Order Complaint No. 133 of 2022

BEFORE THE
TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY,HYDERABAD
COMPLAINT NO.133/2022/TSRERA
Date of decision: 17.08.2023
Sri E Bhagyamma

….Complainant
Versus

M/s Sai Jyoti Constructions

….Respondents

Quorum:

Dr.N.Satyanarayana, Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri. K. Srinivas Rao, , Hon’ble Member
Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Appearance:

Complainant: Represented by Sri.Suresh
Respondent: None appeared for Respondent
ORDER

This order is issued to address the complaint filed before this
authority under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), in conjunction with Rule
34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). The complaint revolves around
a title land dispute, and concurrently, the complainant has also approached
the Hon’ble Civil Court seeking similar relief.
2. The said complaint, filed in Form M, requests for the cancellation of
TSRERA registration granted to the Respondent Company. Allegations
include the respondent's failure to disclose pertinent facts and the
suppression of ongoing legal proceedings, thereby deceiving prospective
buyers and violating the Regulations established under the Real Estate
Regulation and Development Act, 2016.
A. Facts of the Complaint:
1. The complainant has presented the following facts:
1 of 4

1.) The disputed land, measuring Ac.2-03 Gts in Survey No. 173, Ac.1-38
Gts in Survey No. 174, Ac.1-02 Gts in Survey No. 175, Ac.15-30 Gts in
Survey No. 176, and Ac.9-15 Gts in Survey No. 177, situated at
Kondapur

Village, Serilingampally

Mandal,

Ranga

Reddy

District,

originally belonged to protected tenants, including her late father, Golla
Papaiah @ P. Papaiah.
2.) Certain male family members sold a portion of the land (Ac.5-25 Gts)
without the consent of female members. This prompted the complainant
to demand a partition of her rightful share.
3.) Moreover, the respondent entered into a development agreement for a
portion of the land with other parties and initiated construction activities
on it.
4.) In light of these circumstances, the complainant filed a partition suit
(O.S.No. 1036 of 2021) currently pending before the Hon'ble II Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Importantly, the respondent
concealed the ongoing legal dispute and secured registration for the "SAI
KEERTHI SIGNATURE" project without disclosing these complications.
5.) Subsequently, a notice (No. 133/2022/TSRERA) was dispatched to the
Respondent on 28.04.2022, by the Authority, mandating them to provide
a response or pertinent information as per Rule 34(1) and (2) of the
Rules, 2017.
B. Response by Respondent:
2. In counter, the Respondent submitted a written reply dated 19.05.2022:
I.

The Respondent contends that the complainant lacks standing to file a
complaint under the RERA Act, as she is neither the owner nor Pattadar
of the subject land. As per the Respondent, she does not qualify as an
"aggrieved person" under Section 31 of the Act.

II.

The Respondent asserts that the dispute is civil in nature, and the
complainant herself initiated a suit (O.S.No. 1036 of 2021) before a
competent civil court, which is presently pending adjudication.

III.

The Respondent maintains that the competent Authority has granted
construction permissions for land sy.no.176, where the Respondent

2 of 4

company is carrying out constructions. Consequently, the permissions
from the Competent Authority fall beyond the scope of the RERA Act.
IV.

The Respondent also disputes the entitlement of the complainant to the
reliefs sought in the Complaint. They argue that the present Complaint
replicates the subject matter of the aforementioned suit filed by the
complainant before the Hon’ble II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga
Reddy District, now renumbered as O.S.1036 of 2021. The Respondent
further claims that the complainant was never in possession of the plots
in question and that the complaint is based on false and malicious
intent.

C. Hearing Conducted
3. The matter came up for a hearing before this Authority on 17.08.2023,
with the complainant's representative present, while none appeared on
behalf of the respondents.
4. During

the

hearing,

the

complainant’s

authorized

representative

conveyed that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble II Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Kukatpally.
D. Directions of this Authority:
5. Based on the information provided, the Authority has determined that
the Complaint in question does not satisfy the criteria for classification
as

an

"aggrieved person"

as

stipulated

in

the

2016

Act.

This

determination is based on the fact that the Complainant does not fall into
any of the specified categories, which include being an allottee, an
association of allottees, or a voluntary association. Instead, the
Complainant is solely a landowner with concerns regarding the
ownership of the said land. As a result, the Complainant does not meet
the definition of an aggrieved person as defined in Section 31 of the
RERA Act. Section 31 is reproduced as herein under:
31. (1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the
adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention
of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder
against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be.
3 of 4

Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include
the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association
registered under any law for the time being in force.
6. So, in the view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, due to lack of
locus standi of the complainant to submit the current application under
Section 31 of the RERA Act, the present complaint is dismissed.
7. If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O Ms.no.8, dt 11.01.2018, the Telanagana
State Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS
Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act till the
regular Tribunal is established) within 60 days from the receipt of this
Order.
8. The case file shall be duly archived within the Registry for record-keeping
purposes

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

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

Sd/Dr.N.Satyanarayana, Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA

4 of 4