the vendee herein, since no development and construction of Apartment Complex

---

But the complainant has suppressed them while

filing this complaint and complaint in Form ‘M’ vide Complaint No.2/2020 and said
documents came to light only when Respondent No.2 filed counter and documents
on 17.11.2023. It is settled law that a complaint is liable to be dismissed due to
suppression of material facts. The said fact which the complainant suppressed in
the considered view of this Authority amounts to suppression of material facts and
the said proposition of law squarely applies to the facts of present case.
33 (a). It is also pertinent to mention that Respondent Nos.1 and 3 entered into
Registered

Development

Agreement-cum-Irrevocable

GPA

bearing

Document

No.989/2020 and 990/2020 both dated 22.01.2020 (Exs.A23 and A24), under
which Respondent No.1 gave the land belonging to him including the land covered
under Agreement of Sale Ex.A1 and other land of adjacent land owners obtained for
development to Respondent No.3 for development.
33(b). Later, Respondent No.1 and the complainant entered into said Agreement of
Sale-cum-GPAs bearing document Nos.2992/2020 and 3324/2020 both dated
06.02.2020 (Ex.A21 and Ex.A22/Exs.B1 and B2), in which Respondent No.1 and
the complainant referred to the said Development Agreements between Respondent
Nos.1 and 3 and that Respondent No.1 was allotted Residential Flats with specific
flat numbers and extent

and out of the same, Respondent No.1 agreed to allot

Residential Flats as mentioned in schedule property in favour of the complainant,

---

---

In support of this

contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decisions in “Newtech
Promoters & Developers Pvt.Ltd., vs. State of UP (2021 (18) SCC1), “Experion
Developers Pvt.Ltd. vs. State of Haryana (2021 (1) RCR (Civil) (D.B),” and
“Sana Realtors Pvt.Ltd. vs Union of India (SLP (C) No.13005 (2020)”.
34(b). On the other hand, learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the
complainant has filed two complaints simultaneously, one before the RERA
Authority and another before the Adjudicating Officer. The order passed by the
RERA

Authority

in

Complaint

No.2

of

2020

has

been

challenged

in

W.P.No.33433/2023 before Hon’ble High Court and the same is still pending. As
such, the dismissal of complaint No.2/2020 by the RERA Authority does not render
the Adjudicating Officer incapable of granting compensation. Learned Counsel in

---

---

A

similar question arose before Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of
Income Tax, Vidharbha vs. Godavari Devi Saraf (1878 (2) ELT 624 (Bombay)
as to whether a decision of High Court of one State is binding on the subordinate
Courts and Tribunal of another State or other States.
34(e). Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court in said Commissioner of
Income

Tax,

Vidharbha’s case considered the said issue and also the

authoritative or persuasive effect of a decision of any other High Court on the
subordinate Courts and Tribunals of other State.

His Lordship referring to the

decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.S.Venkaraman & Co.(P) Ltd. vs. State of
Madras (1966) 60 ITR 112 in Para – 6, another decision in A.M.Sali Maricar (1973)
90 ITR 116 in Para 8, decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in East India Commercial
Co.Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta (AIR 1962 SC 1893) and referring to
Articles 215, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, held as under:
“…. …. …. … Until contrary decision is given by any other competent High
Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State of Bombay, it has to
proceed on the footing that the law declared by the High Court though of
another State, is the final law of the land. ”

34(f). It is not disputed during the course of arguments that there is any decision
rendered on said point raised by the parties by our Hon’ble High Court of
Telangana. Complaint No.2/2020 filed in Form “M” has been dismissed vide order

---

For all the foregoing reasons, the conclusion that emerges on Point Nos.1

and 2 is that the complainant cannot be termed as an aggrieved person under
Section 31 of the Act read with Rule 35 of the Rules and that the Agreement of Sale
dt.14.12.2007 (Ex.A1) does not enable the complainant to enter into other
transactions under Documents Exs.A2 to A7, A21 and A22 and, therefore, the

---

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, considering the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own cost.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on
this, the 18th day of OCTOBER, 2024.
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NONE
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT (BY CONSENT)

Exhibit
Date of
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT MARKED
Number Document
Ex.A1
14.12.2007 Copy of agreement of sale between Sri Upadrasta
Venkata Shastri & others and Sri Boyenepally Sri
Jayavardhan (Complainant)
Ex.A2
20.06.2008 Copy of Regd. Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney bearing document No.4940/2008
of Jt.Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.
Ex.A3
20.06.2008 Copy of Regd. Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney bearing document No.4941/2008
of Jt.Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy District.
Ex.A4
09.01.2013 Copy of Supplementary Development Agreementcum-General Power of Attorney bearing document
No.1270/2013 of Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy.
Ex.A5
09.01.2013 Copy of Supplementary Development Agreementcum-General Power of Attorney bearing document
No.1271/2013 of Joint Sub-Registrar, Ranga Reddy.
Ex.A6
30.08.2014 Copy
of
2nd
Supplementary
Development
Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing
document No.10744/2014 of Joint Sub-Registrar,
Ranga Reddy.
Ex.A7
30.08.2014 Copy
of
2nd
Supplementary
Development
Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing
document No.10745/2014 of Joint Sub-Registrar,
Ranga Reddy.
Ex.A8
NIL
Copy of Allotment Letter issued by Respondent No.2.
Ex.A9
NIL
Copy of Allotment Letter issued by Respondent No.2.
Ex.A10 04.07.2019 Copy of Deed of Assignment-cum-Development
Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney.

---

Ex.A11
Ex.A12
Ex.A13
Ex.A14
Ex.A15
Ex.A16
Ex.A17
Ex.A18
Ex.A19
Ex.A20
Ex.A21
Ex.A22
Ex.A23
Ex.A24
Ex.A25
Ex.A26
Ex.A27

01.02.2020 Copy of legal Notice got issued by Complainant to
respondents.
10.06.2020 Copy of legal Notice got issued by Complainant to
respondents.
NIL
Photocopy of the returned envelop.
NIL
Postal receipt for the notice sent to Respondent
No.2.
NIL
Track consignment for delivery of notice by
Respondent No.3.
07.02.2020 Building permission order issued by GHMC.
07.02.2020 Building permission order issued by GHMC
NIL
Application submitted to RERA by R3 for East side
of the Project.
NIL
Application submitted to RERA by R3 for West side
of the Project.
NIL
Copy of Form-B submitted by Respondent No.3 to
RERA
06.02.2020 Copy
of
Agreement
of
Sale-cum-GPA
Doc.No.2992/2020.
06.02.2020 Copy
of
Agreement
of
Sale-cum-GPA
Doc.No.3324/2020.
22.01.2020 Copy of Development Agreement-cum-irrevocable
GPA Doc.No.989/2020.
22.01.2020 Copy of Development Agreement-cum-irrevocable
GPA Doc.No.990/2020.
20.03.2020 Copy of Registration Certificate of Project issued by
TG RERA
20.03.2020 Copy of Registration Certificate of Project issued by
TG RERA
14.02.2024 Orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Telangana
in
IA
No.3
of
2023
in
WP
No.33433/2023.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT Nos.2 and 3
(BY CONSENT)

Exhibit
Date of
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT MARKED
Number Document
Ex.B1
06.02.2020 Copy
of
agreement
of
sale-cum-GPA
Doc.No.3324/2020.
Ex.B2
06.02.2020 Copy
of
agreement
of
sale-cum-GPA
Doc.No.2992/2020.
Ex.B3
31.07.2023 Copy of orders on Hon’ble Supreme Court in TP
(Civil) No.1622-1623/2022 and Batch.
Ex.B4
05.08.2020 Copy of Complaint No.2/2020 filed by Sri
B.Jayavardhan before TS RERA
Ex.B5
18.02.2020 Copy of Sale Deed Document No.3064/2020.
Ex.B6
18.02.2020 Copy of Sale Deed Document No.3066/2020.

---

Ex.B7
Ex.B8
Ex.B9
Ex.B10
Ex.B11
Ex.B12
Ex.B13
Ex.B14

18.02.2020
18.02.2020
22.02.2020
22.02.2020
22.02.2020
22.02.2020
22.02.2020
23.11.2023

Copy of Sale Deed Document No.3067/2020.
Copy of Sale Deed Document No.3068/2020.
Copy of Sale Deed Document No.3368/2020.
Copy of Sale Deed Document No.3360/2020.
Copy of Sale Deed Document No.3372/2020.
Copy of Sale Deed Document No.3370/2020.
Copy of Sale Deed Document No.3373/2020.
Copy of Order passed by TG RERA in Complaint
No.2/2020.
Sd/ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.

C.

---