CC.No.90_2024 Rectification Order

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Rectification Order
COMPLAINT NO.90 OF 2024
10th Day of February 2026
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Ch. Niyanthi Reddy
(R/o Plot No.70/A, MLA Colony,
Road No.12, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500034
Temporarily residing at Germany,
Represented by GPA Holder,
Sri Ch. Baba Prasad Reddy)

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Speed Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(Office at, No.8 & 9, Vasantha Cyber View Apartments,
Madhapur, Hyderabad & also at, Villa No.61, Legend Chimes,
Kokapet Village, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana
Represented through its Authorised Representative)

2. M/s Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd.
(Office at, No.6-3-1238, 6th floor,
Legend Apartments, Renuka Enclave, Raj Bhavan Road,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad
Represented through its Authorised Representative)

…Respondents
The present Complaint No. 90 of 2024 was earlier dismissed by this Authority vide order
dated 14.07.2025 on the ground that a valid and duly executed General Power of Attorney
authorising the signatory to institute the proceedings was not placed on record. Subsequently, the
Complainant filed I.A. No. 64 of 2025 under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, seeking rectification of the said order on the ground of mistake apparent
on the face of the record. Upon consideration, this Authority, by order passed in I.A. No. 64 of
2025, found that the General Power of Attorney was available on record and that the earlier
dismissal had arisen due to an inadvertent oversight. Accordingly, the said order dated
14.07.2025 stood rectified and this Authority proceeds to consider the matter for orders on merits,
on the basis of the material and submissions already on record.

1 of 30

---

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing before this

Authority in the presence of Counsel for Complainants, Sri Nikunj Dugar and Sri Tarun Kumar
Agarwal and the Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Ms. Sarvani Desiraju along with Counsel for
Respondent No.2, Sri Rusheek Reddy K.V. and after hearing the arguments, this Authority passes
the following ORDER:
3.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RE(R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE(R&D) Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the
Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
4.

The Complainant submitted that she is the sole and absolute landowner to the extent of

lands Ac. 0.20 guntas in Survey Nos. 162, situated at Kokapet village of Ranga Reddy District.
That the Complainant along with other landowners to the subject lands, had entered into various
separate Development Agreement Cum General Power of Attorney (DGPAs) with the
Respondent No. I herein vide Document Nos.368/2007 dated: 06-01-2007. It was submitted that
Respondent No.1, on the strength of DGPAS executed by the Complainant and other landowners,
became the Developer to the subject lands. That Respondent No.1 without any consent and
intimation to the Complainant and other landowners, had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) dated 10-07-2007, with Respondent No. 2, and thus Respondent No. 2,
by the virtue of the said MOU became the Co-Developer to the subject lands.
5.

Complainant further submitted that Respondent No.1 in collusion with Respondent No.2,

had recorded several one-sided clauses in the MOU, dated 10-07-2007, including ownership of
club house to Respondent No.2, Mortgage of villas to HMDA, falling to the share of the
Complainant and other landowners herein, which are in violation of term of DGPAs. Respondent
No. 1 entered into another MOU dated 04-12-2008, based on which it is categorically recorded
that the club house in the project shall exclusively belong to all the landlandownersthe project
which is conflicting with the terms of the MOU dated 10-7-2007. Thus, any alienation of the
clubhouse is in contravention of the said MOU 04-12-2008 as well as the DGPA in-between the
parties.

2 of 30

---

Complainant further submitted that Respondent No. 1, had made an application to the

HMDA authority for sanction plan for construction of Villas and Clubhouse, pooling the lands
of the Complainant and other landowners herein, and obtained permission No. L.P No.
02/MP2/P1g/HMDA/ 2009, dated 06-01-2010. As per this permission and layout, Respondent
No.1 was required to construct a Gated Community over an extent of land ad-measuring Ac. 4235 gts. That the Respondents herein are obliged to complete the entire constructional works
within 3 years from the date of obtaining permission from the HMDA authorities, i.c., 03-022010 to 03-02-2013. That the Respondents are obliged to construct a total of 270 housing units
comprising 244 residential villas and 26 EWS/LIG units and every villa must be a type designed
unit.
7.

Complainant submitted that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein had entered into a

Supplementary Agreement dated 08-03-2011 wherein Respondent No.1 represented the
Complainant and other landowners herein and registered the same as document No.577/2011
containing 45 pages and the said supplementary agreement is available with the sub-registrar,
Gandipet. That Respondent No. 1 had unilaterally entered into another Supplementary
Agreement with Respondent No. 2, dated 08-03-2011, registered as Document No. 577 of 2011.
As stated originally all allotment of villa / plots were made in favour of either the landowners or
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 solely through Supplementary Agreement, dated 08-03-2011.
Respondent No. 1 without being legal owners of Plot / Villa Nos. 40 to 53 chose to unilaterally
and high-handedly mortgage those villas with HMDA vide Document No. 3075/2009 dated 0212-2009. Thus, on the date of execution of the said Mortgage Deed, Respondent No. 1 was never
an owner of any of the plots / villa, which are mortgaged to HMDA and thus the Original
Permission of 2010 granted by HMDA is void and invalid.
8.

That the Respondents herein had removed two Villas bearing Nos. 50 and 51 from the

mortgage, and the same belonged to the wife of the Managing Partner of Respondent No. 1
herein. The Complainant has raised several issues with respect to the specific clauses of the
development agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent No.1 which is not subject
matter jurisdiction before this Authority. The respondents even sold the said villas falling onto
the open areas of the project, which is a violation of condition number 15 of HMDA's permission
dated 06-01-2010. The said fact was also suppressed from the HMDA before obtaining the 2013
permission. Plot / Villa sizes falling to the share of the Respondents are much bigger in size, as
compared to the Complainants and other landowners, which is a clear breach/violation of terms
3 of 30

---

permission

as

granted

by

the

HMDA,

vide

permission

No.

L.P

No.

02/MP2/Plg/HMDA/2009, dated 06-01-2010.
9.

Complainant further submitted that the Respondents also lied to the Complainant and

other landowners that the clubhouse is not encumbered/ alienated in the said meeting, dated 0911-2014 even though the Respondent No. I had already sold the clubhouse to Respondent No. 2
in the year 2011. Respondents herein, had once again applied for second revised permission
layout from the HMDA on 15-12-2016, and obtained the 2017 second revised permission on 2807-2017 without the consent and permission from the Complainant and other landowners.
10.

That Writ petitions bearing No. 19234 of 2020 filed by two of the aggrieved landowners,

wherein the HMDA was directed by the Hon'ble High Court to submit an inspection report of the
Project containing all violations and irregularities in the project. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 0111-2021, 02-11-2021 and 03-11-2021 executed Gift settlement deeds in favour of the
Commissioner Narsingi Municipality conveying road areas and open areas ad-measuring 43682
sq.meters for road area, and 23860 sq. meters for open area respectively by stating that it is as
per HMDA's permission dated 03-06-2013. Further, that even as per the Joint Inspection Report
filed by HMDA and Narsingi Municipality before the Hon'ble High Court, the encumbered open
areas which belong to all the landowners and the Complainant is also alienated by the Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 making the project irreparable and thus the present project can never obtain a final
OC from the HMDA authorities. That in spite of the HMDA filing an inspection report dated 1807-2021 and highlighting 10 pertinent violations and irregularities in the present project, and also
the HMDA is aware that the Respondents conveyed 4885 sq. meters less road area
11.

That Respondents, even as on today, did not obtain the final Occupancy Certificate from

the HMDA authorities for the entire project, but the Respondents herein had sold a large share
of villas falling to their share, and the Respondents had also let in the Buyers / Purchased to reside
in the Villas, without obtaining final Occupancy Certificate. Complainant herein, despite
executing the DGPA in favour of the Respondent No. 1 in 2007 vide Doc No. 368 of 2007, dated
06-01-2007, as such the Complainant herein did not get a completed villa as a part of his/her
share, as agreed between the parties, nor the Respondent No. 1 has released / returned the lands
to the Complainant. The Hon'ble High Court vide its Interim Orders dated 24-04-2018, in W.P
No. 32521 of 2017 filed by five other landowners, restrained further sale / alienations of villas in

4 of 30

---

That the Respondents herein had mortgaged villas / plots which falls to the share of the

Complainant and other landowners as per the supplementary agreement, which was executed by
the Respondents, and as such the Construction works of the same is unfinished. That even as on
today, the Respondents have utterly failed to finish off the Constructional works of the said villas
and obtain Occupancy Certificate, nor the Respondents could get the villas mortgaged to HMDA
released, which fall to the share of the landowners.
B. Relief sought:
13.

Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondents, Complainant sought for the following

reliefs:
i.

“To penalise the Respondents herein, for violation of Sections 3(1), 4(1) of TS RERA Act.

ii.

To direct the Respondents to finish off / complete the Constructional and Developmental
works of the unfinished villas / plots pertaining to the Complainant and other landowners,
within 6 months,

iii.

To award monetary compensation to the Complainant and other landowners from the
Respondents.

iv.

To cancel the certificate of the project

v.

To display the names of the developers and their officers in the RERA website under
defaulters list.

vi.

To direct the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- towards RERA funds, in
compliance with section 60 & 61 of RERA act.

vii.

To direct the Respondents to obtain environmental clearance from SEIAA, obtain release
of the Villas under Mortgage and to obtain final OC for the entire project known as
"Legend Chimes Project", situated at Kokapet village of Ranga Reddy District, Failing
which, this Hon'ble RERA tribunal may take up the completion of the subject project.”

C. Counter on behalf of Respondent No.1:
14.

Respondent No.1 filed a reply and categorically submitted that the present complaint

ought to be returned as the signatory to the complaint failed to file the copy of the general power
of attorney based on which the present complaint came to be filed on behalf of his daughter.

5 of 30

---

That the present complaint is not maintainable as the provisions of RERA are not

applicable to the present project. That Section 84 empowered the respective State Governments
to formulate rules and accordingly the State Government of Telangana had promulgated the
Rules, 2017 which defined the applicability and the manner of applicability of the provisions of
the Act, 2016 for real estate projects based in Telangana. That the Rule 1(2) of the \ Rules, 2017,
explicitly states that the ("Rules") as well as the Act, 2016 shall be applicable for the real estate
projects of Telangana, whose building permissions were approved on or after 01.01.2017 by the
competent authorities and had therefore excluded the applicability of the Act and the Rules to
those projects for which building permissions were already received. In terms of the said Rules
which are not subject of challenge before this Hon'ble Authority and which Rules have been
followed and implemented by this Hon'ble Authority in all its orders and circular, RERA is
inapplicable to the present project and thus, the present complaint ought to be rejected as the
present dispute is in respect of the real estate project, "Legend Chimes", which was granted the
construction permissions in the years 2010 and 2013.
16.

The real estate project in question by name "Legend Chimes", was granted permission in

the year 2010, vide permission No. L.P. No. 02/MP2/P1g/HMDA/2009, dated 06.01.2010 and
the same is admitted by the Complainant herein. Further, the revised construction permission
from the HMDA was also received in the year 2013. The Complainant herein mentions that the
Respondents had received second revised construction permission in the month of July 2017;
however, the same was suspended immediately and was never acted upon, which is also to the
admission and knowledge of the Complainant and in fact, the Complainant herself confirmed in
the other proceedings initiated that 2013 approval is the binding approval. Hence, considering
that the permissions were accorded in the year 2010 and 2013, much before the period of
01.01.2017, the project, "Legend Chimes" does not come under the purview of the Act, 2016,
and as a consequence, the present complaint is not maintainable against the Respondents herein.
17.

Respondent No.1 also submitted that the present Complainant is also not maintainable as

this Hon'ble Authority does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the present dispute as the present
complaint is not a dispute or grievance filed by any consumer/purchaser of villa in the real estate
project. The Complainant, as admitted by herself, is owner of land admeasuring Acres 020Guntas located at Sy.No. 162, Kokapet Village and had entered into a Development Agreement
6 of 30

---

That in terms of the definition of "promoter" under Section 2(zk) of the Act, 2016, it

includes a person who causes to construct an independent building. That the present dispute is in
relation to the contractual disputes between the Landowner and the Developer in terms of the
DAGPA and the subsequent agreements executed by the Landowners through Respondent No. 1
with Respondent No. 2, which are beyond the purview of this Hon'ble Authority. That it is settled
law that disputes arising out of Development Agreements or such arrangements cannot be
resolved by a RERA Tribunal and such disputes falls within the jurisdiction of the civil court.
That the said DAGPA provides that any disputes arising out of the development agreement shall
be resolved through arbitration, failing resolution of disputes through mutual discussion. Clause
22 of the Development Agreement which provides for the arbitration mechanism is reproduced
below:
"22. Any disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be initially
resolved by mutual discussions among the Developer and Land Owner or the nominated
representatives of both the parties. In case of disputes not being resolved by mutual
discussions the same shall be referred to the arbitration in accordance with the provisions
of the arbitration and conciliation act 1996. The disputes shall be referred to the mutually
agreed arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator shall be binding and final on both the
parties. The jurisdiction shall be at Hyderabad only."

19.

That further, the MOU dated 10.07.2007 also provided for an arbitration clause for the

resolution of disputes arising out of the said MOU which is produced as under:
“22. ARBITRATION:
In the event of any dispute arising between the parties, the same shall be resolved
amicably. If the parties fall to resolve the dispute amicably, the matter should be referred
to arbitration and the provisions of arbitration and conciliation Act, 1998 shall apply to
the arbitration proceedings. A sole Arbitrator shall be appointed by both the parties. The
place of arbitration shall be the courts situated in the Ranga Reddy District. They alone
shall have the territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.”

7 of 30

---

It was submitted that the Complainant has in fact signified her intent to resolve the present

dispute through arbitration by addressing a notice dated 27.01.2024 to the Respondent No.1
herein expressing her desire to pursue arbitration proceedings against the Respondent No.1,
however, arbitration proceedings have not commenced related to the same and the Complainant
preferred the instant Complaint before this Authority in order to harass the Respondent No.1
herein, based on claims which are beyond the scope of the jurisdiction and ambit of this
Authority. The Complainant cannot initiate the current proceedings against her fellow promoter
in the same real estate project, the Respondent No.1 herein as neither the Act, 2016 nor the Rules,
2017, provide the mechanism for pursuing such proceedings or for quantifying of damages as
sought as one of the prayers in the present complaint.
21.

That the Complainant is also guilty of forum shopping initiating multiple legal

proceedings against Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 before the Hon'ble High Court
alleging the very same violations and initiating criminal proceedings by registering an FIR
bearing No. 883 of 2020 registered with Narsingi Police Station. The allegations made by the
Complainant in the present Complaint are the same and fall as the same subject matter of pending
litigation before various for a including the Hon'ble High Court which the Complainant herself
has initiated.
22.

That initially, the Complainant had filed WP No. 26701 of 2016 before the Telangana

High Court against inter alia this Respondent and Others seeking action against alleged violation
with respect to the development of the Legend Chimes project. The said case is pending
adjudication. Subsequently, she caused FIR No. 883 of 2020 to be registered with Narsingi Police
Station, which was quashed by the Telangana High Court vide its order dated 17.09.2021 in
CRLP No. 6531 of 2020 filed by Respondent No.1 against which order the Complainant had
preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is currently pending.
The Complainant further filed representations against Respondent No.1 before the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority ("HMDA") and Narsingi Municipality alleging inaction by
the said authorities. The Complainant once again approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of
WP No. 7194 of 2021. In its interim order dated 23.03.2021, the Telangana High Court directed
that necessary action be taken after hearing this Respondent. Accordingly, this Respondent filed
detailed written representations before HMDA and Narsingi Municipality. The proceedings
before HMDA, Narsingi Municipality and those in WP No. 7194 of 2021 are pending. In another
attempt, the Complainant herein also filed WP No. 30813 of 2022 before the Telangana High
8 of 30

---

That the Complainant is a habitual litigant and she is responsible for initiating vexatious

legal proceedings against the Respondent No.1 and therefore, the Complainant and her father i.e.
her GPA holder are filing consistent and frivolous cases against Respondent No.1 in order to
harass it personally. In any event, as the Complainant had already raised the issues regarding
alleged violations in the project before the Hon'ble High Court in the above writ petitions by also
making the municipal authorities also as a party, the Hon'ble High Court is seized of the matter
and thus the present Complaint ought not be entertained.
24.

Further, that the present complaint is filed without disclosing all the aforementioned writ

petitions and legal proceedings initiated by the Complainant. Thus, she has intentionally
suppressed the details of the various pending lis before this Hon'ble Authority and for this reason
as well the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
D. Counter on behalf of Respondent No.2:
25.

Respondent No.2, vide its counter affidavit, submitted that the present Complaint is

basing on false and baseless allegations and the same is not maintainable. It was submitted that
the Complainant is guilty of misrepresentation and suppression and that the Complainant had
preferred W.P. No. 14136/2021, W.P. No. 7194/2021 and W.P. No. 17150 of 2021 before the
Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana seeking to declare the action of the officials of the
respondent No 2 to 3 therein in not taking action on the representation dated 07/06/2021 made
by the petitioner to cancel the layout permit No 2/LO/HMDA/2009/ dated 06.01.2010 File No
372/MP2/Plg/HMDA/2009 and cancellation of mortgage deeds executed by M/s Speed Projects
and Infrastructure Private Ltd in favour of HMDA vide document no 3075/2009 dated
02.12.2009 as arbitrary, illegal and discriminative in violation of principles of natural justice
violative of the Fundamental Right guaranteed under Articles 14 and the Constitutional Right.
That the Complainant has filed series of vicious complaints as against the Respondent No.2 only
to gain illegally by abusing the process of law. That all of the allegations made under the present
Complaint by the Complainant have already been urged and contested before the Hon'ble High
9 of 30

---

It was further submitted by Respondent No.2 that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction

to adjudicate the instant complaint. That the Project "The Legend Chimes" was undertaken by
virtue of the Development cum General Power of Attorney Agreements executed in 2007,
especially DGPA Document No. 368/2007 dated 06.01.2007 executed by the Complainant in
favour of the Respondent No. I herein. Further, the Memorandum of Understanding was executed
by Respondent No. 1 representing all the landowners including Complainant herein by assigning
certain specific works to the Answering Respondent herein is executed on 10.07.2007. Further,
a Supplementary Agreement dated bearing Document No.577/2011 dated 08.03.2011 was
executed allocating the villas to all concerned including the Complainant herein, other
landowners and the Respondents 1 and 2 herein. In furtherance of the project, the HMDA
permission to develop the project in contention was obtained on 06.01.2010 vide Letter
No.372/MP2/PIg/HMDA/2009 and revision of the said plan was obtained on 03.06.2013. That
all the works completed so far were completed under the said 2013 permission only. In fact the
allotments were made by consensus amongst the landowners in 2010 itself which was later
captured under the Supplementary Agreement based on the Revised Permission of 2013 only.
27.

Further, it was submitted that admittedly the Respondent No. 1, representing all the

landowners including the Complainant herein has stopped execution of sale deeds from 2015 in
favour of the Nominees and purchasers in violation of their obligations under the MoU dated
10.07.2007 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 08.03.2011. Under the Supplementary
Agreement, it was agreed by all concerned including the Complainant that in the event their agent
i.e., the Respondent No. 1 herein stops or withholds execution of any sale deeds in favour of
purchasers of Villas falling to the share of Respondent No.2, then the Respondent No.2 is under
no obligation to undertake any further constructions. As such the Respondent No.2 was under no
obligation to make any further constructions in the Project owing to the breach of obligations by
the Complainant and their agent being the Respondent No.1 herein.
28.

Simultaneously, G.O.Ms. No.7 of 2016 MA & UD dated 05.01.2016 was issued wherein

as per Amendment No. 18, amending Rule 19 Sub Rule (d), the time period to complete all the
Non Highrise/ Highrise buildings and group development Schemed including the instant Project
from 3 years to 6 years was extended, thereby making the project completion period valid up till
02.06.2019.
10 of 30

---

That subsequently, few of the landowners have also obtained an Order preventing sale of

Villas falling to the share of the Respondent No.2 from the Hon'ble Ranga Reddy District Court
vide OP 656 of 2016 and OP 657 of 2016 and the said Interim Order was vacated vide Order
dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Ranga Reddy District Court. Thereafter, upon the said
Orders dated 10.04.2017 being challenged before the Hon'ble High Court vide CMA No.
856/2017 and CMA. No. 859/2017, a similar Order dated 01.08.2017 of Injunction preventing
the Respondent No.2 from proceeding with execution of Sale Deeds in respect of Villas falling
to its share vide Order dated 01.08.2017 was passed by the Hon'ble High Court. As such, the
Respondent No.2 is well within its rights to stop the construction of villas falling to the share of
the land owners in accordance with Clause 5 (iii) of the Supplementary Agreement dated
08.03.2011.
30.

Meanwhile, the Act, 2016 was notified with effect from 01.05.2016. The Rules made by

the State of Telangana clearly specify that it is only in respect of projects where permission was
granted after 01.01.2017 that would be subjected to the specific provisions and requirements of
the Act, 2016. In view of the abovementioned facts, since the constructions have been undertaken
only as per the permission of 2010 which was later revised in 2013, it is clear that Respondent
No.2 is not in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, 2016 or the rules made
thereunder. Further, as per the Circular dated 22.09.2018 bearing No. 1/2018 issued by this
Authority, it is clear that only such real estate projects that have taken permissions between
01.01.2017 to 31.08.2018 from the competent authorities were directed to get their projects
registered with TG RERA before 30.11.2018 to avoid penalties. Since the Project "Legend
Chimes" was For Lagend Estates Pvt. Ltd., approved in 2010, it was not bound to be registered
under TG RERA.
31.

It was submitted that the TG RERA Rules specifically state in Rule 1(2) that Real Estate

Projects approved on or after 01.01.2017 must be registered with TG RERA. Since the project
"Legend Chimes" was approved way back in the year 2010 and later only revised in 2013, the
requirement of registration does not apply to the said project. In fact, the definition of "ongoing
projects" under Rule 1(2)(j) of the TG RERA Rules, 2017 excludes projects for which building
permissions were approved prior to 01.01.2017. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the
project "Legend Chimes" has been taken up under the 2010 building permit which was
subsequently revised in the year 2013 and therefore, Respondent No.2 is not in contravention of
any provisions either under the Act, 2016 or Rules, 2017 or any other statutes.
11 of 30

---

Respondent No.2 further submitted that the Complainant herein does not have Locus to

file the instant Complaint as the Complainant herein is admittedly the sole and absolute
Landowner to the extent of lands admeasuring Ac. 0.20 Guntas in Survey Nos. 162, situated at
Kokapet village of Ranga Reddy District. That all the landowners have pooled lands and have
entrusted the development works to Respondent No.1. In turn, Respondent No.1, with the consent
of all the landowners and as a representative of all landowners entrusted specific works of
construction to the Respondent No.2.
33.

That the Complainant, being the landowner, holds an interest in the developmental works,

cannot raise the grievance before this Authority as she is one of the promoters and not an allotee
or a buyer or any other 'person' under Section 31 or Section 38 of the Act, 2016 having locus to
file the instant complaint. As such, this Authority does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the
disputes raised herein and the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed.
34.

It was also submitted that the Complaint is barred by limitation and that the cause of

action to file the instant complaint arose the last time on 02.06.2019, which is admittedly the date
on which the construction works are ought to be completed. That due to non-execution of sale
deeds in favour of Respondent No.2 and the subsequent litigations, the constructions were
stopped in 2015 itself. That no new cause of action arose since 2015. As such, the instant
complaint is barred by limitation, the claim being specific performance and related damages, the
instant Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
E. IA:64 of 2025:
35.

The Complainant had filed Complaint No. 90 of 2024 against Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

The present I.A No. 64 of 2025 has been filed under Section 39 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 r/w
Section 37 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 praying before this Hon’ble Authority to recall/rectify its
Final Order in CC No. 90 of 2024, dated 14.07.2025 on the ground that the order passed has an
error on the face of the record.
F. Counter Affidavit Filed on behalf of Respondent No.1
36.

Respondent No.1 challenged the petition and prayers sought as it is beyond the scope opf

the Authority to recall such order dated 14.07.2025 and is not maintainable. Respondent No.1
also relied upon the orders passed by Haryana RERA in order dated 28.03.2023 passed in
Complaint No. 1444 of 2019 which has held that a “prayer seeking taking on record the SPA
12 of 30

---

Respondent No.2 had filed a counter against the I.A. No. 64 of 2025 and submits that this

Authority’s power under Section 39 of RE (R&D) Act, 2016 is narrow and restricted solely to
the rectification of mistakes that are apparent on the face of the record. Such power cannot be
stretched into a review or reconsideration of the matter on merits nor is it invoked for altering,
modifying or interfering with the findings or conclusions contained in order already passed. The
Respondent No.2 has relied on order dated 27.06.2022 passed by Maharashtra Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. ATO06O00000052153 wherein it was held that while rectifying
the mistakes or errors, substantive part of order cannot be amended and that such provision has
a very limited scope. It was submitted that in para 13 of the order dated 20.03.2019 in Appeal
No. 006000000010841, it was held that Section 39 of the Act is almost at par with Section 152
of the Civil Procedure Code,1908 under which the party can rectify any minor typographical or
arithmetical mistake in the order which arises out of technical error or typing mistake or mistake
arising out of slip of hand and not for mistakes regarding grant of substantive relief sought by
any party.
38.

Further, they have relied on the Order dated 22.04.2022 in Appeal No. 47 of 2022 of the

Hon’ble Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in para 46 has held that the legislature in its
wisdom did not consider it appropriate to confer powers of review upon the Learned Authority
and is not authorized to rectify the mistake apparent from the record by amending the order and
without changing or altering the substantive part of the order.
39.

The Respondent No.2 has also submitted that as per para 12 of Deva Metal Powders Pvt.

Ltd. V. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 439, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
13 of 30

---

This Authority has carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of

Respondent No.2 and the material placed on record. There is no quarrel with the settled legal
position that the power conferred under Section 39 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 is limited in scope and does not extend to a review or reconsideration
of the matter on merits.
41.

The decisions relied upon by Respondent No.2, including the orders of the Maharashtra

Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, and the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, Trade Tax,
Uttar Pradesh, correctly lay down that the power of rectification cannot be exercised as a cloak
for review or modification of substantive findings. However, the application of the above
principle must necessarily depend upon the nature of the error sought to be corrected.
42.

In the present case, the Complaint No. 90 of 2024 came to be dismissed solely on the

ground that the Complainant had allegedly failed to place on record a valid and duly executed
General Power of Attorney authorising the signatory to institute the proceedings, rendering the
Complaint non-maintainable.
43.

Upon consideration of I.A. No. 64 of 2025 and a careful re-perusal of the record, this

Authority finds that the General Power of Attorney was, in fact, already part of the record at the
relevant time. The earlier observation regarding its absence did not arise from any adjudication
on merits or from appreciation of competing legal contentions, but from an inadvertent oversight
in noticing a document placed on file.
44.

Correction of such an error squarely falls within the scope of Section 39 of the

RE(R&D)Act, as it relates to a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Rectifying the said
mistake does not involve re-examination of evidence, reconsideration of findings, or alteration
of the substantive conclusions of the order. It merely restores the factual position as it existed on
record at the time of passing the earlier order.
45.

Therefore, the objection of Respondent No.2 that the present application amounts to a

review of the order on merits is misconceived and is hereby rejected.
14 of 30

---

In view of the above, the procedural objection recorded earlier regarding non-production

of a valid General Power of Attorney does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I.A. No.
64 of 2025 is allowed, and the earlier dismissal of Complaint No. 90 of 2024 on the said
procedural ground stands rectified.
I. Points for consideration:
47.

After deliberating upon the contentions of the parties and the documents filed by them,

the following issues sprout for consideration:
1) Whether the Complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016?
2) Whether the Respondents have failed to complete the Project and hand over possession
of the allotted villa within the stipulated time?
3) Whether the Complainant is entitled to compensation/relief, and if so, to what extent?
4) Whether the Respondents have violated Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act by not
registering the Project?
J. Observations of the Authority:
Point 1: Maintainability of the Complainant:
48.

The Respondents have raised multiple preliminary objections questioning the

maintainability of the present Complaint, namely:
a) that the Complainant does not fall within the definition of an “allottee” under Section 2(d)
of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016;
b) that the Complaint filed through a General Power of Attorney holder is untenable due to
alleged non-production of the GPA;
c) that the existence of arbitration clauses under the Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney and Memorandum of Understanding ousts the jurisdiction of this
Authority;
d) that the Complainant is guilty of forum shopping and suppression of pending proceedings;
and
e) that the provisions of the Act are inapplicable as the Project had obtained permissions
prior to 01.01.2017.
a) Whether the Complainant falls under the definition of "allottee" under Section 2(d) of the
RE((R&D) Act:
49.

The Respondents contend that the Complainant, being a landowner who executed a

Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 06.01.2007, is a co-promoter
and not an allottee. Per contra, the Complainant submits that in consideration of pooling her land
admeasuring Ac. 0.20 guntas, she was allotted a specific residential unit, namely Villa No. 48,
15 of 30

---

Section 2(d) of the RE(R&D) Act, defines allottees as- “allottee” in relation to a real

estate project, means the person to whom a plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, has
been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter,
and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or
otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or building, as the case
may be, is given on rent”
51.

The essence of the definition of “allottee” under Section 2(d), read in light of the

consumer-protective object of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is to
safeguard persons who acquire a defined unit in a real estate project, irrespective of the form of
consideration. Upon a careful examination of the record, this Authority finds no material to
suggest that the Complainant shared any profit, risk, control, or promotional responsibility in the
Project so as to assume the character of a promoter under Section 2(zk) of the Act. The
arrangement between the parties is in the nature of consideration in kind, whereby land was
exchanged for the allotment of a single, identified residential villa. It is further evident that the
Complainant had no role in marketing, sale, decision-making, or commercial exploitation of the
Project, all such activities having been undertaken exclusively by the Respondents.
52.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Complainant squarely falls within the

definition of an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the Act and is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction
of this Authority under Section 31.
53.

The contention of the Respondents that the Complainant is a co-promoter is therefore

rejected as legally untenable.
b) GPA holder: The objection regarding non-production of the General Power of Attorney is
purely procedural. It is noted that a valid GPA has since been placed on record, and the
authority of the GPA holder is not disputed on merits. No prejudice has been demonstrated
to have been caused to the Respondents.
Such an objection does not go to the root of jurisdiction and is therefore rejected.

16 of 30

---

The Authority finds this objection untenable for the following reasons: The relevant

Dispute Resolution clause in the Agreement of Sale is reproduced below for ready reference:
“Any disputes arising out of or in connection with this agreement shall be initially
resolved by mutual discussions among the Developer and Land Owner or the
nominated representatives of both the parties. In case of disputes not being resolved
by mutual discussions, the same shall be referred to the arbitration in accordance
with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The disputes shall
be referred to the mutually agreed arbitrator. The award of the arbitrator shall be
binding and final on both the parties. The jurisdiction shall be at Hyderabad only”
And clause 22 of the MOU dated 10.07.2007 The relevant Dispute Resolution clause in the
Agreement of Sale is reproduced below for ready reference:
22. ARBITRATION:
In the event of any dispute arising between the parties, the same shall be resolved
amicably. If the parties fail to resolve the dispute amicably, the matter should be
referred to arbitration and the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, shall apply to the arbitration proceedings. A sole Arbitrator shall be
appointed by both the parties. The place of arbitration shall be the courts situated
in the Ranga Reddy District. They alone shall have the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the dispute.

55.

It is noted that Such a clause is at best directory and cannot oust or restrict the statutory

jurisdiction of this Authority. Section 79 of the RE(R&D) Act expressly bars the jurisdiction of
Civil Courts in respect of any matter which this Authority, the Adjudicating Officer, or the
Appellate Tribunal is empowered to determine. Likewise, Section 88 clarifies that the provisions
of the RE(R&D) Act are in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws. Thus, the intention
of the legislature is that remedies under this beneficial legislation must remain open to allottees,
irrespective of any private clause for amicable settlement.
56.

Even in cases where agreements contained arbitration clauses, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court and the Hon’ble NCDRC have consistently held that such clauses cannot circumscribe the
jurisdiction of consumer fora or statutory authorities constituted under special enactments.
57.

In National Seeds Corporation Ltd. v. M. Madhusudhan Reddy (2012) 2 SCC 506, the

Supreme Court held that remedies under special statutes are in addition to, and not in derogation
of, other remedies. For ready reference, the relevant extract is reproduced below:
*“49. Support to the above view is also lent by Section 79 of the recently enacted Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short "the Real Estate Act"). Section 79 of the
said Act reads as follows:- ‘79. Bar of jurisdiction - No civil court shall have jurisdiction to

17 of 30

---

58.

Similarly, in Aftab Singh &Ors. v. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. &Ors. (Consumer Case No.

701 of 2015, decided on 13.07.2017), it was held that arbitration clauses in builder-buyer
agreements cannot oust the jurisdiction of consumer fora. The said view was later upheld by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 23512–23513 of 2017. The relevant para reads:
“25. This Court in the series of judgments as noticed above considered the provisions of
Consumer Protection Act, L986 os well as the Arbitration Act, 1996 and laid down that
complaint under the Consumer Protection Act being a special remedy, despite there being
an arbitration agreement the proceedings before the Consumer Forum have to go on and
no ercor committed by Consumer Forum on rejecting the application. There is a reason for
not interjecting proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act on the strength of an
arbitration agreement under the Act of 1996. The remedy under the Consumer Protection
Act is a remedy provided to a consumer when there is a defect in any goods or services. The
complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant has also been explained
in Section 2(c) of the Act. The remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is confined to a
complaint by a consumer as defined under the Act for defects or deficiencies caused by a
service provider, a cheap and quick remedy has been provided to the consumer, which is
the object and purpose of the Act as noticed above."

59.

The arbitration clauses relied upon by the Respondents are directory in nature and do not

constitute a mandatory bar to the exercise of statutory jurisdiction by this Authority. It is well
settled through judicial precedents that arbitration clauses in builder–buyer or development
agreements cannot circumscribe or oust the jurisdiction of statutory fora constituted under special
enactments. In view of the object and scheme of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, which mandates efficacious redressal of grievances of allottees, this Authority holds
that the Complainant is not required to exhaust arbitration or amicable settlement mechanisms
prior to invoking the remedies under the RE(R&D) Act.

18 of 30

---

Accordingly, the objection raised by the Respondents on the ground of existence of an

arbitration clause is rejected.
d) Forum shopping and suppression of pending litigations:
61.

The Respondents have alleged forum shopping on account of multiple proceedings

pending before the Hon’ble High Court and other fora. While parallel proceedings are not
encouraged, Section 88 of the Act makes it clear that remedies under the Act are independent.
However, this Authority notes that issues relating to sanctioned plans, deviations, permissions,
inspections, mortgages and alienation of open areas are already pending consideration before the
Hon’ble High Court in W.P. Nos. 7194 of 2021 and 19234 of 2020. To avoid conflicting
findings, issues sub-judice before the Hon’ble High Court will not be adjudicated here.
e) Applicability of RE(R&D) Act:
62.

The Respondents have raised a preliminary objection contending that the present

complaint is not maintainable before this Authority on the ground that the subject Project is
exempt from the applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
[RE(R&D) Act] and the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, as
the Project had received building permissions before the commencement of RE(R&D) Act.
63.

The Complainant, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the said objection and asserts

that the Project is squarely covered under the ambit of Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, as the
Project has not yet obtained a final Occupancy Certificate (OC) and construction activities are
admittedly ongoing. . It is further submitted that in light of the authoritative pronouncement of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. State of Uttar
Pradesh &Ors. [(2021) 18 SCC 1], the RE(R&D) Act has retroactive application to all “ongoing
projects” that have not received a completion certificate or occupancy certificate as on the date
of commencement of the RE(R&D) Act.
64.

To appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to refer to the plain language of Section 3(1)

of the RE(R&D) Act, which reads as follows:
No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite
persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case
may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without
registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority
established under this Act:
Provided that projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of this
Act and for which the completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter
19 of 30

---

Further, this Authority takes judicial notice of G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 04.03.2025 issued by

the Government of Telangana, which amended Rule 2(1)(j) to align with the central enactment.
The amended Rule now defines “ongoing project” as:
“Ongoing Project” means a project where development is going on and for
which Occupancy certificate or completion certificate from the competent
authority has not been issued as on date of coming into force as per sub section
(1) of section 3 of Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.
66.

This clarification conclusively removes any ambiguity and reinforces the position that the

applicability of the RE(R&D) Act hinges not on the date of building permission but on the
existence (or absence) of an occupancy or completion certificate.
67.

In the present case, it is not disputed by the Respondents that the Project has not been

fully completed and that the partial occupancy certificate dated 10.11.2021, permit no.
Lr.372/MP2/Plg/ HMDA/2009 was obtained after the commencement of the RE(R&D) Act, and
to be noted that it is partially obtained subject to the outcome of various cases pending before the
Hon’ble High Court.
68.

Therefore, non-applicability of the complaint stands debarred. In view of the above

findings, consequently, the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents is devoid of merit
and stands rejected. The present complaint is held to be maintainable before this Authority.
Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

Point 2: Whether the Respondents have failed to complete the Project and hand over
possession of the allotted villa within the stipulated time?
69.

The Complainant's grievances include delays in villa completion/handover, mortgage on

allotted villa, deviations from permissions, and control over the clubhouse. Respondents deny
violations, attributing delays to litigations and inter se clauses.

20 of 30

---

It is to be noted that Allegations of unauthorised deviations, mortgage invalidity, HMDA

permissions' legality, and inspection report violations (e.g., reduced road/open areas via Gift
Deeds 2021) are sub-judice this Authority refrains from adjudicating these.
a) Complete the Unfinished work of Complainant Villa and handover of the possession:
71.

The principal grievance of the Complainant is that the Respondents have failed to

complete the development of the Project and hand over possession of the villa allotted to her
within the stipulated time.
72.

It is an admitted fact that the Complainant pooled her land admeasuring Ac. 0.20 guntas

situated at Kokapet Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and in consideration
thereof, she was allotted one residential villa in the subject Project.
73.

It is also undisputed that the Respondents obtained layout and development permission

from the competent planning authority, vide Letter No. 372/MP2/Plg/HMDA/2009 dated
06.01.2010. Clause 9 of the said permission expressly mandated that the entire development
works shall be completed within a period of three (3) years from the date of grant of permission.
Further as per, G.O.Ms. No.7 of 2016 MA & UD dated 05.01.2016 was issued wherein as per
Amendment No. 18, amending Rule 19 Sub Rule (d), the time period to complete all the Non
Highrise/ Highrise buildings and group development Schemed including the instant Project from
3 years to 6 years was extended, thereby making the project completion period valid up till
02.06.2019.
74.

The Complainant contends that despite the lapse of several years far beyond the stipulated

period, the Respondents have failed to complete the Project and hand over possession of the
allotted villa. In response, Respondent No.2 sought to justify the delay by contending that
construction was stalled on account of multiple litigations and court orders restraining alienation
of villas falling to its share, and that under the inter se Memorandum of Understanding,
Respondent No.2 was entitled to stop construction upon being prevented from alienating its units.
75.

This Authority finds the said justification wholly untenable.

76.

A chronological examination of the contractual obligations between the parties clearly

demonstrates the extent of delay. Under the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of
Attorney dated 06.01.2007, Clause 5 obligated Respondent No.1 to complete construction of the
built-up area falling to the share of the landowners and deliver possession within a period of six
21 of 30

---

Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.1 obtained statutory approval on 06.01.2010 and,

exercising the authority conferred under the DGPA, entered into a Supplementary Agreement
dated 08.03.2011 with Respondent No.2, appointing it as Co-Developer. Clause 3 of the said
Supplementary Agreement imposed a clear and categorical obligation upon Respondent No.2 to
complete and deliver fully finished luxury villas, along with all agreed amenities, to the
developers and landowners within a period of twenty-four (24) months from the date of execution
of the agreement. The agreement further stipulated payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.
25,000/- per month per villa in the event of delay. Thus, even on the most liberal interpretation
of timelines:
a) under the Supplementary Agreement, possession ought to have been handed over by
08.03.2013; and
b) under the DGPA, possession ought to have been handed over by 06.01.2016.
c) G.O.Ms. No. 7 of 2016, MA & UD Department, dated 05.01.2016, by Amendment No. 18 to
Rule 19, sub-rule (d), the time period prescribed for completion of all Non-Highrise / Highrise
Buildings and Group Development Schemes, extended from three (3) years to six (6) years,
thereby rendering the project completion period valid up to 02.06.2019.
78.

Admittedly, the Respondents failed to comply with either of these timelines.

79.

What is more significant is that the litigations relied upon by the Respondents to justify

the delay were initiated only after the lapse of 06.01.2016, after the contractual timelines for
completion had already expired. Litigation arising subsequent to default cannot retrospectively
legitimise or excuse prior delay. This Authority cannot accept the attempt of the Respondents to
evade responsibility by attributing non-completion to litigations that arose after the breach had
already crystallised.
80.

The conduct of the Respondents reflects a gross and unexplained delay, as a result of

which the Complainant has been deprived of possession of the allotted villa. Such delay strikes
at the very object and purpose of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which
seeks to ensure timely completion of projects and to protect allottees from prolonged uncertainty
and hardship.
22 of 30

---

As regards the issue of mortgage of the Complainant’s villa, Clause 16 of the

Development Agreement expressly contemplated the creation of mortgage in favour of the
competent authority as a condition for layout approval, and recorded that the selection of the land
or built-up area to be mortgaged would be at the discretion of the competent authority and binding
on both parties. To that extent, the Authority does not enter into the merits of allocation of
mortgaged units, as the same falls within the domain of the competent authority.
82.

However, the existence of a mortgage does not absolve the Respondents of their

obligation to complete construction of the Complainant’s villa in all respects. The Respondents
are duty-bound to complete the villa strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and obtain
the Occupancy Certificate for the Project, and thereafter take all necessary steps for release of
the mortgaged villa and execution of conveyance in favour of the Complainant, in accordance
with Section 17 of the RE(R&D) Act,2016.
83.

Internal arrangements, inter se disputes, or mortgage conditions cannot be used as a shield

to indefinitely delay possession to an allottee. This Authority finds it necessary to observe that
promoters who take extended timelines from allottees for the completion of projects cannot
thereafter cite litigations often arising out of their own defaults as justification for noncompletion. Such conduct defeats the purpose of the RE(R&D) Act and cannot be countenanced.
84.

Accordingly, the Respondents are directed to complete the Complainant’s villa in all

respects, ensure completion of the Project and obtain the Occupancy Certificate at the earliest,
subject to the outcome of pending proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court, and thereafter
proceed to secure release of the mortgaged villa and execute conveyance in favour of the
Complainant without further delay. Allottees cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession
of their rightful entitlements.
d) Observations with respect to the Clubhouse / Common Amenities:
85.

Though no specific relief has been sought by the Complainant with regard to the

clubhouse, this Authority cannot remain a passive spectator where statutory obligations under
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 are being diluted or defeated by
contractual arrangements. The RE(R&D) Act casts an affirmative duty upon this Authority to
ensure compliance with statutory mandates, particularly in relation to common areas and
amenities forming part of a real estate project.

23 of 30

---

It is the case of the Complainant that the clubhouse forms part of the common amenities

intended for the benefit of all landowners/allottees, as reflected in the Memorandum of
Understanding. The Respondents, on the other hand, seek to justify their control over the
clubhouse by relying upon the Supplementary Agreement, under which the clubhouse is claimed
to have been allotted or leased to Respondent No.2.
87.

This Authority is of the considered view that such inter se contractual arrangements are

wholly irrelevant insofar as statutory obligations under the RE(R&D) Act are concerned.
Under Section 2(n) of the RE(R&D) Act defines common areas as:
"common areas" mean—
(i)the entire land for the real estate project or where the project is developed
in phases and registration under this Act is sought for a phase, the entire
land for that phase;(ii)the stair cases, lifts, staircase and lift lobbies, fir
escapes, and common entrances and exits of buildings;(iii)the common
basements, terraces, parks, play areas, open parking areas and common
storage spaces;(iv)the premises for the lodging of persons employed for the
management of the property including accommodation for watch and ward
staffs or for the lodging of community service personnel;(v)installations of
central services such as electricity, gas, water and sanitation, airconditioning and incinerating, system for water conservation and renewable
energy;(vi)the water tanks, sumps, motors, fans, compressors, ducts and all
apparatus connected with installations for common use;(vii)all community
and commercial facilities as provided in the real estate project;(viii)all other
portion of the project necessary or convenient for its maintenance, safety,
etc., and in common use;
88.

The clubhouse, being an amenity block forming part of the approved project layout,

squarely falls within the definition of “common areas” under Section 2(n). The statutory character
of a common area cannot be altered, assigned, leased, or retained by the promoter or any third
party on the basis of private agreements.

89.

Under Section 11(4)(f) and Section 17(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, which is read as:
Section 11(4)(f)execute a registered conveyance deed of the apartment, plot or

building, as the case may be, in favour of the allottee along with the undivided
proportionate title in the common areas to the association of allottees or competent
authority, as the case may be, as provided under section 17 of this Act;

Further section 17(1) of RE(R&D) Act states as follow:
17. (1) The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed in favour of the
allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the
association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be, and
hand over the physical possession of the plot, apartment of building, as the case
may be, to the allottees and the common areas to the association of the allottees

24 of 30

---

90.

These provisions are mandatory in nature. The promoter is vested with no discretion

whatsoever to retain control over common areas or to transfer such amenities to a co-developer,
commercial entity, or any third party. Any such act would amount to a clear breach of statutory
duty.
91.

The act of leasing out or otherwise transferring control of a statutory amenity such as a

clubhouse to a third party or co-developer, instead of handing it over to the Association of
Allottees, is not only contrary to the representations made to allottees but also constitutes a direct
violation of Sections 2(n), 11(4)(f), and 17 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016.
92.

Permitting either the landowners or the Respondents to unilaterally retain or assert

exclusive control over the clubhouse under the guise of MOUs, DGPAs, or Supplementary
Agreements would amount to misappropriation of a common asset and would cause serious
prejudice to the allottees. Such conduct would also defeat the very object of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which is to ensure transparency, accountability of
promoters, and protection of allottee rights.
93.

Accordingly, this Authority holds and declares that the clubhouse, being an integral part

of the approved layout and falling within the scope of “common areas” under Section 2(n) of the
RE(R&D) Act, shall be handed over to the duly constituted Association of Allottees, strictly in
accordance with Sections 11(4)(f) and 17(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016.
94.

This Authority reiterates that statutory rights of allottees cannot be diluted, postponed, or

defeated by private contractual arrangements, pending litigations, or unilateral acts of the

25 of 30

---

The Complainant has sought certain reliefs on behalf of other landowners of the Project.

This Authority notes that the said landowners are not parties to the present proceedings. In the
absence of their impleadment and independent invocation of jurisdiction, no relief can be granted
on their behalf. The claim, to the extent it seeks reliefs for persons who are not before this
Authority, is therefore not maintainable and is rejected.
96.

With regard to the claim for compensation sought by the Complainant, as well as on

behalf of other landowners, it is well settled that jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for
compensation under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 vests exclusively
with the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the said Act, to be invoked in the prescribed
manner under Form ‘N’.
97.

Accordingly, this Authority refrains from adjudicating the claim for compensation. The

Complainant is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy before the Adjudicating Officer, in
accordance with law.
Point 4: Whether the Respondents have violated Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act by not
registering the Project?
98.

Before proceeding to examine the merits of the alleged violation under Sections 3 and 4

of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, this Authority deems it appropriate
to clarify the procedural position.
99.

In Complaint No. 90 of 2024, vide order dated 14.07.2025, this Authority had refrained

from examining the merits of the issue of registration, as the Complaint was then held to be nonmaintainable on account of absence of a valid General Power of Attorney. In the said order, the
Secretary, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, was directed to initiate suo motu
proceedings for alleged violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act,2016.
100.

Subsequently, upon consideration of I.A. No. 64 of 2025, this Authority found that the

General Power of Attorney had, in fact, been placed on record and that the earlier dismissal arose
due to an inadvertent oversight. This Authority now proceeds to examine the issue of violation
of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act on merits in the present proceedings themselves. In
26 of 30

---

This Authority had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 30.07.2024 to Respondent No.1,

calling upon it to explain why action should not be initiated under Sections 59 and 60 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 for alleged violation of Sections 3(1) and 4(1)
thereof, on account of non-registration of the Project.
102.

Respondent No.1 has contended that the Project “Legend Chimes” received building

permissions in the years 2010 and 2013, i.e., prior to 01.01.2017, and therefore does not fall
within the scope of mandatory registration. Reliance has been placed on the Telangana Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 and the circulars issued thereunder, to contend
that only projects sanctioned on or after 01.01.2017 are required to be registered.
103.

It is further contended that although a revised permission was granted in 2017, the same

was kept in abeyance within a short period and was never acted upon. Respondent No.1 has also
relied upon the pendency of W.P. No. 18274 of 2020 before the Hon’ble High Court and W.P.
(C) No. 1216 of 2020 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to submit that the issue of applicability
of registration itself is under judicial scrutiny.
104.

Respondent No.2 has reiterated the above submissions and has further relied upon the

unamended Rule 2(1)(j) of the Rules, 2017 and Circular No. 1 of 2018 dated 22.09.2018 to
contend that the Project stands excluded from the definition of “ongoing project”.
105.

At the outset, it is necessary to reiterate a settled principle of statutory interpretation,

subordinate legislation cannot curtail, override, or whittle down the mandate of the parent
enactment. Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 mandates
that no promoter shall advertise, market, sell, or offer for sale any apartment, plot, or building
without registering the real estate project with the Authority.
106.

Proviso to Section 3 categorically stipulates that:
“Provided that projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of
this Act and for which the completion certificate has not been issued, the
promoter shall make an application to the Authority for registration of the
said project within a period of three months from the date of
commencement of this Act.”

27 of 30

---

Thus, the statutory trigger for registration under the RE(R&D) Act is not the date of

building permissions, but the absence of a Completion Certificate or Occupancy Certificate as
on the date of commencement of the RE(R&D) Act.
108.

In the present case, the following facts are undisputed The Project received initial

permission on 06.01.2010 and revised permission on 03.06.2013, that the Project did not obtain
a Completion Certificate or Occupancy Certificate as on 01.05.2017, the date on which the
provision came into force. Respondent No.2 has admitted that by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.7 dated
05.01.2016, the permissible completion period for the Project stood extended up to 02.06.2019.
A partial Occupancy Certificate was obtained only on 10.11.2021, i.e., long after commencement
of the RE(R&D) Act.
109.

These admitted facts clearly establish that the Project was an ongoing project within the

meaning of the first proviso to Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act.
110.

The reliance placed by the Respondents on the Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 and the

circulars issued thereunder is misplaced. Even assuming that the said Rules, 2017, restricted
mandatory registration to projects sanctioned after 01.01.2017, such restriction cannot operate to
nullify the statutory mandate of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. has categorically
held that projects which had not obtained Completion Certificates fall within the regulatory ambit
of the Authority.
111.

The judgment in Newtech Promoters do not approve exclusion of ongoing projects from

the operation of the RE(R&D) Act merely on the basis of State Rules. On the contrary, it affirms
that the legislative intent of the RE(R&D) Act is to bring all incomplete projects within the
regulatory framework, so as to safeguard the interests of allottees.
112.

The reliance placed on L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India is wholly misconceived. This

Authority is not examining the constitutional validity of any Rule or statutory provision. It is
merely enforcing the plain language of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act. The present proceedings
do not involve adjudication on vires, but only statutory compliance, which squarely falls within
the jurisdiction of this Authority.
113.

This Authority has consistently held that in the event of a conflict, the substantive

provisions of the RE(R&D) Act override subordinate rules, and that projects which had not
obtained Occupancy Certificates as on the date of commencement of the said Act regardless of
28 of 30

---

The amendment to Rule 2(1)(j), as effected by G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 04.03.2025, only

affirms this settled position. It removes the earlier ambiguity by explicitly defining ongoing
projects as those where development is in progress and where the Occupancy or Completion
Certificate has not been issued as on the date of coming into force of Section 3 of the RE(R&D)
Act. This clarification further reinforces the mandatory requirement for the present Project to be
registered.
115.

Therefore, both statutorily and factually, the Project qualifies as an ongoing project within

the meaning of the first proviso to Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016. This Authority has no hesitation in holding that the Respondents were under a legal
obligation to register the Project and that their failure to do so constitutes a violation of Sections
3(1) and 4(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
116.

However, having regard to the regulatory position prevailing at the relevant time,

including the interpretation then placed on the State Rules and circulars, and treating the present
case as one arising out of interpretational ambiguity, this Authority, in exercise of its discretion,
refrains from imposing penalty under Sections 59 and 60 of the RE(R&D) Act at this stage.
117.

The Respondents are nevertheless directed to forthwith take all necessary steps to register

the real estate project “Legend Chimes” with the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016 and the rules and regulations made thereunder, within a period of thirty (30) days from the
date of this Order.
118.

Until such time as the Project is duly registered, the Respondents are restrained from

advertising, marketing, booking, selling, offering for sale, or inviting persons to purchase any
plot or villa in the Project in any manner whatsoever, in terms of Section 3(1) read with Section
4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Any contravention of the above
direction shall invite consequences under sections 59 and 63 of the RE(R&D) Act and accordance
with the law.

29 of 30

---

In view of the findings, observations, and conclusions recorded hereinabove, and in

exercise of the powers conferred under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
this Authority issues the following directions:
a) The Respondents are hereby directed to complete the construction of the villa allotted to
the Complainant in all respects, strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plans and
approved specifications undertaken by them.
b) The Respondents shall ensure completion of the Project and obtain the Occupancy
Certificate from the competent authority at the earliest, subject to the outcome of
proceedings pending before the Hon’ble High Court, if any.
c) Upon issuance of the Occupancy Certificate, the Respondents shall take all necessary
steps for release of the mortgaged villa allotted to the Complainant, and within a period
of fifteen (15) days from the date of such release, shall execute and register the
conveyance deed in her favour, in compliance with Section 17 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, without any further delay.
d) The Respondents are hereby directed to forthwith take all necessary steps to register the
real estate project “Legend Chimes” with the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory
Authority, in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.
e) Until such registration is completed, the Respondents are restrained from advertising,
marketing, booking, selling, offering for sale, or inviting persons to purchase any plot,
villa, or unit in the Project, in any manner whatsoever, in terms of Section 3(1) of the
RE(R&D) Act.
f) Any violation of this direction shall invite action under Sections 59 and 63 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, in accordance with law.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

30 of 30

---