Order Complaint No. 02 Of 2020

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT No.2 of 2020
Dated this, the 23rd day of NOVEMBER, 2023.

Corum:

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

Between:
Sri Boyenepally Sri Jayavardhan.
…Complainant
Versus
1) Sri P.Raja Rao.
2) Ms. Sri Sai Ram Projects Limited, represented by
its Managing Director Sri S.Satyanarayana Reddy.
3) M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP, represented by its Partner
Sri Yerram Vijay Kumar.
…Respondents
This case has come for hearing on 03.08.2023, 19.08.2023, 24.08.2023 and
on 31.10.2023 in the presence of Sri Rahul Reddy, Advocate for Complainant, Sri
Boyenepally Sri Jayavardhan and Sri D. Raghvendra Rao, Advocates for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and upon hearing the arguments of both parties, the
Authority passed the following:

ORDER
This is a complaint filed under Section 31 of Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with Rule 34 (1)
of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) by the Complainant seeking reliefs, viz.,
(1) to revoke the registration under Section 7 of the Act granted in favour of
Respondent No.3;
1 of 50

(2) 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
(3) to restrain Respondent No.3 from allotting, selling or advertising or in
anyway dealing with the project under Section 37 of the Act.
2.

FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT:
The case of the Complainant as revealed from the complaint, in brief, is as

under:
3.

Respondent No.1 and his father, namely, 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, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, for a total consideration of Rs.1,65,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Sixty
five lakhs only).

The Complainant on the same day on 14.12.2007 has paid the

total sale consideration, i.e., a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) by
way of Cheque bearing No.634994, dt.14.12.2007, drawn on Andhra Bank, Ashok
Nagar Branch, Hyderabad to Respondent No.1, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees
Four lakhs only) by way of Cheque bearingNo.654995, dt.14.12.2007, drawn on
Andhra Bank, Ashok Nagar Branch, Hyderabad to Sri P.Nagabhushanam, and a
sum of Rs.1,60,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore and Sixty lakhs only) by way of cash
to Respondent No.1 and his father and they have acknowledged the receipt of the
same, as mentioned in agreement (Copy of the agreement of sale filed as
Document No.1). Later the Complainant had given an extent of 1826 Sq. yards +
1229.50 Sq. yards, i.e., 3055.50 Sq. yards of land out of the land purchased under
agreement of sale dated 14.12.2007 to Respondent No.2 under Registered
2 of 50

Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing Document
Nos.4940/2008 and 4941/2008 respectively both dated 20.06.2008 (Document
Nos.s2 and 3) and in lieu of such land, Respondent No.2 agreed to deliver certain
constructed area to the Complainant.

The said registered development

agreements were signed and executed by Respondent No.1, his father, Respondent
No.2 and the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant alone is entitled to enjoy
and get benefits or has right or claim over the B Schedule Property, i.e., the land
as referred under Document Nos.2 and 3 and Respondent No.1 herein and his
father are only proforma parties to the said documents.
4.

It is stated that even though an extent of 3055.50 Sq. yards of land was

given for development to Respondent No.2 as back as on 14.12.2007, Respondent
No.2 did not develop the land till 2019, i.e., until final building permit orders are
given by GHMC, even by 07.02.2020. Meanwhile, Respondent No.2 entered into
two supplementary development agreements-cum-General Power of Attorneys
dt.09.01.2013 in favour of the Complainant which were duly registered as
Registered Documents bearing Nos.1270/2013 and 1271/2013 (Document Nos.4
and 5). Respondent No.2 has also executed second supplementary agreements in
favour of the Complainant on 30.08.2014, which were also duly registered as
Document Nos.10744/2014 and 10745/2014 (Document Nos.6 and 7), wherein
allotments of the 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 the flats to be allotted to the Complainant in respect of
1826 Sq. yards + 1229.50 Sq. yards= 3055.50 Sq. yards of land.

3 of 50

5.

Further, Respondent No.2 entered into several registered development

agreements similarly with the other plot owners on various dates. According to
him, 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 the same at all for quite a long time, i.e., for more than a decade, nearly
12 years. The Complainant from time to time demanded for allotment of flats, but
it was of no use and Respondent No.2 gave some reasons, which were not
convincing.

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
anything to the Complainant.

The Complainant also came to know that

Respondent No.2, who entered into development agreements with the Complainant
on 20.06.2008 under Document Nos.2 and 3, has also entered into similar
agreements with all the plot owners during that time, i.e. in the year 2008.
Respondent No.2 afresh along with Respondent No.3 enhancing the constructed
area to be allotted to the plot owners (other than what was agreed under
development agreement earlier entered with respective land lords afresh) entered
into a new document under the name and style of Deed of Assignment-cumDevelopment Agreement-Cum-General Power of Attorney, during the year 2019
and similar documents were executed by both Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in favour
of all land owners except the Complainant with a fraudulent intention to make
profit for themselves, without giving the enhanced rate of constructed area on par
with other land owners (Document No.10).

Under the terms of the said new

document, i.e., Document No.10, Respondent No.3 undertook to construct and
deliver the flats to the respective owners.
4 of 50

6.

It is further stated that having been aggrieved by the dishonest intention of

Respondent No.2 in not delivering the flats as agreed by Respondent No.2 under
the Document Nos.2 to 9, the Complainant got issued a legal notice (Document
No.11) to Respondent No.2 on 01.02.2020 from the office of Sri K.Narayana Rao,
Advocate, reminding Respondent No.2 to deliver the flats earlier allotted under
Document Nos.6 to 9.

But no reply was given to the Notice.

When the

Complainant asked Respondent No.1 to deliver the balance extent of land of
4955.50 Sq. yards, he 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 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.

Respondent No.2 to knock away the land belonging to the Complainant and

in order to deprive the rights of the Complainant did not enter into the deed of
Assignment-cum-Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney afresh,
as he entered with other landowners during the month of June 2019 in respect of
3055.50 Sq. yards. Further, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not allotted any flats to
the Complainant in respect of 4955.50 Sq. yards of land, and not entered into the
deed of assignment-cum-development agreement-cum-general power of attorney
during the year 2019 despite taking the said land into the project areas. Having
vexed with the attitude of the Respondents, the Complainant got a legal notice
issued to Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on 05.06.2020 and 10.06.2020.

Respondent

5 of 50

No.1 did not receive the notice. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have received the notice
but did not give any reply at all. (Documents No.13, 14 and 15).
8.

Respondent No.3 is an assignee in the Real Estate project and the same is

an “Ongoing Project” as defined under Rule 30 of Rules, 2017, since occupancy
certificate

or construction certificate

was not issued.

Respondent

No.3

approached GHMC for permission to construct flats in the project area comprising
of 2 parts, one is Lake City East having an area of 30268 Sq.Mts and another is
Lake City West, having an area of 34598.75 Sq.Mts and obtained permission
under Permit dated 07.07.2020.

The land belonging to the Complainant under

document Nos.1,2 and 3, is part of the Real Estate Project. Building permit order
for east and west were given to Respondent No.3 on 07.02.2020 by GHMC
(Document Nos.16 and 17).
9.

It is further stated that under Section 4(2) of the Act, the promoter shall

enclose the following documents along with the application referred to in subsection (1), namely: (a) under Section 4(2) a declaration supported by an affidavit,
which shall be signed by the promoter or any person authorised by the promoter,
stating that he has a legal title to the land on which the development is proposed
along with legally valid documents with authentication of such title, if such land is
owned by another person; and (b) that the land is free from all encumbrances, or
as the case may be, details of the encumbrances on such land including any
rights, title, interest or name of any party in or over such land along with details.
Respondent No.3 did not give the particulars of the Complainant’s land, i.e.,
3055.50 Sq.yards and 4944 Sq.yards of land in the RERA application submitted
with the authority, i.e., RERA application for east side of the project and RERA
6 of 50

application for west side of the project, (Document No.18 and 19) and in the
declaration submitted before the RERA. Thus, Respondent No.3 has contravened
Section 4(2) (l) (B) of the Act. Respondent No.3, who made application to RERA
(Document No.18 and 19) deliberately avoided to include the registered
development agreements in the ongoing project entered in between Respondent
No.2 and the Complainant, i.e., Documents No.2 to 9 in respect of 3055.50 Sq.
yards of land and agreement of sale, i.e., Document No.1 in respect of 4944.50 Sq.
yards of land, which is taken into the project for developmental activity, to avoid
the allotment of flats to the Complainant with dishonest intention to make good
for themselves and make unjust enrichment and the same is in contravention of
Section 4(2) (l)(A) and (B) and 4(2) (l) (F) and (m) of the Act and Rule 3 (1) (e) (f) and
(4) of the Rules.
10.

Further, Respondent No.3 in a fraudulent manner to avoid the legitimate

rights and entitlement of the Complainant did not mention anything about the
Complainant or the land belonging to him and various documents such as
Documents No.1 to 6, even though it is incumbent on his part to mention those
details in the Form-B. Form-B as prescribed by Rule 3(4) attached to the Rules
speaks of the affidavit-cum-declaration to be given by Respondent No.3. Para 2 of
Form-B format, as prescribed by the Rules, is not complied.

In the Form-B

(Document No.20) submitted by the Respondent No.3 promoter, the second limb of
Para 2 is deliberately avoided.
11.

Further, Respondent No.3 did not enter into any agreement as prescribed

under the Act in respect of 4944.50 Sq. yards of land inspite of the fact that
Respondent No.3 made use of the said land for the project developmental activity,
7 of 50

without making any allotment of constructed area to the Complainant, even
though he entered into fresh Deed of Assignment-cum-Development Agreementscum-General Power of Attorney, dated 04.07.2019, with all the persons who held
the land, except the Complainant. No information about the agreement entered in
between Respondent No.2 and the Complainant is furnished in the RERA
application and no details are given.

Respondent No.3 avoided to enclose the

documents required to be enclosed as prescribed in clause 2 (iv) and (v) of the
application for registration of project, i.e., Form ‘A’ in terms of Rule 3(2) of the
Rules, in case of the Complainant, which is in contravention of the Rule 3 (d), (e)
and (f) of the Rules.
12.

Further, as per the information furnished in the Web by the RERA in turn

furnished by Respondent No.3, vide Documents No.18 and 19, Respondent No.3
sought to develop 30268 Sq.Mts of land on the east and 34598.75 Sq.Mts of land
on the west side of the entire land, situated in Sy.Nos.105 to 109 and 111 to 114
of Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and he is a
promoter as defined in the Act. The promoter has given names of landowners,
whose land is sought to be developed.

But, inspite of the fact that the

Complainant being the land owner having rights in respect of an area of 3055.50
Sq.yards of land under the development agreements under Documents No.2 and
3, his name and flats to be allotted and other information as required to be
furnished is not furnished, which is in contravention of Section 4(2) (l) (A) and
Section 4(2) (l) (B) of the Act.

Respondent No.3, who made application to the

Authority under Documents No.18 and 19 has also deliberately avoided to include
the Registered Development Agreements dt.20.06.2008, Documents No.2 to 6 in

8 of 50

respect of 3055.50 Sq.yards of land, which is taken into the project for
developmental activity, to avoid the allotment of flats to the Complainant with
dishonest intention to make good for themselves and make unjust enrichment and
the same is in contravention of Section 4(2)(l)(A) and (B) and 4(2)(l)(F) and (m) of
the Act.

Document No.15 Para 2 suffers from the defect of not furnishing the

information required to be furnished and in contravention of the Form-B Format.
The definition of a person is given in Section 2(zg) (i), i.e., “an individual” and thus,
the Complainant is entitled to file this complaint against Respondents, more
particularly, Respondent No.3 for violating and contravening the provisions of the
Act and Rules and Regulations made thereunder.
13.

Respondent No.3 has also violated Section 7(1) (d) of the Act, since the

promoter indulged in fraudulent practices, i.e., the promoter/respondent No.3,
who made application to the RERA, deliberately avoided to include the particulars
of the Complainant, the registered development agreements entered into in
between Respondent No.2 and the Complainant, i.e., Documents No.2 to 6, in
respect of 3055.50 Sq. yards of land and submit the copy of agreement of sale, i.e.,
Document No.1 and details in respect of remaining land of 4944.50 Sq. yards
which is also taken into real estate project for developmental activity and to avoid
the allotment of flats/constructed area to the Complainant with a dishonest
intention to make good for themselves and make unjust enrichment.
14.

Respondent No.3 has also violated Section 11 (1) (f) of the Act as he avoided

to furnish information and documents in regard to Complainant and his land and
thus failed to discharge his duties and functions as promoter.

Hence, the

complaint.
9 of 50

15.

REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Nos.2 and 3:
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed separate counters. The pleas advanced

by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are almost similar. As such, the contents from the
counter of Respondent No.2 are referred to as under.
16.

It was stated that the Complaint is not maintainable both on law and facts.

The Complainant has initiated the present complaint only to harass the
Respondents and is trying to arm twist and extort money from the Respondents
under the threat of these proceedings.

The Complainant has approached this

forum with unclean hands and has deliberately suppressed material facts and is,
thus, misleading the Authority by playing fraud.
17.

Respondent No.2 had originally entered into various registered development

agreements with several land owners of varied extents and thereby has
consolidated to develop all that total land area admeasuring 64,866.75 Sq.meters
in Sy.Nos.104 to 109 and 111 to 115 situated at Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Respondent No.2 inter se

entered into the

following registered agreements, i.e., two development agreements bearing
Nos.4840/2008 (for development of land admeasuring 7304 sq.yards between
M/s. Sri Sai Ram Projects Ltd. & land owners B.Jayavardhan – Agreement Holder
for an area of 1826 Sq.yards) and 4841/2008 (for development of land
admeasuring 4918 Sq. yards between M/s.Sri Sai Ram Projects Ltd. &land owners
& B. Jayavardhan – Agreement Holder for an area of 1229.50 Sq. yards) both
documents dated 20.06.2008.

Thereafter, Respondent No.2 entered into

registered supplementary agreements bearing Nos.1270/2013 & 1271/2013 (both
documents dated 09.01.2013) and second supplementary Agreements bearing
10 of 50

Nos.10744/2014 & 10745/2014 (dated 30.08.2014). Under these documents, the
original landowners along with the Complainant for an extent of area of 3055 Sq.
yards, was made a party towards recognizing the rights as an Agreement of Sale
holder dated 14.12.2007.
18.

Respondent No.2 has also entered into the Development Agreements with

various owners for the entire land all in the year 2008.
aggregated

large

extents

of

land

and

wanted

to

Respondent No.2

consolidate

and

make

constructions of Residential Apartments over the said total land in Sy.Nos.104 to
109 and 111 to 115 situated at Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District.

However, the development activity could not be commenced by

Respondent No.2 due to various unforeseeable reasons beyond the control of
Respondent No.2. Neither the development commenced nor registration certificate
of project under Section 5 of the Act was obtained by Respondent No.2. But, in
the interest of all stake holders, it was decided to hand over the development
project to some reputed developer. Thus, even before the project was registered as
per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act, it was decided between the landowners,
the previous developer (i.e., Respondent No.2) to give the development rights in
favour of Respondent No.3 (i.e., M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP). All the land owners of
the land have executed registered agreements in favour of Respondent No.3 (i.e.,
M/s. Vasavi Realtors LLP) and Respondent No.3 agreed to develop two projects one
admeasuring 34,598.75 Sq. meters & another 30,268 Sq. meters in Sy.Nos.104 to
109 & 111 to 115 of Hafeezpet village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District.

Building permit application was applied on 20.08.2018 vide file

No.1/HO/15979/18 and File No.1/HO/15700/18 and permissions were obtained

11 of 50

from GHMC through proceeding/Builder Permit No.1/C20/01691/2020 in File
No.1/HO/15979/18 obtained from GHMC (dated 07.02.2020) (for area measuring
30,268

Sq.meters

–

No.1/C20/1690/2020

Vasavi’s
in

File

Lake

City

West

No.1/HO/15700/18

and

Building

(Dt.7-2-2000)

admeasuring 34,598.75 Sq.meters – Vasavi Lake City West.

Permit

for

area

Thus, the total area

being developed as per the Sanction Plan is 64,866.75 Sq. meters.
19.

It is stated that after obtaining the above permissions from GHMC,

Respondent No.3 has applied to the RERA Authority seeking registration of the
project in accordance with Section 5 of the Act and Rules applicable.

After

considering the application, the Authority has issued registration certificate of
projects bearing Nos.P02500001819 (Vasavi’s Lake City West) and P02500001821
(Vasavi’s Lake City East) dated 20.03.2020. The validity of the said registration is
from 20.03.2020 to 07.02.2025. Subsequent to obtaining registrations from the
Authority, the development works have been commenced and the work is being
carried out as per the terms and conditions. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not a
party to the various earlier transactions/documents that the Complainant is
presently relying before the Authority. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 after obtaining the
development rights from all the landowners, the present arrangement for
development has been commenced after duly informing and obtaining necessary
permissions from all the statutory authorities.
20.

According to Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the Complainant filed the present

complaint before the Authority without disclosing the true and complete material
facts.

In fact, he has deliberately suppressed important facts regarding the

present case.

The Complainant has completely suppressed the two crucial
12 of 50

documents, i.e., Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney
bearing Document Nos.3324/2020 and 2992/2020 (dated 06.02.2020) which were
entered between the original land owner (i.e., Sri P.Raja Rao/Respondent No.1)
and the Complainant. From a reading of the contents of these Agreements, the
entire so-called controversy now claimed by the Complainant will totally fall flat.
21.

The Complainant has clearly admitted about the project being developed by

Respondent No.3 and thereby the Complainant has proceeded to obtain new areas
from the Land owner’s (i.e., Sri P.Raja Rao/Respondent No.1) share.

The

Complainant has already received the entire area in lieu of his rights accruing
under the Agreement of Sale (dated 14.12.2007) entered between himself and the
landowner.

The Land owner (Sri P.Raja Rao) has given the areas from his

exclusive share to the Complainant and thus the Complainant after receiving the
same cannot make the present allegations.
22.

It is also contended that the Complainant is not a land owner and he is

merely an Agreement of Sale rights holder and towards these rights he has already
received the areas from the share of the Land owner (i.e., Sri P.Raja
Rao/Respondent No.1).

Therefore, under no capacity the present Complainant

can raise any complaint against Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

All the contentions

raised by him regarding usurping his rights and areas are totally false and
baseless. The original owner of the land is Sri P.Raja Rao and Respondent No.3
has obtained developmental rights from him under two Registered documents
bearing Nos.989/2020 and 990/2020.

Respondent No.2 (i.e., M/s. SriSai Ram

Projects Ltd.), which was the previous developer, has entered into the various
registered agreements with the original land owner, i.e., Respondent No.1 herein
13 of 50

(i.e., Sri P.Raja Rao) and other parties. The Complainant being a recognized
agreement older through the unregistered Agreement of Sale (dt.14.12.2007), he
was made a party in the following documents.

The fact remains that the

Complainant is not the absolute owner as there has never been any registered
conveyance deed/sale deed that has been obtained by the Complainant from his
Vendors/Original landowners and that he only remains to be an agreement holder.
The claim that the Complainant is owner with respect to the land admeasuring
8000 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.105 to 114 situated at Hafeezpet village, Serilingmpally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is totally baseless. The land owner of said land is
Sri P.Raja Rao (Respondent No.1) and the said land owner has already executed
registered development agreements with respect to total area entitlement of
Complainant and thus, the Complainant has already received the new revised
allocations/area that he was entitled under the Registered Agreement of Sale-cumGeneral Power of Attorney bearing Document Nos.3324/2020 and 2992/2020
(dated 06.02.2020).

Therefore, the Complainant cannot raise any further claim

and demands.
23.

The relevant recitals (made in registered Agreement of sale-cum-General

Power of Attorney bearing Document Nos.3324/2020 and 2992/2020 (dated
06.02.2020) to the above affect is being reproduced below for easy reference and to
show the admissions made by the Complainant.
Document No.2992/2020.
(i)

“WHEREAS in pursuant to earlier Development Agreementcum- GPA 49041/2008 and Supplementary Development
Agreements

1270/2013

and

10745/2014

executed

for

14 of 50

residential flats were allotted in favour of the Vendee herein,
since

no

development

and

Construction

of

Apartment

Complex was undertaken by the earlier Developer, viz., M/s
Sri Sai Ram Projects Limited, the parties have mutually
agreed to cancel earlier Supplement Agreements pursuant to
cancellation of said Development Agreements. ”
Document No.3324/2020
(ii)

“WHEREAS in pursuant to earlier Development Agreementcum-GPA
Agreements

4940/2008
1271/2013

and
and

Supplementary
10744/2014

Development
executed

for

residential flats were allotted in favour of the Vendee herein,
since

no

development

and

Construction

of

Apartment

Complex was undertaken by the earlier Developer, viz.,
M/s.Sri Sai Ram Projects Limited, the parties have mutually
agreed to cancel earlier Supplemental Agreements pursuant
cancellation of said Development Agreements”
24.

In light of the said admissions made by the Complainant under registered

documents, the present Complaint has to be dealt. Respondent No.2 has already
issued legal notice dated 31.07.2020 calling upon the Complainant to perform his
obligation of executing the registered cancellation deeds as agreed between the
parties.

However, for certain malafide reasons, the Complainant has been

avoiding to do the same. Respondent No.2 has fully realized that the Complainant
is deliberately avoiding his obligations and on the other hand, he has been
harassing the present parties before various forums clearly contradicting to the
understanding already reached between the parties. Therefore, Respondent No.2
and the Complainant, who are parties to the Registered Second Supplementary
Deeds bearing Nos.10744/2014 (dated 30/08/2014) and 10745/2014 (dated
30/08/2014), where under they have specifically agreed for resolution of all
15 of 50

disputes through arbitration, invoking the said provision available between the
parties the steps for initiating arbitral proceedings have already been initiated by
Respondent No.2.
25.

Therefore, it is clear that the Complainant, who is claiming to be a

landowner, will not be a consumer or “allottee” within the definition of the RERA
Act and the landowner can only be treated as Co-Promoter.

The Act clearly

provides resolutions of disputes only when “allottee” files a case/complaint
alleging violation of obligation on the part of the “Promoter” or “Real Estate Agent”
as per the Section and terms of the Agreement of Sale and vise versa.

The

Authority cannot deal with disputes between Promoter & Co-Promoters for the
same the parties must choose to resolve their disputes through other remedies
available under law. The Complainant has initiated the present complaint in bad
faith and only to harass this Respondent.
26.

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 further pleaded that the Complainant has

deliberately

suppressed

Agreement

of

the facts

Sale-cum-General

concerning the execution of Registered
Power

of

Attorney

bearing

Document

Nos.3324/2020 and 2992/2020 (dated 06.02.2020). On perusal of the recitals of
the said documents makes it very clear that the Complainant purely as an
afterthought has initiated these proceedings when on one hand the Complainant
has voluntarily admitted to execute registered cancellation deeds to cancel the
following

previous

transactions,

Registered

Development

Agreements

(Nos.4940/2008 and 4941/2008), Supplementary Agreements (Nos.10744/2013
and 10745/2013). The Complainant has fully admitted the knowledge about the
development being carried out by Respondent No.3 after the execution of fresh
16 of 50

Development Agreement by the original land owner, i.e., Sri P.Raja Rao
(Respondent No.1).

It is established principle of law that any persons who

approaches any Court of law, Tribunal or other statutory Authority by suppression
of material facts, he will not be entitled to any relief.
27.

It is contended that the fundamental assertion of the Complainant before

this Authority is by claiming that he is a “landowner” of 8000 Sq. yards of land
and in this capacity, he seeks to invoke the power of this Authority claiming that
the Respondents have violated various obligations under the Act. In this regard, it
is submitted without admitting, for a moment even if it is assumed that the
Complainant is a landowner, then “Landowner” can never be categorized under
the definition “allotee” under Section 2(d) of the Act and that “Land Owner” can
only be treated as a “Promoter” within the definition of Section 2(zk) of the Act.
There is more than one reason to support this submission.
28.

Firstly, the legislation in its wisdom has deliberately left out to include

landowner/s from the definition of “allottee”, Secondly, in the definition in Section
2(zk) in sub-clause (i) the expression used is “causes to be constructed” is wide
enough to include the landowner within the fold of this definition as the land
owner acts/causes the construction over the land.

Thirdly, in the definition in

Section 2 (zk) in sub-clause (v) has specifically included power of attorney holder
of the landowner. Fourthly, the obligations that are stipulated under Sections 16
(1) (i), 17 & 18 (2) cannot be discharged without the landowner being a Promoter
or Co-Promoter to the project. Hence, the issues raised by the Complainant (as a
Co-Promoter) are matters which call for resolution before other forums such as
Arbitration Tribunals or Competent Civil Court/s as the case may be.
17 of 50

29.

Respondent No.3 under the Development Agreements stated above has for

the first time applied and obtained registration of project under Section 5 of the
Act

on

07.02.2020

for

which

the

Registration

Nos.P02500001821

and

P02500001819 have been issued by this Authority. All the transactions that are
being complained of are all prior to obtaining of the project registration in this case
and as such, by no stretch of imagination, Section 15 violations get attracted.
Respondent No.3 has obtained registration and has been carrying out the
constructions as per law. There has been no illegal transfer of rights/obligations
of the Promoter as is being stated by the Complainant, as the arrangement for
Development entered between the landowners, previous developer (Respondent
No.2) and the present Developer (Respondent No.3) are all before obtaining of
registration of project. Respondent No.3 has got the development rights through
the deeds executed by all the landowners and previous developer.

The

Complainant not being a landowner, he cannot make any claims. On the other
hand, the original land owner (Sri P.Raja Rao) has executed necessary documents
in favour of Respondent No.3.

Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions

raised by the Complainant in connection with the violation of Section 15 (1) and
(2) of the Act.
30.

This Respondent has made no violations and has disclosed all the complete

disclosures as mandated by the Act, 2016 and the applicable Rules. Respondent
No.3 has disclosed all the details of persons who own the land in the present case.
It is being repeated at the cost of repetition that the Complainant is not a land
owner and the original land owner is Sri P.Raja Rao/Respondent No.1. His details
and the execution of necessary documents have been clearly disclosed.

More

18 of 50

importantly in light of the admissions made by the Complainant under the two
Registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA bearing Document Nos.3324/2020 and
2992/2020 (dated 06.02.2020) entered between the Complainant and the original
land owner, i.e., Sri P.Raja Rao/Respondent No.1, these allegations stand to fail.
The Complainant has categorically admitted his status of being only an Agreement
of Sale Holder (vide unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007) and he has
already received the entire entitlement based on such Agreement from the Land
owner, i.e., Sri P.Raja Rao/Respondent No.1 under the above mentioned registered
documents. The Complainant has received a total area of 27,745 Sq. feet (super
built up area) from the proposed development from the exclusive share of Land
owner, i.e., Sri P.Raja Rao/Respondent No.1.

Therefore, all the allegations

concerning violations under Sections 4 & 11 (1) (f) read with Rule 3 of the Act and
Rules are not sustainable.
31.

Respondent No.3 has committed no “fraudulent practices” as is being

alleged by the Complainant.

The Complainant is clearly aware of the new

arrangement that has been made between the parties.

From the Complainant

clearly admitting to such knowledge and his implied consent to the same by the
clear recitals made in two Registered Agreements of Sale-cum-GPA bearing
Document Nos.3324/2020 and 2992/2020 (Dated 06.02.2020), the Complainant
is now stopped from making this false claim. The Complainant has suffered no
loss whatsoever as being alleged. The Complainant has voluntarily accepted the
new revised areas under the above referred registered documents where under he
has received total constructed area of 27,745 Sq. feet (super built up area) from
the original land owner, i.e., Sri P.Raja Rao/Respondent No.1. Therefore, all the

19 of 50

contentions now being made by the Complainant are purely an afterthought only
to arm twist the Complainant and is making illegal attempts to cause unwarranted
harassment to the Respondents.
32.

It is further pleaded that misusing the provisions under Section 31 of the

Act for the reasons already mentioned supra, the Complainant cannot invoke the
powers of this Authority on the basis of the present complaint. The Complainant
if at all sleeks to redress any grievance against the Land owner (Sri P.Raja Rao) or
the previous Developer (Sri Sai Ram Projects Ltd.), he has to resort to legal
remedies before the Arbitral Tribunal or competent Civil Courts. The Complainant
is purportedly trying to drag Respondent No.3 (Vasavi Realtor LLP), who has no
privity of contract or any relation to the Complainant, and therefore, there is no
reason whatsoever to file this complaint before this Authority as clearly there are
no violations whatsoever committed by Respondent No.3 under any of the
provisions of Act or Rules. Therefore, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 pray to dismiss the
complaint.
REJOINDER BY THE COMPLAINANT:
33.

The Complainant filed a rejoinder stating inter alia that the development

agreements were wrongly referred to as Document bearing No.4840/2008 and
4841/2008, but in fact the registered numbers as given by the registration
department are 4940/2008 and 4941/2008 which are referred as Document No.2
and 3 in the complaint. Respondent No.2 after having studied the contents of the
Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007, i.e., Document No.1 executed the Registered
Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 20.06.2008, i.e.,
Documents No.2 and 3 along with Respondent No.1 and his father. Of course,
20 of 50

reference of Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007 is also there in Documents No.2
and 3. It is also abundantly clear by the parties to the said documents, i.e., Party
No.1 and 2 therein and Respondent No.2 herein, i.e., M/s. Sri Sai Ram Projects
Limited that the Complainant alone is entitled to enjoy and get benefits or has
right or claim over the B-Schedule property, i.e., the land as referred under
Documents No.2 and 3 and Respondent No.1 herein and his father are only
proforma parties to the said documents as is evident from page 3 of the
documents No.2 and 3 filed by the Complainant.
34.

As admitted by Respondent No.3, Respondent No.2 entered into the

development agreements with various owners and thus the Complainant herein
who holds development agreements is treated as owner for his portion of the land.
35.

Respondent No.2 fraudulently,

inspite

of entering

into

development

agreements with various landowners did not develop the land and deliberately did
not apply for registration of the Real Estate Project, even though the Act came into
force as back as on 01.01.2017 and thus, Respondent No.2 violated Section 3 of
the Act. Registration of the Project with RERA is a mandatory procedure whether
or not the development is commenced and thus not getting the registration
certificate by Respondent No.2 cannot be taken as a privilege and for that it
should be penalized under Section 59 of the Act.
36.

It is stated that in Para 1 of page 4 of Document No.10 filed along with the

complaint, Respondent No.2 categorically admitted that it obtained building
permit No.53475/HO/WZ/Cir-12/2016 in File No.31694/31/05/2014/HO dated
18.05.2018 and thus, it is evident that without getting the project registered with
RERA started development activity and other works according to it. It obtained
21 of 50

permission on 18.05.2018 but in fact the RERA came into force on 01.01.2017
and thus violated Section 3 and 4 of the Act. The Complainant is neither aware
nor was put on any notice regarding the handing over of the development project
to some reputed developer, as stated by Respondent NO.3. That whether or not
the promoter registers the project with RERA, the Act unconditionally applies with
effect from 01.05.2017 in Telangana State.
37.

Under Documents No.6 and 7 dated 30.08.2014, filed along with the

complaint i.e., Second Supplementary Agreements at un-numbered para No.3 of
page 2, Respondent No.2 categorically admitted that the Complainant is absolute
owner and possessor of an area of 1826 Sq. yards and 1229.50 Sq. yards
respectively and in fact flats were allotted to him as land owner and thus
Respondent No.2 and 3 are stopped from claiming that the Complainant is not the
absolute owner or otherwise under Section 115 of the Evidence Act.
38.

As a matter of fact, deeds of assignments, executed by Respondent Nos.2

and 3 jointly, which were executed during the year 2019, are without getting the
registration of the project and thus both Respondents have violated Sections 3, 4
and 5 of the Act as the RERA Certificate were issued on 07.02.2020, i.e.,
Documents No.25 and 26.

Respondent No.3 specifically admitted that he has

entered into registered agreements with all the land owners in respect of entire
project area, but Respondent No.3 in order to avoid the legitimate rights and
benefits in the constructed area and to knock away the land belonging to the
Complainant neither informed nor entered into any such registered document
(Document No.10), as in case of other land owners, which is illegal.

The

complainant was kept in dark without any intimation.
22 of 50

39.

It is further contended that since Respondent No.3 is not a party to the

various documents, i.e., Documents No.2 to 7, it can’t absolve its liability and
obligations as contemplated under Section 15(2) of the Act as Respondent No.3
itself submitted to the jurisdiction of RERA. Further, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are
nowhere concerned with the document Nos.3324/2020 and 2992/2020 agreement
of sale cum general power of attorney executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of
the Complainant for the following reasons:
a. These documents are power of attorneys under which Respondent No.1 is
the principal and the Complainant is an agent to the principal.
b. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not parties to these documents and,
therefore, cannot make use of these documents and Respondent No.2
and 3 cannot claim discharge of its liability under Document Nos.2 to 7.
c. It is specifically stated by the principal/Respondent No.1 herein that
“and the following flats now being sold through this agreement of sale cum
GPA has fallen to the share of the vendor herein, more fully described in
aforesaid deed of development agreement cum general power of attorney
document No.989/2020 dated 22.01.2020”
d. It is specifically stated by the principal/Respondent No.1 that “and the
following flats are now being sold through this agreement of sale cum GPA
has fallen to the share of the vendor herein”.
e. Respondent No.2 who earlier entered into development agreement cum
GPA and other Documents No.2 to 7 is not a party to the parent
document

of

these

two

AGPAs

i.e.,

Document

No.990/2020

dt.22.01.2020 and document No.989/2020, dt.22.01.2020.
f. Thus, both transactions are different and documents No.23 and 24, the
flats have fallen to the share of Respondent No.1 are given to his agent,
i.e., the Complainant, which is altogether a different transaction,
unconnected to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the wake of Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 in turn discharging their liabilities under Document Nos.2 to
7.
23 of 50

40.

Further, Documents No.21 and 22 are power of attorneys and the

Complainant is only an agent and Respondent No.1 is the principal and the terms
of the said documents further confirm the said fact. Thus, the Complainant is
only an agent under Documents No.21 and 22 acting on behalf of principal and for
these documents, no consideration is paid by the Complainant and the
Complainant is answerable and accountable to Respondent No.1 as he being the
agent acting for principal, i.e., Respondent No.1.
41.

Under Documents No.23 and 24, nowhere it is stated that the Complainant

shall be given certain flats in discharge of Respondent No.2’s liability or
Respondent No.3’s liability in discharge of liabilities created under Documents
No.2 to 7 and, therefore, transactions under Documents No.21 and 22 are
altogether different and distinct and unconnected to Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
42.

The Complainant contends that it is false to say that the Complainant has

already received the entire area in lieu of the agreement of sale dated 14.12.2007,
entered in between himself and landowners, as the Complainant is a land owner
and the Respondent No.1 and his father, have no rights as admitted by the parties
to documents No.2 to 7 and as admitted by Respondent No.2. As the Complainant
is a land owner and he has to be given the same constructed area, which is given
to abutting land owners and there cannot be any discrimination while giving such
enhanced constructed area, which shall be on par with other land owners and the
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cannot make any discrimination and any such
discrimination is against Rule 3 (4) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017.

24 of 50

43.

Under un-numbered para 4 of page 5 of the Document No.10, the adjacent

land owner as against his land being given under the said document, i.e., 200 Sq.
yards is given an area of 8930 Sq/feet (i.e., 8930 Sq. Ft. is divided by 200 Sq. yard
is equal to 44.65 Sq. Ft., thus for 1 Sq. yard of land, 44.65 Sq. Ft. of constructed
area is given and thus the Complainant is entitled for 8000 Sq. yard x 44.65 Sq.
Ft. = 3,57,200 Sq. Feet of constructed area and in order to avoid such an area of
3,57,200 Sq. Feet being allotted to the Complainant, to make unjust enrichment of
itself, Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 did not put on any notice or
intimation to the Complainant at the time of entering into such deed as described
under Document No.10, with all other land owners as admitted by him at para 6
of the above counter. Respondent No.3 being an assignee has not discharged its
obligation under Documents No.2 to 7, at any point of time and it cannot take
shelter, under Document Nos.21 and 22, i.e., transactions in between Respondent
No.1 and the Complainant which are totally different. Further, Respondent No.3
cannot plead that “he has no role to play” since he is obligated to the Complainant
under Section 15 of the Act and it is a make-believe story, set up for the purpose
of knocking away the constructed area to which the Complainant entitled.
Further, when the Complainant has to get an area of 3,57,200 Sq. Ft as against
his land of 8000 Sq. yards, Respondent No.3 is resorting to unfair practice and in
a fraudulent manner trying to knock away the property of the Complainant with
make believe stories.
44.

According to Complainant, he has got nothing to do with the documents

executed in between Respondent Nos.1 and 3 under Document No.3 that towards
the Complainant’s share, the flats shall be given to the Complainant by

25 of 50

Respondent No.1 and the Complainant is not a party to these documents and
therefore, the liability of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not discharged.

As earlier

said, the transaction in between Respondent No.1 and the Complainant is
altogether different and distinct under which the Complainant is an agent of
Respondent No.1, who is acting for and on behalf of Respondent No.1. Further,
Act would not keep aside the right of agreement holders as is evident from Section
4(2) (l) (A)(B) read with Rule 3 (1) (f) of the Act and Rules.

The rights of the

Complainant and that of P.Raja Rao, i.e., Respondent No.1 and his father late
P.Nagabhushanam are clearly stated in the Registered Development Agreements,
i.e., Documents No.2 and 3.
45.

The complainant contends that he never agreed for cancellation of the

Agreement of Sale of 2007. Parties agreed to cancel as stated in Documents No.22
and 23 means as it is understood by the parties, Respondent No.2, who did not
develop the project joined hands with Respondent No.3 and both of them in
discharge of various liabilities under development agreements or in place of
various development agreements, which Respondent No.2 earlier entered with
various land holders has along with Respondent No.3 afresh in turn entered into a
deed under the name and style of “Deed of Assignment-cum-Development
Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney” which is specifically admitted by
Respondent No.3 here in para (vi) of the counter.

For the sake of better

appreciation of facts, the contents of the document entered and executed in
between the other landowners and Respondent No.2 and 3 under the name and
style of “Deed of Assignment-cum-Development Agreement-cum-General Power of
Attorney”, i.e., Document No.10 can be looked into. Thus, Respondent Nos.2 and

26 of 50

3 in this document admitted that Respondent No.2 also obtained various other
development agreements from the owners of abutting extents of land apart from
the schedule land and Respondent No.3 is a party to the said documents and thus
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 admitted that development agreements are existed
earlier, with land owners in this context, all the registered development
agreements holders are treated as land owners and thus in view of existence of
registered development agreements in favour of Complainant, the Complainant
shall also be treated as land owner on par with other adjacent land owners. Since
no such “Deed of Assignment-cum-Development Agreement-cum-General Power of
Attorney” is executed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, as executed in favour of all the
land owners as admitted by Respondent No.3 in para 6 of the above counter, by
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the Complainant in place of Documents No.2
to 7, the question of cancellation of Registered Supplementary Agreements 4 and
7, pursuant to the Development Agreement, i.e., Documents No.2 and 3 did not
happen and the Complainant is always ready to cancel these documents, provided
in

place

of

these

documents,

the Deed

of

Assignment-cum-Development

Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney similarly executed in favour of abutting
plot owners/land owners are executed in favour of Complainant with such an
enhanced area as specified in the Document No.10. Since none of the documents
are cancelled, i.e., Documents No.1 to 7, these documents remain undisturbed
and binding on Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
46.

The Complainant had no knowledge either about the project being developed

by Respondent No.3 and assignment of the said property to it by Respondent No.2
and execution of such deeds, i.e., under Document No.10.

Either Respondent

27 of 50

No.2 or Respondent No.3 never gave any notice or intimation of any such
assignment to the Complainant and Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 are
put to strict proof of the same. The transactions entered in between Respondent
No.1 and the Complainant under Documents No.21 and 22 are altogether different
and distinct as stated in the foregoing paragraphs. The Complainant never agreed
for cancellation of the Documents as alleged by Respondent No.3 but it is as
explained and stated above. Since there is no dispute in respect of Documents
No.2 to 7 as to their execution etc., and since all these documents are admitted by
Respondent No.2, there is no necessity of any Arbitral proceedings, and the
provisions of Act will prevail.
47.

The Complainant is an allottee so far as the extent of 3055.50 of land is

concerned as defined under Section 2 (d) of the Act and also in view of the fact
that Respondent No.2 having entered in Registered Development Agreements and
Supplementary Agreements under Documents No.2 to 7 and issued allotment
letters under Documents No.8 and 9. The said extent of 3055.50, which is subject
matter of Documents No.2 to 7 is nothing but part of the Document No.1 and as
explained in the complaint. For the balance land of 4944.50 the Complainant is
an aggrieved person as defined under Section 31 of the Act and the word person
occurring therein, is explained in Section 2 (zg) “Person” includes an Individual. A
combined reading of Section 31 along with 2 (zg) says that any aggrieved person as
an individual can file a complaint with the Authority. Therefore, the Complainant
is an aggrieved person as contemplated under the said provision read with Section
31 of the Act. The explanation never said the person excludes an individual in
view of the combined reading of Section 31 along with Section 2(zg) of the Act.

28 of 50

48.

The Complainant further contends that the Complainant is not a promoter

as defined under the Act. There is no provision in the entire Act, 2016 and rules
framed thereunder, disentitling a promoter to file a complaint against another
promoter. The word promoter does not exclude a person or individual. Therefore,
a promoter can as well be treated as aggrieved person, who can file a complaint
against another promoter, since there is no bar for a promoter to file a complaint
against another promoter (vide Section 2 (zk) (i) of the Act, 2016).
49.

It is stated that the Respondents misconceived the provisions and

misinterpreted the provisions of the Act, for the reasons that there is no word
spelled as “Co-Promoter” in the entire Act, 2016 and the Rules, 2017. Respondent
No.3, who submitted applications to this authority for obtaining certificate under
Documents No.18 and 19, has given a list of promoters/landowners. In the said
list, nowhere the name of the Complainant is mentioned either as a promoter or as
a landowner and now Respondent No.3 cannot fall back and claim that the
Complainant is a promoter or co-promoter.

Thus, Respondent No.3 is stopped

under Section 115 of Evidence Act from taking such stand.

Further, under

Section 79 of Act, there is a bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction and if the jurisdiction of
Civil Court is excluded and exclusive jurisdiction is granted to a specific court or
tribunal as a matter of public policy, then such a dispute could not be capable of
resolution by Arbitration. At last, the complainant prays to allow the complaint.
50.

The complaint was originally filed in 2020 and after considering the facts of

the case, vide Order dated 20.11.2020, the Authority disposed of the complaint
holding as under:

29 of 50

“Whereas Section

31(1)

of

the

Real

Estate

(Regulation

&

Development) Act, 2016 states that any aggrieved person may file
a complaint with the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer in
contravention of the Provisions of the Act, Rules & Regulations and
the ‘Person” shall include association of allottees or any voluntary
consumer association registered under any law.
In this case, it is clear that the complainant is not an aggrieved
persons to file a complaint as he is one of the promoter (land
owner) which is evident from the complaint filed by himself, i.e.,
Boyenpally Sri Jayavardhan.
Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Rule 2(i) of the
Rules, 2017, the complaint is disposed of as Not Maintainable in
terms of Section 31 (1) of the Act.”
51.

As the matter stood thus, the aggrieved complainant approached the Hon’ble

High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad vide Writ Petition No.16206 of 2020, before
passing of the above order, and vide Final Order dated 28.12.2020, the Hon’ble
High Court directed this Authority to hear the matter afresh re-numbering it as
“Complaint No.2 of 2020”.
52.

Since the matter was being heard afresh, a Notice 09.01.2021 was issued to

the Complainant and the Respondents to attend the hearing before the Authority.
The said Notice was challenged and vide final common order dated 27.03.2023
passed in W.P.No.2694 of 2021 and W.P.No.13898 of 2022, the Hon’ble High
Court directed as under:
“After careful consideration of the matter and without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the matter with regard to the development
agreement or the terms and conditions mentioned therein and the

30 of 50

entitlement of the petitioner to his share as claimed in the development
agreement and also the rights and liabilities of respondent Nos.7 and 8,
this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions directing
the RERA authority to consider the pending applications within two(2)
months in accordance with the provisions of the RERA Act and the rules
made thereunder and till the disposal of the applications submitted by
the petitioner, there shall not be any further transactions over the
subject property in any manner.
With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.”
53.

Aggrieved by the order in Writ Petition No.13898/2022 dated 27.03.2023,

the Complainant/Appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No.584/2023. Later, Their
Lordships of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the Writ
Appeal No.584/2023 vide Order dated 19.08.2023 observing that the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority has been constituted and the Complainant/Appellant
represented that nothing survives for adjudication in the Writ Appeal.
54.

In lieu thereof, hearings were conducted on 03.08.2023, 19.08.2023 and

24.08.2023. Both the Complainant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 through their
respective Counsel appeared and learned Counsel for both parties made elaborate
submissions and order was reserved.
55.

When the Authority has gone through the record in order to prepare order, it

is noticed that notice to respondent No.1 was not served, and Respondent No.1 did
not appear and participate in the proceedings of the case. As such, this Authority

31 of 50

suo motu reopened the case and notices were issued to the parties and the
Counsel for Respondent No.2 and 3 filed Vakalathnama on behalf of Respondent
No.1 and submitted that no counter on behalf of Respondent No.1.
56.

Heard learned Counsel for the complainant and learned Counsel for

respondent Nos.1 to 3. Document Nos.1 to 26 on behalf of complainant (including
documents filed in the Rejoinder dated 18.01.2021) and Document Nos.1 to 5 on
behalf of Respondent No.3 and none for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have been relied in
support of their respective contentions.
57.

Now the points that arise for determination on the basis of rival contentions

of the parties in the case are as under:
1) Whether the Complainant is an “aggrieved person” in terms of Section 31
of the Act?
2) Whether Respondent No.3, applicant before this Authority, has violated
the provisions of the Act?
3) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

58.

POINT No.1:
The admitted facts are that respondent No.1 and his father late P.

Nagabhushanam are owners of part of the land under development. Respondent
No.1 along with his late father and others alleged to have entered into Agreement
of Sale dt.14.12.2007 in favour of the complainant agreeing to sell an extent of
8000 Sq.yards in Sy.Nos.105 to 109 and 111 to 114 of Hafeezpet village for total
consideration of Rs.1,60,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lakhs Only). Later, the
Complainant, Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 entered into two Registered
Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorneys dt.20.06.2008 and
32 of 50

under these documents, the complainant gave an extent of 3055.50 Sq. yards of
land out of land agreed to be purchased by him for development to respondent
No.2.
59.

Further, two Registered Supplementary Development Agreements-cum-

General Power of Attorneys dt.09.01.2013 were executed between the complainant
and Respondent No.2 for some modifications in respect of above-mentioned
Development Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorneys bearing Document
Nos.4940/2008 and 4941/2008 Document No.2 and 3 respectively.
60.

Subsequently,

two

Registered

Second

Supplementary

Agreements

dt.30.08.2014 were executed between the Complainant and Respondent No.2
wherein the super built-up area to be allotted to the complainant with Flat
numbers and other information in detail towards his share in connection to above
mentioned

Development

Supplementary

Agreements-cum-General

Development

Power

Agreement-cum-General

of

Power

Attorney
of

and

Attorney

is

mentioned.
61.

Respondent No.2 has also issued 2 (two) allotment letters in favour of

complainant, wherein the details of flats allotted to the complainant are
mentioned.
62.

Respondent No.2 entered into certain agreements for development with

abutting landowners in the year 2008.

The 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. Respondent No.2 along
with Respondent No.3 also entered into the registered deed of Assignments-cum-

33 of 50

Development

Agreements-cum-General

Power

of

Attorneys

with

abutting

landowners in the year 2019, wherein the super built-up area entitled to
respective landowners in proportionate to the extent of their land is mentioned.
63.

Respondent No.1 and the complainant entered into two other registered

Agreements of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorneys dt.06.02.2020 and the
complainant agreed to cancel the earlier agreements between him and respondent
Nos.1 and 2. But, according to complainant, since the agreed condition was not
fulfilled, he did not execute the cancellation deed.
64.

The complainant on the basis of above said Registered Agreements of Sale-

cum-General Power of Attorneys has also executed sale deeds in favour of third
parties in respect of flats in the month of February 2020.
65.

The complainant has raised several pleas in support of his contentions. The

case of the complainant mainly rests on the prime document, i.e., un-registered
agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 executed by Respondent No.1 and his late father
for sale of 8000 Sq.yards of land. Out of this, the complainant gave part of said
land, i.e., 3055.50 Sq.yards of land to Respondent No.2/Developer and executed
along with respondent No.2 Registered Development Agreements-cum-General
Power of Attorneys bearing Document Nos.4940/2008 and 4941/2008, both
dt.20.06.2008 for development.
66.

Learned Counsel for the complainant contended and mentioned in rejoinder

that agreement of sale in the State of Andhra Pradesh is compulsorily registerable
with effect from 01.12.2012 as Section 17 (1) (f) of Registration Act is amended not
prior to that date. According to him, there is no legal infirmity in relying on said

34 of 50

agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007.

Learned Counsel contends that the said

Agreement

in

of

Sale

is

culminated

subsequent

Registered

Development

Agreements-cum-General Power of Attorneys dt.20.06.2008, to which Respondent
No.2 is a party. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought.
67.

Per contra, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that the

agreement of sale Dated 14-12-2007 is unregistered one and complainant did not
get regular registered sale deed through Respondent No.1 and his father as per
contents of agreement of sale and as such no title passed in favour of the
Complainant. Further, the agreement of sale being unregistered, is hit by the
provisions of Section 17 (1) (g) of the Registration Act and as such, it is of no help
to the Complainant.

In support of his contentions, learned Counsel placed

reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp Industries
Pvt.Ltd., v. State of Haryana.
68.

This Authority has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both

parties.
69.

The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

P.V.Anvar

vs.

P.K.Basheer & others vide judgment dt.18.09.2014, are very relevant and
important for the legal question involved. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme
Court, while considering the nature and manner of admission of electronic records
in evidence, observed inter alia, in the very first Para of the judgment, as under:
“Construction by pleadings, proof by evidence; proof
only by relevant and admissible evidence. Genuineness,
veracity or reliability of the evidence is seen by the court
only after the stage of relevancy and admissibility. These
are some of the first principles of evidence ”

35 of 50

70.

In Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt.Ltd., v. State of Haryana relied by learned

Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
sale transactions carried 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. Their Lordships also observed that the transactions of the nature of GPA
Sales or Sale Agreement/GPA/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.

It is also 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 an immovable property.

It is further held that such

transactions cannot be relied upon or made the basis for mutation in municipal or
revenue records.

At last, Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that immovable

property can be legally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed
of conveyance.
71.

On a careful consideration of the contentions on behalf of both parties, it

has to be said that this Authority is bound to follow the settled proposition of law
laid down in said Suraj Lamp Industries Pvt.Ltd’s case. Therefore, and in view
of provisions under Section 17 (1) (g) of Registration Act, this Authority has no
hesitation to hold that the said contention advanced on behalf of complainant has
no force and there is considerable force in the contention advanced on behalf of
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Accordingly, it is held that the Agreement of Sale

dt.14.12.2007 relied on by the complainant does not establish the right of the
Complainant as the owner of the property and therefore the rights flowing, if any,
in pursuance of the alleged agreements entered into between the Complainant and
36 of 50

the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are to be established and proved in a court of law but
same does not confer any right to seek relief under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
72.

Now, this being the basis, whether the Complainant can be classified as an

“aggrieved person” under the Act to maintain the complaint before the Authority?
73.

It is the contention of the Complainant that under Section 31 (1) of the Act,

any aggrieved person may file a complaint before the Authority or the Adjudicating
Officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the
Act or the Rules against any Promoter, Allotee or Real Estate Agent, as the case may
be. Learned Counsel for the complainant contented that the definition of a ‘person’
is given in Section 2 (zg) (i) of the Act as an individual.

It is, therefore, the

contention of learned Counsel that the complainant is entitled to file present
complaint against the respondents, more particularly, against Respondent No.3 for
violating and contravening the provisions of the Act and Rules.
74.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended

that the complainant, who is claiming to be a land owner, will not be a consumer
or allottee within the definition of the Act. The Act clearly provides regulations of
disputes only when allottee files a case/complaint alleging violation or obligation
on the part of the Promoter or a Real Estate Agent. It is also contended that from
the nature of allegations in the complaint, it is crystal clear that the complainant
is aggrieved by the actions of the previous developer (Respondent No.2), who is not
a Promoter in the present Project and Respondent No.1.

According to learned

Counsel, Respondent No.3/present developer has no obligation or direct relation
to the complainant and that there is no privity of contract between complainant
37 of 50

and Respondent No.3.

Therefore, this Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the

dispute in the complaint and the complainant does not fall within the definition of
an aggrieved person to maintain the complaint.
75.

This Authority has considered the contentions advanced on behalf of both

the parties.
76.

In the light of provisions in Section 31 and definition of “person” in Section 2

(zg) of the Act and facts of the present case, it has to be considered whether the
complainant can be treated as “aggrieved person” to maintain complaint before the
Authority.
77.

This Authority has held for reasons recorded supra that the unregistered

agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 relied by the Complainant is not valid enabling
the complainant to enter into subsequent different transactions in the present
case.

When such is the conclusion, the question arises as to whether the

Complainant gets any right under other subsequent documents executed after
execution of agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 between the parties. The answer to
such question would be in negative.
78.

It is pertinent to note that when the Complainant has no right to enter into

any other transactions on the basis of execution of agreement of sale
dt.14.12.2007 the same being not valid, the contention of the Complainant that
his right as alleged has been infringed on account of alleged acts of Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 is not tenable under law. When the Complainant doesn’t get any title or
title does not pass on the basis of agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 and in light of
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it has to be held that the

38 of 50

Complainant cannot be termed as an “aggrieved person”. No doubt, the definition
of ‘person’ includes an individual. It doesn’t mean that every individual will have
right over a disputed subject matter.

If an individual has legal right over a

disputed subject matter and his such right is violated or infringed or affected, then
only he will have right to question such act and, in such circumstances, he can be
termed as “aggrieved person”.
79.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, this Authority has no hesitation to hold

that the Complainant cannot be termed as an ‘’aggrieved person” as referred in
Section 31 of the Act and as such he cannot maintain present complaint before
this Authority. The Point is accordingly answered against the Complainant and in
favour of the Respondents.
80.

POINT No.2:
Learned Counsel for the Complainant has referred to the various

contentions referred in the complaint and contended that Respondent No.3 has
failed to furnish the required particulars as per Section 4 read with Rule 3 of the
Act and Rules. It is also the contention of learned Counsel that Respondent No.3
has also violated the provisions of Sections 7 (a), 11 (1) (f) and 15 (1) of the Act.
Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Counsel that the registration granted
to Respondent No.3 has to be revoked and Respondent No.3 should be imposed
penalty in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.
81.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 has contended

that the contentions of the complainant are false. According to learned Counsel,
the Complainant has no locus standi to file present complaint and the dispute as

39 of 50

alleged by the Complainant is mainly between the Complainant and Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.

At last, learned Counsel prays to reject the said contentions

advanced on behalf of the Complainant.
82.

Before going to consider the rival contentions of the parties on the question

of contraventions alleged to have been committed by Respondent No.3, it is just
and appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules.
83.

Section 4 (2) (l) (A) and (B) and (m) of the Act reads as under:
(2) “The promoter shall enclose the following documents along
with the application referred to in sub-section (1) namely:---”
…. …………………

………………

(l) a declaration, supported by an affidavit, which shall be signed
by the promoter or any person authorized by the promoter,
stating:-(A) That he has a legal title to the land on which the development
is proposed along with legally valid document with
authentication of such title, if such land is owned by another
person;
(B) That the land is free from all encumbrances, or as the case
may be details of the encumbrances on such land including
any rights, title, interest or name of any party in or over such
land along with details;
………………….. ………….
(m) Such other information and documents as may be prescribed.
Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act reads as under:
“The Authority may, on receipt of a complaint or suo motu in this
behalf or on the recommendation of the competent authority,
revoke the registration granted under section 5, after being
satisfied that--(a) The promoter makes default in doing anything required by or
under this Act or the rules or the regulations made thereunder”
40 of 50

84.

Section 11 (1) (f) of the Act reads as under:
11. Functions and duties of promoter:- (1) The promoter
shall, upon receiving his Login Id and password under
clause (a) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (2) of
section 5, as the case may be, create his web page on the
website of the Authority and enter all details of the
proposed project as provided under sub-section (2) of
section 4, in all the fields as provided, for public viewing,
including--…………………….
(f) such other information and documents as may be
specified by the regulations made by the Authority.”

85.

Section 15(1) of the Act, reads as under:
15. Obligations of promoter in case of transfer of a real
estate project to a third party:-(1)”The promoter shall not transfer or assign his majority
rights and liabilities in respect of a real estate project to a
third party without obtaining prior written consent from twothird allottees, except the promoter, and without the prior
written approval of the Authority:”

86.

Rule 3 of the Rules relates to information and documents to be furnished by

promoter for registration of real estate project, whereas Rule 4 of the Rules speak
about disclosure by promoters of on-going projects and according to the
Complainant, Respondent No.3 has also violated Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules.
87.

To consider said rival contentions on the question of contraventions in the

light of said provisions in the Act and Rules, it is necessary to refer the documents
which are alleged to have been not revealed by Respondent No.3 while making
application before the Authority for registration i.e., the Agreement of Sale dt.
14.12.2007, two Development Agreements-cum-GPA both dated 20.06.2008,

41 of 50

Supplementary Development Agreements-cum-GPA on 09.01.2013 and Second
Supplementary Development Agreements-cum-GPA on 30.08.2014.
88.

The Development Agreement–cum-Irrevocable GPA dt.22.01.2020 executed

by Respondent No.1 in favour of Respondent No.3. Similarly, one Development
Agreement-cum-Irrevocable GPA dt.22.01.2020 is executed by Respondent No.1 in
favour of Respondent No.3, wherein specific units coming to the share of
Respondent No.1 is referred for an extent of 7309 Sq. yards of land.
89.

Later, Respondent No.1 has executed Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA in favour

of complainant vide document No.2992/2020 dt.06.02.2020, whereunder, the
Complainant was given six (6) units, i.e., six (6) flats total admeasuring 11130 Sq.
ft in lieu of agreemental rights of the Complainant. Here, there is no mention as to
whether the reference to agreemental rights of Complainant is to first agreement of
sale or subsequent agreements between Respondent No.1 and the Complainant.
Similarly, Respondent No.1 has executed in favour of Complainant another
agreement

of

sale-cum-GPA

dt.6.2.2020

vide

document

No.3324/2020,

whereunder the Complainant is given 10 units, i.e., 10 flats total admeasuring
16615 Sq. ft in lieu of agreemental rights of the Complainant. Here also, there is
no specific mention as to whether the reference to agreemental rights of
Complainant is to the rights under the first Agreement of Sale or subsequent
agreements between Respondent No.1 and the Complainant. It is to be noted that
whatever Respondent No.1 gave under these Agreements of Sale-cum-GPA to the
Complainant, it was out of what he got under agreements dt.22.01.2020. In these
documents, it is mentioned that the vendor herein (Respondent No.1) hereby
agrees and undertakes to sell/transfer/convey the residential flats mentioned in
42 of 50

the schedule property herewith in favour of purchaser (Complainant) without
demanding any sale consideration from the purchaser herein since the purchaser
herein is holding agreemental rights in respect of part of the land entrusted by the
vendor (Respondent No.1) herein for development. In Agreement of sale-cum-GPA
dt.6.2.2020 vide document No.2992/2020, there is mention that “Whereas in
pursuant to earlier development agreement-cum-Genereal Power of Attorney vide
document

No.4941/2008

dt.20.06.2008

and

Supplementary

Development

Agreement No.1270/2013 dt.09.01.2013 and No.10745/2014, dt.30.08.2014
executed for residential Flats were allotted in favour of the vendee (Complainant
herein), since no development and construction of apartment Complex was
undertaken by the earlier Developer, viz., Sri Ram Projects Limited, the parties have
mutually agreed to cancel the supplementary agreements pursuant to cancellation of
said development agreements ”.

Similarly, in agreement of sale-cum-GPA

document No.3324/2020 dt.06.02.2020, there is a mention

that “Whereas in

pursuant to earlier Development Agreement-cum-Genereal Power of Attorney vide
Document

No.4940/2008

dt.20.06.2008

and

supplementary

development

agreement document No.1271/2013 dt.09.01.2013 and document No.10744/2014
dt.30.08.2014 executed for residential Flats were allotted in favour of the vendee
(Complainant herein), since no development and construction of apartment Complex
was undertaken by the earlier Developer, viz., Sri Ram Projects Limited, the parties
have mutually agreed to cancel the supplementary agreements pursuant to
cancellation of said development agreements ”
90.

Now it has to be seen whether Respondent No.3 while making application for

Registration of Project before the Authority has complied the provisions of Section

43 of 50

3 and 4 read with Rule 3 of the Act and Rules. The violations, if any, need to be
considered on the basis of the application made for the registration of the Project,
which falls under subject matter jurisdiction before this Authority. The promoter is
required to make an application enclosing the documents referred to in sub
section (2) of Section 4 of the Act. The details of the Complaint disclose that there
was no agreement between Complainant and the Respondent No.3 who is the
applicant before this Authority, at any time nor any correspondence between
them. The promoter i.e., the Respondent No.3 herein has submitted an application
on the basis of its agreement with the landowners who hold a title to the subject
land as per the statement of encumbrance vide No.45819572 filed by the promoter
on 12.02.2020 updated from 15.10.1980 to 11.02.2020 for the “Vasavi Lake City
West” and “Vasavi Lake City East”.
91.

Respondent No.1, his father agreed and others to sell 8000 Sq. yards of land

under Agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 in favour of the Complainant.
several transactions referred above took place between the parties.

Later,

Admittedly,

agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 does not confer title in favour of the Complainant
as owner of the property in light of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882.
92.

It is the grievance of the Complainant that the Complainant had right over

the land agreed to be purchased under said agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 and
on the basis of such agreement subsequent documents executed between the
Complainant and Respondent Nos.1 and 2. As such, Respondent No.3 ought to
have revealed said material documents revealing the right of the Complainant over
the part of the land to be developed, which Respondent No.3 failed. Therefore,
44 of 50

Respondent No.3 has violated the provisions of Section 4 read with Rules 3 and 4
of the Rules.
93.

On the other hand, it is the case of Respondent No.2 and 3, that it is the

Complainant, who knocked the door of this Authority seeking relief, but he failed
to reveal about material document Nos.2992/2020 and 3324/2020 dt.06.02.2020
executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of the Complainant.

According to

Respondent No.2 and 3, the Complainant has suppressed the said material
documents and facts mentioned therein.

Further, Respondent No.2 and 3

contended that the transactions under agreement of sale dt.14.12.2007 and
subsequent

transactions,

specially

under

document

Nos.2992/2020

and

3324/2020 dt.06.02.2020, are between Respondent No.1 and the Complainant. It
is their further contention that in the light of document Nos. 2992/2020 and
3324/2020 dt.06.02.2020, the Complainant cannot allege anything against
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and whatever right, if the Complainant intends to claim
under those documents, he has to claim such right only against Respondent No.1,
inasmuch as Respondent No.1 agreed to give flats from the project to be developed
from out of the share of Respondent No.1 to the Complainant. Therefore, the
Complainant had no absolute title over the subject matter of the project for which
Respondent No.3 got registration from the Authority.

Learned Counsel for

Respondent No.3 contends that in such circumstances, it was not incumbent on
the part of Respondent No.3 to reveal about said documents in the application
made for registration and as such, the contention of the Complainant that
Respondent No.3 has contravened the provisions of the Act and Rules doesn’t hold
any water.

45 of 50

94.

On consideration of said contentions advanced on behalf of both the parties,

it has to be said that the Complainant did not reveal about said two material
documents, viz., document Nos.2992/2020 and 3324/2020 dt.06.02.2020 in the
complaint before the Authority.

The said fact has come to light only when

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have pleaded in their counter. As observed above, the
Complainant did not get regular sale deed executed on the basis of agreement of
sale dt.14.12.2007, and the agreement of sale does not confer absolute title upon
the said lands in terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Therefore, the details of the Development Agreements entered into by Respondent
No.2 except those which are referred to in the agreement between Respondent Nos.
1, 2 & 3, cannot be treated as documents which are required to be submitted
along with the project registration application. As per the details furnished by the
Complainant, the agreements entered into between Complainant and the
Respondent No.1 are not forming part of the Development agreement between
Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, there is no violation on part of the
Respondent No.3 i.e., the promoter at the time of making the application before
this Authority. Further, the complainant traces its rights from the Agreement of
Sale entered into on 14.12.2007 with Respondent No.1, his late father and others
which is admittedly not a registered document. And in terms of Section 54 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the title of the land has not passed on to the
Complainant since it is not a registered document. Therefore, there is no violation
on part of the respondent No.3 promoter in terms of Section 4(2)(l)(A) and (B) of the
Act.

46 of 50

95.

The Complainant further alleges that Respondent No.3 has contravened the

provisions of Section 7(a), 11 (1) (f) and 15 (1) of the Act. The contentions advanced
by the Complainant in regard to violation of these provisions of the Act are
untenable, as he failed to prove his contention in regard to violations of provisions
of Section 4 read with Rules 3 and 4 of the Act and Rules as discussed above.
96.

For the foregoing reasons, the conclusion that emerges on Point No.2 is that

the Complainant failed to satisfy the Authority that Respondent No.3 has violated
the provisions of the Act and Rules as alleged. The Point is accordingly answered
against the Complainant.
97.

POINT No.3:
In view of findings on Point Nos.1 & 2, the Complainant is not entitled for

the reliefs claimed.
98.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are directed

to bear their own costs.
99.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach Telangana State Real

Estate Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Dated 11.01.2018, the Telangana
State Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act, till regular Tribunal is
established, within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon'ble Chairperson,
TS RERA

47 of 50

Appendix of Evidence
Documents on behalf of the Complainant:
Sr.

Description

No.
1.

Copy of the Agreement of sale, dated: 14.12.2007

2.

Copy of the Registered Development Agreement-cum-General power of
attorney, bearing document No 4940/2008, dated: 20.06.2008

3.

Copy of the Registered Development Agreement-cum-General power of
attorney, bearing document No. 4941/2008, dated: 20.06.2008

4.

Copy of the Supplementary Development Agreement-our- General Power of
Attorney, bearing document No. 1270/2013, dated: 09.01.2013

5.

Copy of the Supplementary Development Agreement-cum General Power of
Attorney, bearing document No. 1271/2013, dated: 09.01.2013

6.

Copy of the Second Supplementary Agreement, bearing document No.
10744/2014, dated: 30.08.2014

7.

Copy of the Second Supplementary Agreement, bearing document No.
10745/2014, dated: 30.08.2014

8.

Copy of the Allotment Letter issued by the respondent No. 2

9.

Copy of the Allotment Letter issued by the respondent No. 2

10.

Copy of the Deed of Assignment-cum-Development Agreement-cumGeneral Power of Attorney, dated: 04.07.2019.

11.

Copy of the Notice, dated: 01.02.2020.

12.

Copy of the Notice, dated: 10.06.2020

13.

Returned envelope of the Respondent No. 1.

14.

Document showing receipt of notice by respondent No. 2.

15.

Document showing receipt of notice by respondent No. 3.

16.

Building permit order by GHMC given to the respondent No. 2, dated:
07.02.2020, for East side of the project

48 of 50

17.

Building permit order by GHMC given to the respondent No. 2, dated:
07.02.2020, for West side of the project.

18.

RERA application submitted by the respondent No. 3 for East side of the
project.

19.

RERA application submitted by the respondent No. 3 for West side of the
project.

20.

Copy of Form-B, submitted by the respondent No. 3 to RERA

21.

Copy of the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing
Document No.2992/2020 dated 06.02.2020

22.

Copy of the Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney bearing
Document No.3324/2020 dated 06.02.2020

23.

Copy

of

Development

Agreement-cum-Irrevocable

General

Power

of

Power

of

Attorney bearing Document No.989/2020 dated 22.01.2020
24.

Copy

of

Development

Agreement-cum-Irrevocable

General

Attorney bearing Document No.990/2020 dated 22.01.2020
25.

Copy of the RERA Certificate issued to the Respondent No.3 in respect of
Vasavi S Lake City East dated 20.03.2020

26.

Copy of the RERA Certificate issued to the Respondent No.3 in respect of
Vasavi S Lake City West dated 20.03.2020

Documents on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 2:
Nil.

Documents on behalf of Respondent No.3:
Sr.

Description

No.
1.

Copy of Agreement of Sale-CUM-GPA bearing Document No.3324/2020
dated 06.02.2020

2.

Copy of Agreement of Sale-CUM-GPA bearing Document No.2992/2020
dated 06.02.2020
49 of 50

3.

Copy of Reply to Legal Notice issued by Respondent No.2 (M/s Srisairam
Projects Ltd.) dated 31.07.2020

4.

Copy of Legal Notice issued by Respondent No.2 (M/s Srisairam Projects
Ltd.) dated 05.10.2020

5.

Copy of Legal Notice issued by Respondent No.2 (M/s Srisairam Projects
Ltd.) dated 05.10.2020

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon'ble Chairperson,
TS RERA

50 of 50