Order Complaint No. 133 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 3rd February, 2026
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Complaint No. 133/2025/TG RERA

1. Smt.Mangali @ Gongula Radha Laxmi W/o Late Shankaraiah
(R/o H.No.2-74, Aziz Nagar village,
Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.)

2. M.Sabitha D/o Late Shankaraiah,
(R/o H.No.1-16, Kummera Village,
Chevella Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.)

3. M.Mahindar S/o Late Shankaraiah
(R/o H.No.2-74, Aziz Nagar village,
Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.)

4. M.Praveen S/o Late Shankaraiah
(R/o H.No.2-74, Aziz Nagar village,
Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.)

…Complainants
Versus
1. Mangali Devaiah S/o Late Pentaiah
2. Smt.Mangali Neelamma W/o Devaiah
3. Mangali Ramu Nayee S/o Devaiah
4. Mangali Lakshman S/o Devaiah
(1,2,3 & 4 are residing at H.No.5-11/24/8, Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District502032 and also at H.No.4-60, Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District-502032)

5. M/s. Uttam Realtors, Rep by its Managing Partners
(Regional Registered Office At: 1-54/33, Madinaguda Dargah, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District-500049.)

6. Sri.Talluri Hanumanth Rao, S/o Late T. Swamineedu, Authorized Promotor of M/s. Uttam
Realtors
(R/o Plot No.804, Block-A, Sree Sai Ram Towers, Manjeera Pipeline Road, Hafeezpet, Hyderabad500049.)

Page 1 of 9

---

…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant came up for hearing before this Authority,
in the presence of the Complainants’ Counsel S. Lokesh, V. Shivani and Atla Bhupathi Reddy
and Counsel for the Respondents’ Counsel K. Siri Swathi and M. Rasool Baig. After hearing
the submissions of both parties, this Authority now proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaints have been filed by the Complainants under Section 31 of the

Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”)
seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief Facts of the Case as per Form M submitted by the Complainant:
3.

It was humbly submitted that the husband of the Complainant, namely Late

Shankaraiah, and Mangali Devaiah (Respondent No. 1 herein) were own brothers and sons of
Late Mangali Pentaiah. Amongst the said brothers, Devaiah was the elder one. It was stated
that during the lifetime of Mangali Pentaiah, he acquired land to an extent of Ac.1-02 guntas
in Survey No. 24/A, situated at Ameenpur Village and Mandal (Erstwhile Patancheru Mandal),
Sanga Reddy District (Erstwhile Medak District), and who died long back.
4.

It was submitted that after the demise of Pentaiah, his two sons being the successors,

succeeded to the property. However, Respondent No. 1 herein (Mangali Devaiah), being the
elder son of Pentaiah, had his name recorded in the revenue records as he was the Kartha of
the family. It was stated that having equal rights over the said property, and to meet family
necessities, both Late Shankaraiah and Devaiah jointly sold away an extent of Ac.0-21 guntas
out of the said total extent of Ac.1-02 guntas in Survey No. 24 in favour of Smt. Mangali
Neelamma (Respondent No. 2 herein), who is the wife of Mangali Devaiah, vide Registered
Sale Deed No. 320/1992, dated 23-01-1992. However, the remaining extent of Ac.0-21 guntas
continued to be in the name of Mangali Devaiah only as the Kartha of the family.
5.

It was submitted that while the matter stood thus, the Complainant's husband,

Shankaraiah, died on 28-02-2016. In view of his demise, the Complainants became the legal
heirs and successors and became the joint owners and possessors of the said extent of Ac.0-21
guntas in Survey No. 24 of Ameenpur along with Respondent No. 1. However, during the year
2019, taking advantage of the existence of the name of Respondent No. 1 in the revenue
Page 2 of 9

---

It was submitted that meanwhile, it was noticed that Respondent No. 1 and his wife,

Respondent No. 2 herein, raised a construction over an extent of Ac.0-03 guntas (i.e., Ac.0-01
guntas from the land of Neelamma and Ac.0-02 guntas of land in the joint possession of the
Complainant's family along with Devaiah). Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 executed a
Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney No. 43878/2022, dated
28-12-2022, in favour of M/s. Uttam Realtors (Respondent No. 5 herein), represented by its
Managing Partners and Authorized Regional Promoters, 1) Talluri Hanumantha Rao
(Respondent No. 6 herein) and 2) Kunaguntla Sambasiva Rao (Respondent No. 7 herein), in
respect of Ac.0-20 guntas which is equivalent to 2420 Sq. yards or 2023.36 Sq. meters in
Survey No. 24/A2.
7.

It was contended that by misleading the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development

Authority (HMDA) as if Respondent No. 1/Devaiah was the sole owner of the remaining
extent, both Respondents in collusion with each other and by suppressing the existence of civil
suit proceedings before the competent court of law, applied to HMDA for Building Permission
for the extent of 3889.95 Sq. meters. HMDA provisionally approved the sanctioned plan vide
File No. 009226/BP/HMDA/1887/SKP/2022 for the construction of G+5 floors. Thereby, they
executed a Registered Mortgage Deed No. 43829/2022, dated 28-12-2022, in favour of HMDA
for 10% area of the proposed sanctioned plan area, which came to 985 Sq. meters equivalent
to 1178.08 Sq. yards or 10602.79 Sq. ft. on the fifth floor of the said proposed construction.
However, as Respondent No. 2 had purchased Ac.0-21 guntas only, construction was made to
that extent.
8.

It was submitted that from the root of the title, it was clear that Respondent No. 1 was

not the exclusive owner of the extent of Ac.0-21 guntas, but it was a Hindu Joint Family
Property, wherein the Petitioner had an equivalent share of Ac.0-10 ½ guntas. However, by
misleading the authorities on false statements, Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 jointly
obtained the construction permission. The Complainant submitted a complaint with the HMDA
Page 3 of 9

---

It was further submitted that in the recent past, on enquiry by the Complainant, it came

to light that all the Respondents herein, by claiming themselves as 'Promoters' but in fact not,
approached this Hon'ble Authority seeking registration of a project named "RRR Tower" by
M/s. Uttam Realtors under the provisions of the Telangana State Real Estate Regulation and
Development Act, 2016. Thereby, they submitted an undated and unregistered document styled
as a "Development Agreement" and the contents as a "Memorandum of Understanding," as if
the same was entered into between M/s. Uttam Realtors and Mangali Devaiah for development
and also promoting the constructed work. They submitted false information before this Hon'ble
Authority as if there were no cases pending in respect of the subject property.
10.

It was further averred that not only did they submit false information, but they also

referred all the transactions and documents, including the boundaries pertaining to the subject
Survey No. 24/A2, by mentioning the said document as if it were in respect of Survey No.
34/A. As a matter of fact, Mangali Devaiah had no land at all in Survey No. 34/A, and no such
documentary evidence was brought on record before this Hon'ble Authority. By suppressing
the true, correct, and material facts, they obtained the permission from this Hon'ble Authority
vide RERA ID No. P01100008111.
11.

It was further submitted that basing on the false information on one hand and

suppression of material facts on the other hand furnished to this Hon'ble Authority, the
Respondents herein were trying to create third-party interest over the subject property and
trying to raise construction in the joint possession of the Complainant's property. It also came
to light that after filing the application with this Hon'ble Authority, Mr. Mangali Devaiah also
executed a Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney No.
14172/2024, dated 27-05-2024, in favour of M/s. Uttam Realtors (Respondent No. 5 herein),
represented by its Managing Partners and Authorized Regional Promoters, 1) Talluri
Hanumantha Rao (Respondent No. 6 herein) and 2) Kunaguntla Sambasiva Rao (Respondent
No. 7 herein), in respect of Ac.0-19 guntas which is equivalent to 2299 Sq. yards or 1922.257
Sq. meters in Survey No. 24/A1. As such, if the permission granted by this Hon'ble Authority
remained in existence, it would lead to a multiplicity of litigations. Hence, the present

Page 4 of 9

---

Accordingly, the Complainants sought the following relief:
It is prayed that this Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to revoke the Approval vide
RERA ID No. P01100008111 and order for legal action against the Respondents for
furnishing the false information and suppression of material facts and pass orders and
pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

C. Counter filed by Respondents No. 5, 6 & 7
13.

The Counter Affidavit was filed by Respondent No. 6, Sri Talluri Hanumanth Rao,

Managing Partner of M/s. Uttam Realtors (Respondent No. 5), acting also on behalf of
Respondent No. 7. It was solemnly affirmed and stated on oath that the Deponent was well
acquainted with the facts of the case.
14.

At the outset, it was submitted that the complaint filed by the Complainant was neither

maintainable in law nor on facts. The Respondents contended that the contents of the complaint
were false, baseless, fabricated, concocted, and invented solely for the purpose of the present
complaint. All allegations were denied except those specifically admitted, and the Complainant
was put to strict proof of the same. Regarding the averments concerning the relationship and
property details of the Complainant, as well as matters not relating to these Respondents, it was
stated that no specific reply was needed.
15.

In response to the specific allegations regarding the property transaction, it was

admitted that Respondent No. 2 executed a Registered Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney bearing Document No. 43878/2022, dated 28-12-2022, in favour of
Respondent No. 5, represented by its Managing Partners (Respondents No. 6 & 7), in respect
of land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas equivalent to 2420 Sq. Yds in Survey No. 24/A2.
16.

However, it was vehemently denied that the Respondents misled the Hyderabad

Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) by portraying Respondent No. 1/Devaiah as
the sole owner of the remaining extent or that they colluded to suppress the existence of civil
suit proceedings. It was further denied that they obtained provisional approval for the
sanctioned plan vide File No. 009226/BP/HMDA/1887/SKP/2022 for the construction of G+5
Page 5 of 9

---

The Respondents further denied the allegation that the root of the title indicated the

property was a Hindu Joint Family property or that Respondent No. 1 was not the exclusive
owner of the extent of Ac.0-21 guntas. The claim that the Petitioner held an equivalent share
of Ac.0-10 ½ guntas was denied. It was asserted that the construction permission was not
obtained by misleading the authorities on false statements. It was acknowledged that the
Complainant had submitted a complaint to the HMDA seeking cancellation of the Building
Permit, which was pending consideration subject to the production of necessary documents.
18.

Regarding the registration under RERA, it was denied that the Respondents falsely

claimed themselves as 'promoters' or submitted undated and unregistered documents styled as
a Memorandum of Understanding/Development Agreement. It was further denied that false
information was submitted to the Authority regarding pending cases or that documents
pertaining to Survey No. 24/A2 were referred to as being in respect of Survey No. 34/A. The
Respondents denied suppressing material facts to obtain the RERA registration vide ID No.
P01100008111.
19.

The Respondents also addressed the allegations concerning the second transaction.

While acknowledging the execution of a Registered Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney No. 14172/2024, dated 27-05-2024, by Mr. Mangali Devaiah in favour of
M/s. Uttam Realtors in respect of Ac.0-19 guntas in Survey No. 24/A1, it was denied that this
was based on false information or suppression of facts. The contention that the existence of
permission from the Authority would lead to a multiplicity of litigation was refuted.
20.

It was affirmatively submitted that Smt. Mangali Neelamma is the absolute owner and

possessor of the Open Land in Survey No. 24/A2 admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas (2420 Sq.
Yards), situated at Ameenpur. It was stated that she purchased the same through a Registered
Sale Deed vide Document No. 320/1992 dated 27-01-1992. Her name was mutated in the
revenue records, and an e-Pattadar Passbook cum Title Deed (No. T09010070079) was issued.
Furthermore, she converted the entire land from agriculture to non-agriculture vide
Proceedings No. A2/4607/2019 dated 22-08-2019 issued by the Tahsildar, Ameenpur Mandal.

Page 6 of 9

---

It was submitted that Smt. Mangali Neelamma, having possessed the land since 1992,

approached Respondent No. 2 (as cited in the text, contextually referring to the Developer)
with a proposal to develop the property for mutual benefit. Accordingly, they entered into the
Registered Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney vide Document No.
43878/2022 dated 28-12-2022. It was pointed out that although Neelamma had been the
rightful owner since 1992, the Complainant intentionally failed to make her a party to the suit
filed in 2019. It was alleged that the Complainant was now making false claims to grab the
land and cause monetary loss to the Respondents.
22.

It was further submitted regarding the jurisdiction that Section 79 of the RERA Act

specifically bars civil courts from entertaining suits that the RERA Authority is empowered to
determine. However, it was argued that issues such as a partition suit between family members
over inherited land fall outside RERA's specific jurisdiction and remain with the civil courts.
It was stated that O.S. No. 195/2019 was still pending before the Hon'ble District Court,
Sangareddy, and was undergoing trial. The Respondents contended that the Complainant
suppressed these facts with a mala fide intention.
23.

In conclusion, it was submitted that the Complainant was in no way concerned with the

subject property, which was the self-acquired property of Smt. Mangali Neelamma. It was
alleged that due to the hike in market prices, the Complainants developed an evil eye and filed
the frivolous suit and the present complaint with an ill intention to extract amounts in a
blackmailing manner. Consequently, the Respondents prayed for the dismissal of the complaint
in limine in the interest of justice.
24.

An Adoption Memo dated 20.08.2025 was filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 4,

adopting the above Counter filed by Respondent No. 5 to 7.
D. Points for Consideration
25.

After perusal of the documents filed by the parties and the contentions raised therein,

the following issues arise for consideration by this Authority:
I.

Whether the present Complaint is maintainable before this authority?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? If yes, to what extent?

Page 7 of 9

---

Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the

submissions advanced by both sides, this Authority finds that the Complainants herein claim
rights over the subject project land on the basis of an alleged ownership interest. It is an
admitted position on record that a civil dispute in O.S. No. 195 of 2019 is pending before the
competent District Court at Sangareddy, wherein the very issue of title, ownership, and share
in the project land is under adjudication. The determination of such rights involves questions
of title and partition, which fall squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Court
and not within the domain of this Authority constituted under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
27.

This Authority further observes that, in view of the pendency of the civil suit, the status

of the Complainants as landowners has not attained finality. Consequently, the Complainants
cannot be treated as landowners for the purposes of the Act, nor can they be treated as allottees,
as admittedly no apartment, plot, or building has been allotted, sold, or transferred to them by
the promoter under the Act. Thus, as on date, the Complainants do not fall under any of the
categories of persons recognised under the Act as being entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of
this Authority.
28.

This Authority, therefore, holds that the Complainants, whose claim is founded on an

alleged ownership interest which is itself sub judice before a competent Civil Court, and who
are neither allottees nor beneficiaries of any allotment under the Act, cannot be construed as
“aggrieved persons” within the meaning of Section 31 of the Act.
29.

Accordingly, this Authority is of the considered view that the present complaint is not

maintainable before this Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016, and is dismissed on this ground alone.
30.

However, notwithstanding the dismissal of the present complaint on the ground of non-

maintainability, this Authority, in the exercise of its statutory regulatory functions, deems it
appropriate to take cognizance of the matter to a limited extent, namely with respect to the
alleged regulatory lapse concerning non-disclosure of pending litigations at the time of
registration of the project before this Authority, which has been specifically brought to its
notice through the present complaint.
Page 8 of 9

---

It is borne out from the record that the project land forming part of Survey No. 24/A

(including Survey Nos. 24/A1 and 24/A2) of Ameenpur Village and Mandal, Sanga Reddy
District, is the subject matter of a pending civil dispute in O.S. No. 195 of 2019 on the file of
the competent Civil Court at Sangareddy, wherein issues relating to title, ownership, and
partition of the land are under adjudication. Copies of pleadings and references to the said civil
proceedings have been placed on record before this Authority. The existence of such litigation,
being material in nature, assumes relevance in the context of statutory disclosures required to
be made by a promoter at the time of seeking registration under the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016.
32.

Accordingly, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the title dispute

pending before the Civil Court, this Authority hereby directs the Secretary, Telangana Real
Estate Regulatory Authority, to undertake a detailed verification of the statutory declarations
and disclosures made by the Respondent-promoter at the time of registration of the project
“RRR Tower” bearing RERA Registration No. P01100008111, particularly with reference to
disclosure of pending litigations affecting the project land. Upon such verification, the
Secretary shall take appropriate steps, if warranted, in accordance with Section 4 read with
Section 60 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Rules made
thereunder, strictly in accordance with law.
33.

Accordingly, the case is dismissed. No order as to costs.

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

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

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

Page 9 of 9

---