Order Complaint No. 161 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 161 of 2024
7th of July, 2025
Corum:

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

M/s Asset Recovery Management Yard Pvt. Ltd
D.No. 9-6, Flat No. 302, 3rd Floor, A- Block,
Shilpi Apts, Opp Konark Theatre, Lalitha Nagar,
Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad-500060.

…Complainant
Versus
M/s Geethika Developers
Represented by
Sri Dasari Venkata Rama Krishna Prasad
#604, Polaris Block, A Wing,
Meenakshi Sky Lounge, Hitex Road,
Khanamet, Hyderabad-500084

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for final
hearing on 27.03.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant in person and the
counsel for the Respondent. Upon hearing the submissions of all the parties, this Authority
proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

This Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the 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”) seeking appropriate action against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the Case:
3.

The Complainant, M/s. Asset Recovery Management Yard Private Limited, submitted

that it had lawfully acquired and taken possession of approximately 11 acres of land situated
in Survey Nos. 145 and 146 of Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
through a series of registered Agreements of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (AGPAs)
1

---

The Complainant further submitted that, pursuant to the said transactions, it had been

placed in physical possession of the subject land and was also handed over the original link
documents. However, on 17.08.2006, the original vendors allegedly committed trespass on the
said land, and the Complainant promptly lodged a criminal complaint dated 18.08.2006.
Subsequently, the vendors initiated multiple civil suits against the Complainant, seeking
cancellation of the AGPAs, on grounds which the Complainant asserted to be false and
motivated. The said suits O.S. No. 1153 of 2008, O.S. No. 10 of 2012, and O.S. No. 340 of
2013 remained pending before the XII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, as on
the date of filing the present complaint.
5.

The Complainant further pleaded that during the pendency of these legal proceedings,

M/s. Geethika Developers, represented by Sri Dasari Venkata Rama Krishna Prasad, had
fraudulently obtained registration of a real estate project titled “Geethika’s Ensconsia” under
Permit No. P02400006389 from the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter
“the Authority”), by willfully suppressing material facts, including the existence of the said
pending civil and criminal disputes. It was alleged that the Respondents had falsely declared
that no litigation existed with respect to the project land, thereby committing fraud and
misrepresentation as contemplated under Section 7(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
6.

The Complainant urged that such fraudulent concealment had misled the Authority and

the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) into granting approvals that
would otherwise have been withheld. It was further alleged that the Respondents, after securing
registration by fraudulent means, proceeded to construct and market villas on the disputed land,
thereby creating third-party interests to the detriment of the Complainant and prospective
allottees.
7.

The Complainant submitted that it had approached the Authority with credible

documentary evidence supporting all the claims. Invoking Sections 35, 36, 4, and 69 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Complainant pleaded that the
Authority was statutorily obligated to take immediate corrective action, including cancellation
2

---

In view of the facts and circumstances submitted hereinabove, and in light of the

documentary evidence placed on record, the Complainant most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Authority be pleased to:
i.

Cancel the permissions/registration given by the Authority vide RERA Registration No.
P02400006389;

ii.

Levy appropriate penalty as per law;

iii.

Refund the amount collected from the purchasers together with interest and damages;

iv.

Blacklist the said promoters;

v.

Payment of costs & damages for pain & suffering caused to the Complainant.

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
9.

The Respondent, M/s. Geethika Developers, represented by Sri Dasari Venkata Rama

Krishna Prasad, filed its counter denying all allegations made by the Complainant and
contending that the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The
Respondent submitted that the Complainant is neither an allottee nor a promoter, builder, or
consumer within the meaning of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and
hence lacks locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Authority. It was further
submitted that the Complainant’s alleged rights are founded upon a set of Agreements of Salecum-General Power of Attorney (AGPAs) purportedly executed in the years 2003 and 2006,
which do not confer valid title or ownership under law, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2012) 1 SCC 656.
10.

The Respondent stated that the said AGPAs were lawfully cancelled by the original

vendors in 2006 and that the Complainant has not filed any suit for declaration, specific
performance, or cancellation of the cancellation deeds. It was argued that the civil suits cited
by the Complainant, namely O.S. Nos. 1153 of 2008, 10 of 2012, and 340 of 2013, were filed
by the original owners or their family members against the Complainant and that the
3

---

The Respondent further contended that the Complainant is attempting to misuse the

forum of the Hon’ble Authority to gain an advantage in unrelated civil litigation. It was
submitted that this is a clear case of abuse of process, as the Complainant has failed to implead
the necessary and proper parties, namely the original landowners, whose presence is essential
for a fair adjudication of any dispute concerning title. The Respondent denied the existence of
any criminal proceedings or FIRs against it or its vendors and submitted that mere police
complaints, which did not result in registration of cases, have no evidentiary value.
12.

The Respondent denied any allegation of fraud, asserting that such claims are vague,

unsubstantiated, and lacking in legal proof. It was also submitted that no consumer or allottee
has approached this Hon’ble Authority alleging wrongdoing, and the Complainant’s demand
for cancellation of the project and refund of amounts collected from purchasers is wholly
baseless. The Respondent argued that the reliefs sought are misconceived and without merit,
and that the Hon’ble Authority, being a regulator under the Act, is not the proper forum to
adjudicate historical title disputes, particularly where such claims have not been substantiated
through civil litigation. Accordingly, the Respondent prayed for dismissal of the complaint with
costs.
D. Memo filed by the Respondent:
13.

A Memo was filed on behalf of the Respondent, M/s. Geethika Developers, wherein it

was submitted that the complaint filed by the Complainant is wholly not maintainable in law
and deserves to be rejected at the threshold. The Respondent submitted that the complaint was
instituted by one Mr. C. Pradeep Kumar, claiming to be a Director of the Complainant
Company, without filing any Board Resolution or valid authorisation empowering him to
represent the Company before this Hon’ble Authority. Relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers (I) Pvt. Ltd. [(2011) 11
SCC 524], it was contended that any such authorisation without proper Board delegation is a
legal nullity and therefore, the complaint is liable to be rejected on this ground alone.

4

---

The Respondent further submitted that the alleged AGPAs relied upon by the

Complainant were cancelled in the year 2006 through duly registered cancellation deeds.
Despite such cancellation, the Complainant has neither challenged the said cancellation
documents in a court of law nor sought any declaratory relief affirming its alleged title or rights
over the project land. It was submitted that the civil suits cited by the Complainant being O.S.
Nos. 1153 of 2008, 10 of 2012, and 340 of 2013 were filed not by the Complainant but by the
original landowners against the Complainant, and the Respondent or its vendors are not parties
to the said suits. The Complainant, therefore, has no valid cause of action against the present
Respondent.
15.

The Respondent clarified that the registration for the project "Geethika’s Ensconsia"

was obtained lawfully and after following due procedure under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. The Respondent submitted that it had no knowledge of the alleged
litigation at the time of registration, and all information available to it was duly disclosed. It
was further contended that the original landowners, being necessary and proper parties, were
deliberately omitted from the complaint in order to avoid the full facts coming on record.
16.

It was also submitted that the Complainant is neither a consumer nor an allottee nor a

builder within the scope of the Act, and has no locus to maintain the complaint before this
Authority. The Respondent urged that entertaining such complaints from third parties, without
a prima facie title or consumer relationship, would open the floodgates to frivolous and mala
fide litigation. It was prayed that the complaint, being vexatious, lacking in merit, and an abuse
of process, be dismissed with costs.
E. Reply to the Memo filed by the Respondent:
17.

In response to the Memo filed by the Respondent, the Complainant submitted that Mr.

C. Pradeep Kumar, who signed and submitted the complaint, is the first director and Life-Time
Director of the Complainant company, and is duly authorised to represent the Company before
all judicial and regulatory forums, including this Hon’ble Authority. A certified copy of the
Board Resolution, authorising Mr. Pradeep Kumar to file the complaint and pursue the
proceedings, has been duly annexed to the record. The reliance placed by the Respondent on
the decision in State Bank of Travancore v. Kingston Computers (I) Pvt. Ltd. is therefore
misplaced and distinguishable on facts.

5

---

The Complainant further submitted that the core issue before this Hon’ble Authority is

not the title dispute, nor the maintainability of the AGPAs in civil law, but rather the fraudulent
suppression of material facts by the Respondent at the time of applying for project registration
under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It was categorically stated that
pending civil suits namely O.S. No. 1153 of 2008, O.S. No. 10 of 2012, and O.S. No. 340 of
2013 pertain to the very same land on which the Respondent's project "Geethika’s Ensconsia"
has been undertaken, and this fact was wilfully concealed by the Respondent from both the
Hon’ble RERA and HMDA.
19.

The Complainant urged that the identity of parties in the said suits is irrelevant, as what

is material under Section 7(1) of the Act is the existence of pending litigation affecting the
project land, which was a crucial fact that should have been disclosed by the Respondent in its
application for registration. The deliberate omission of this material information constitutes
fraud and misrepresentation, warranting revocation of the project’s registration under the
statutory mandate.
20.

The Complainant also submitted that under Section 31 of the Act, any person not only

allottees or consumers is entitled to bring to the notice of the Authority any contravention of
the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Respondent’s challenge to the locus standi of the
Complainant is devoid of merit and contrary to the spirit and object of the legislation, which is
aimed at transparency, accountability, and protection of public interest in the real estate sector.

F. Observations & Directions of the Authority:
21.

At the outset, this Authority considers the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent

regarding the maintainability of the present complaint on the ground of locus standi. The
Respondent has contended that the Complainant neither qualifies as an allottee, promoter, or
real estate agent, nor as an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 31(1) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and therefore lacks the statutory standing to
invoke the jurisdiction of this Authority.
22.

In view of the above, this Authority has carefully perused the material placed on record

by both parties. It is noted that the claim of the Complainant over the subject land is solely
premised upon a set of Agreements of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (AGPAs), executed
in its favour by the original landowners during the years 2003 and 2006. The Complainant
6

---

However, it is also placed on record that the said AGPAs were subsequently cancelled

through duly registered Cancellation Deeds executed by the original landowners in the year
2006, copies of which have been produced before this Authority. The validity of these
cancellation deeds and the subsistence of the Complainant’s alleged rights are the subject
matters of multiple pending civil suits, namely O.S. No. 1153 of 2008, O.S. No. 10 of 2012,
and O.S. No. 340 of 2013, which are currently sub judice before the XII Additional District
Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Until such time, this Authority cannot disregard the effect of the
registered cancellation deeds unless they are set aside or declared void by the competent civil
court.
24.

Now, in view of the foregoing circumstances, it is evident that the Complainant’s alleged

claim over the subject land is itself under dispute and remains unresolved before the competent
civil court. Until such disputes are adjudicated, the Complainant cannot claim any lawful
connection with the project land, nor assert any interest in the registered project.
25.

It is well-settled that the primary objective of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016 is to regulate the real estate sector, promote transparency, and protect
the interests of stakeholders, particularly the allottees. In furtherance of this objective, this
Authority exercises its jurisdiction to ensure compliance with the provisions of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016 and to address grievances of persons falling within the statutory framework.
26.

Accordingly, this Authority shall take cognizance of a complaint where the complainant

demonstrably falls within the categories contemplated under the Act, namely, an “allottee” as
defined under Section 2(d), a “promoter” under Section 2(zk), a “real estate agent” under
Section 2(zm), or an “aggrieved person” as envisaged under Section 31(1) of the said Act. As
observed from the preceding paragraphs, it is very apparent that the Complainant does not fall
under any of the afore-mentioned categories and clearly, there exists no transactional,
contractual, or legal nexus between the Complainant and the Respondent-promoter or the
registered real estate project “Geethika’s Ensconsia”.
27.

In the absence of such nexus, the Complainant fails to satisfy the statutory threshold

required to invoke the jurisdiction of this Authority under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
28.

Accordingly, the Complaint at hand is liable to be dismissed for want of locus standi.
7

---

However, this Authority, in the exercise of its statutory obligations, considers it

appropriate to take cognizance only to the extent of the alleged regulatory violation i.e., the
non-disclosure of the pending litigations brought to the notice of the Authority through the
present complaint.
30.

It has been duly noted that the project land situated in Survey Nos. 145 and 146 of

Mankhal Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, is the subject matter of
multiple pending civil suits, namely O.S. No. 1153 of 2008, O.S. No. 10 of 2012, and O.S. No.
340 of 2013, involving disputes regarding title, possession, and cancellation of AGPAs, copies
of which have been placed on record.
31.

Accordingly, this Authority hereby directs the Secretary, TG RERA, to conduct a detailed

verification of the statutory declarations submitted by the Respondent-promoter at the time of
registration of the project and to take appropriate action under Section 4 read with Section 60
of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 and the Rules applicable thereunder, as warranted by the outcome
of such verification.
32.

In light of the observations made earlier, this Authority is of the considered view that

the Complainant does not possess the requisite legal standing to maintain the present complaint
under the provisions of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016. The Complaint at hand is dismissed
accordingly.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

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

Sri. Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

8

---