Order in Un-Numbered IA in C.No.41/2021

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this the 8th day of JULY, 2024.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
Un-numbered I.A.
in
COMPLAINT No.41 of 2021/TG RERA
Between:
Sri Boyenepally SriJayavardhan S/o Sri B.Sampath Kumar,
Aged: 30 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1-10-145/A, Street No.8,
Ashoknagar, Hyderabad 500 020.
…Petitioner/Complainant.
and
1) Sri P.Raja Rao S/o late P.Nagabhushanam, aged: 70 yrs,
Occ: Business R/o C-14, Road No.10, Film Nagar, Jubilee
Hills, Hyderabad.
2) M/s. Sri Sai Ram Projects Limited, represented by its
Managing Director Sri S.Satyanarayana Reddy, having its
Registered Office at 8-3-678, G-1, Pearl Block, Sri Sai Ram
Manor, Sri Nagar Colony Road, Hyderabad 500045.
3) M/s.Vasavi Realtors LLP, represented by its 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/Respondents.
This un-numbered interlocutory application came up for hearing on
01.07.2024 in the presence of Sri E.Poornachandra Rao, Counsel for the
petitioner/complainant on the point of maintainability; and after hearing the
arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner/Complainant and having stood
over for consideration till this day, the following order is passed:

ORDER
This un-registered interlocutory application under Or.39 Rule 1 of
Code of Civil Procedure

in Complaint No.41 of 2021 filed by the
Page 1 of 9

---

Admittedly, this petition was filed under Sections 36 and 37 of Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 for said interim direction
pending disposal of complaint and it was returned with the following
objections:
1. The present petition filed u/s 36 and 37 of the Act, which speak
about powers of the Authority and not Adjudicating Officer.
2. Adjudicating Officer has to consider only award of compensation or
otherwise. The other powers are vested with the Authority of RERA.
In view of above objections, return this petition to explain how this
petition before Adjudicating Officer is maintainable?
3.

Thereafter, the petition was re-submitted with following remarks:
1. The copies of the photos are already given to the respondents.
2. Provision of law is corrected and petition is filed under Or.XXXIX
Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC seeking interim protection.
3. Under Section 88 of the RERA Act, 2016,
provision of this Act, shall be in addition to, and
not derogation of the provisions of any other law
for the time being in force.

4.

Later, the petition was called on Bench and heard regarding its

maintainability.
5.

Since the question of maintainability of petition is in question, it is not

necessary to refer the contents in petition. Suffice it to say, the petition
can be considered and disposed off on the basis of contentions advanced
on behalf of petitioner/complainant during the course of arguments.

Page 2 of 9

---

Now the POINT that arises for determination is :
Whether the petition for relief sought is maintainable in a
proceedings pending for compensation before the Adjudicating
Officer under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016?

7.

POINT:
Before going to decide regarding maintainability of present petition

before the Adjudicating Officer in proceedings pending for award of
compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), it is just and necessary to refer the
reliefs in Complaint in Form (M) vide Complaint No.2 of 2020 filed by the
petitioner/complainant before the Authority under the Act, viz., (i) to revoke
the registration under Section 7 of the Act granted in favour of Respondent
No.3;

(ii) To direct the Promoter/Respondent No.3 to enter into an

agreement in favour of Complainant in respect of 3055.50 Sq.yards of land;
and also in respect of 4944.50 Sq. yards of land, which is made part of real
estate project; and (iii) to restrain Respondent No.3 from allotting, selling or
advertising or in any way dealing with the project under Section 37 of the
Act; and the decision rendered on the points framed therein and final order
passed.
8.

The Authority vide order in Complaint No.2 of 2020 dt.23.09.2023

held on points framed therein inter alia that the petitioner herein, who is
complainant in said case, cannot be termed as an “aggrieved person” as
referred in Section 31 of the

Act and as such, he cannot maintain the

complaint before the Authority; that the complainant has failed to satisfy the
Page 3 of 9

---

Ultimately, the complaint was

dismissed.
9.

Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant assailing said order of the

Authority in Complaint No.2 of 2020 has filed W.P.No.33433/2023 before
the Hon’ble High Court.

In this writ petition, the petitioner/complainant

has also filed an I.A.No.3 of 2023 under Sec.151 CPC praying to grant stay
of further transactions/alienations over the subject matter covered by
Registration Certificate Nos.P02500001821 and P02500001819, dated:
20.03.2020 issued by RERA Authority in any manner pending disposal of
writ petition.

Hon’ble High Court after hearing both parties has passed

order in said I.A., dt.04.02.2024 that any alienation made during pendency
of writ petition shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition.
10.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner/complainant placing reliance on

the provisions in Sections 31, 36, 37,40 (2), 72 (d) and 88 of the Act
contended that when the Authority has powers as envisaged under the Act,
the Adjudicating Officer has also such powers to pass orders in matters
pending before him.

Learned Counsel submits that in the light of

provisions in Section 88 of the Act, Sec.151 CPC comes into play and as
such, the Adjudicating Officer has power to pass interim order as sought.
According to learned Counsel, once after enquiry compensation, which
Adjudicating

Officer

has

power

to

grant,

is

granted,

the

petitioner/complainant will not be in a position to utilize the fruits of the
Page 4 of 9

---

Therefore,

learned Counsel submits that the petition is maintainable and it may be
numbered.
11.

This Authority has given serious thought to the submissions advanced

and has gone through the provisions of the Act referred by the learned
Counsel and also the other provisions of the Act and Rules.
12.

In a relevant decision in “M/s.Newtech Promoters and Developers

Pvt.Ltd v State of UP and others etc (Civil Appeal NO.(s) 6745-6749 of
2021), Hon’ble Supreme Court, while answering the question whether
the Authority has jurisdiction to direct return/refund of the amount to
the allottee under Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19 of the Act or the
jurisdiction exclusively lies with the Adjudicating Officer under
Section 71 of the Act, held in Para 86 as under:
“From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference
has been made and taking note of power of adjudication
delineated with the regulatory authority and adjudicating
officer, what finally culls out is that although the Act
indicates the distinct expressions like ‘refund’, ‘interest’, and
‘compensation’, a conjoint reading of Sections 18 and 19
clearly manifests that when it comes to refund of the amount,
and interest on the refund amount, or directing payment of
interest for delayed delivery of possession, or penalty and
interest thereon, it is the regulatory authority which has the
power to examine and determine the outcome of a complaint.
At the same time, when it comes to a question of seeking the
relief of adjudging compensation and interest thereon under
Sections 12, 14, 18 and 19, the adjudicating officer
exclusively has the power to determine, keeping in view the
collective reading of Section 71 read with Section 72 of the
Act. If the adjudication under Sections 12, 13, 18 and 19
other than compensation as envisaged, if extended to the
adjudicating officer as prayed that, in our view, may intend
Page 5 of 9

---

At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the law makers while

enacting the law have envisaged the powers of the Authorities under the Act.
While doing so, the provisions have been made specifically at more than one
place regarding powers of the Authority and Appellate Tribunal. Sections 36
and 37 of the Act lay down the powers of the Authority to pass interim
orders and directions, whereas Sections 59 to 63, 65 and 67 of the Act
speak about powers of the Authority to impose penalties and Sections 64, 66
and 68 of the Act envisage powers of Appellate Tribunal to impose penalties.
When such are the specific provisions in the Act and the power of
Adjudicating Officer is restricted only to the extent of enquiry regarding
award of compensation and its grant or otherwise, I am unable to see any
force

in

the

said

contentions

advanced

on

behalf

of

the

petitioner/complainant, especially when the prayer in present petition is
under Or.39 R1 CPC for an order restraining respondent No.3 from allotting
or alienating the subject matter etc.
14(a). Learned Counsel next contended that Section 13 (3B) of Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 lays down that during pendency of any proceedings
before the District Forum, the Forum, may, if it appears necessary, pass
such interim order as is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.

Learned Counsel then referring to proviso in sub-section (1) of

Section 71 of the Act read with said Section 13 (3B) of Consumers Protection
Act submits that the Adjudicating Officer has also powers to pass interim
Page 6 of 9

---

As such, learned Counsel submits that the petition is

maintainable.
14(b). Admittedly, Sections 36 and 37 of the Act deal with powers of passing
interim orders and directions by the Authority under the Act. Under these
sections, such power vests only with the Authority. Authority is defined u/s
2(i) of the Act, which says that ‘Authority’ means the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority established under sub-section (1) of section 20.
14©.

A reading of Section 20 of the Act shows that the appropriate

Government shall establish an Authority as Real Estate Regulatory
Authority to exercise powers conferred on it and to perform the functions
assigned to it under the Act.

Section 21 of the Act envisages that the

Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and not less than two whole time
members to be appointed by the Government.
14(d). On a combined reading of definition of Authority u/s 2 (i) and
provisions of Sections 20 and 21 coupled with the provisions of Sections 36
and 37 of the Act, I am of the considered view that the said contention of
learned Counsel that the Adjudicating Officer has also powers to pass
interim order as sought is devoid of merits and any power, if exercised, by
the Adjudicating Officer,

as submitted by the learned Counsel in my

considered view would amount to usurping the powers of the Authority by
the Adjudicating Officer. Therefore, there is no force in the said contention
on behalf of the petitioner.

Page 7 of 9

---

Further, when the petitioner/complainant has sought order, as

sought in present petition, before the Authority in said main Complaint
No.2/2020 and when the Authority has dismissed said main Complaint
No.2 of 2020, and when such matter is ceased by the Hon’ble High Court in
appeal in Writ Petition No.33433/2023 by way of challenging the order of
the Authority in said Complaint No.2/2020, especially when similar order
as claimed in present petition was again claimed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in
W.P.No.33433/2023 under Section 151 CPC before Hon’ble High Court and
Hon’ble Court passed said order, it has to be held without any stretch of
imagination that the present petition again before the Adjudicating Officer is
not maintainable.
16.

For all the foregoing reasons, the conclusion that emerges is that the

contentions advanced on behalf of petitioner/complainant on the question of
maintainability of present petition before the Adjudicating Officer do not
hold any water and are not tenable. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be
rejected as not maintainable before numbering.
17.

In the result, the petition is rejected. No costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on
this, the 8th day of JULY, 2024.

ADJUDICATING OFFICER.
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NIL

ADJUDICATING OFFICER.
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
Page 8 of 9

---

---