Order Complaint No. 17 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.17 OF 2024
4th Day of November 2024
Corum:

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

1. Sri Mala Brij Kumar Bhaktani
2. Sri Satyam Brij Kumar Bhaktani

…Complainants
Versus

M/s Jayabheri Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Represented through its Managing Director,
Sri Kishore Duggirala

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing
on 13.08.2024 and 20.08.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Ld. Senior
Counsel for Complainants, Sri H. Venugopal, and Ld. Senior Counsel for
Respondent, Sri E. Ajay Reddy and after hearing the arguments, this Authority
passes the following order:

2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants under Section

31 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred
to as the “Act”) 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 Respondent.

1 of 18

Brief facts on behalf of the Complainant
3.

The Complainants submit that they are the owners of the lands in Sy. No.

289 admeasuring Acs.3.21%, Guntas, 291 admeasuring Acs1.03 ½ gts, 292
admeasuring Acs. 3.04 14 gts, 293 admeasuring Acs. 1.28 gts, 294 admeasuring
Acs. 8.13% gts, 295 admeasuring Acs. 6.08 ½ gts and 296 admeasuring Acs.
4.08 ½ gts and the total extent is Acs. 28.05 gts situated at Puppalaguda Village,
Gandipet Mandal R.R. District. The Complainants are the wife and son of Late
Sri Brij Kumar Bhakthani who is the son of Late Sri Mothilal Chandumal
Bhakthani.

4.

That the Complainants have executed registered Sale Deeds in favour of V.

Ramchander Rao, VRCR Real Infra Developers, Gurunanak Educational Society,
M. Dayanand and M. Shivanand vide Registered Sale Deeds, dt; 18-04-2018 and
26-04-2018 to an extent of Acs. 17.19% gts, in Sy .No.293, 295, 296. The
Complainants further informed that they came to know that some third parties
have created fictitious, forged and fabricated documents in respect of the said
lands and therefore they filed suits against 51 persons in OS. No. 594/2018, OS.
No. 592/2018 and OS. No. 0593/2018 for declaration of title and that the above
suits are pending before the Hon'ble III Additional District Judge R.R. District
L.B.Nagar.

5.

The Complainants submitted that in spite of pendency of the above suits,

the Respondent herein suppressing the true and correct facts and without
disclosing the pendency of the above suits have obtained approval/no objection
from the competent authority including RERA. Since the Respondent is
proceeding to developmental and construction activities pursuant to the

2 of 18

approval/no objection granted by the HMDA and RERA and also selling to third
parties in which event, the complainant’s substantial rights would be adversely
affected. That further, the same equally affects the innocent purchasers who are
going to purchase the flats on the wrong impression given by the Respondent as
if its free from any litigation. That therefore, permission granted by HMDA and
registration granted by RERA is liable to be revoked for suppression of material
facts by the Respondent.

Relief sought:
6.

Therefore, it was prayed to revoke the Registration of Respondent Project

titled “Jayabheri The Pinnacle” vide No.P02400006797 dated 30.08.2023, as the
Respondent has suppressed the pendency of civil disputes pending before the
court.

Reply on behalf of the Respondent:
7.

The Respondent filed its Reply on 11.06.2024 and submitted that the

above complaint is not maintainable on facts or in law in view of the fact that the
Complainants herein are not the Allottees or aggrieved parties to the Real Estate
Project which is being undertaken by the Respondent herein.

8.

It was submitted that the above Complainant does not meet the criteria for

classification as an "aggrieved person" as per the provisions contemplated under
Section 31. That Section 2(d) of the Act which defined allottees, the above
Complainants do not fall within the specified categories of the aggrieved parties
because neither they are allottees nor association of allottees or a voluntary
association and as such, the Complainants herein do not meet the definition of

3 of 18

aggrieved persons to the real estate project of this Respondent as defined under
the Act.

9.

It was also submitted that the Complaint is filed through a GPA holder viz.,

M. Shivanand and however, said GPA holder has no locus standi to file the above
complaint since said GPA holder did not furnish any valid document/GPA
executed by the Complainants in his favour and in furtherance, said GPA holder
did not obtain any prior permission from this Authority to represent the above
Complaint through the GPA holder viz., M.Sivanand as contemplated under the
Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice and as such, the above complaint itself is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

10.

It was also submitted that the Complainants herein have admittedly filed

three Civil Suits bearing O.S.Nos.592/2018, 593/2018 and 594/2018 on the file
of the Hon'ble III Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar for
declaration; (1) to declare them as absolute owners of the land in various survey
numbers including the land in Sy.No.292 admeasuring Ac.3-01% guntas,
situated at Poppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; (2) for
Recovery of possession of said suit land; and (3) to declare the respective sale
deeds pertaining to said land as null and void, wherein, they alleged that they
have succeeded to the property from Motilal Chandumal by virtue of succession.
In the said civil suits, the Complainants have filed interim applications for grant
of ad-interim injunction, restraining the respective parties including this
Respondent from changing the nature of said suit land and however, the Hon'ble
Court did not grant any sort of injunction so far against this Respondent since

4 of 18

the Complainants have failed to establish their ownership or title in respect of
said land including the subject Real Estate Project land.

11.

It was submitted that this Authority is having no jurisdiction to entertain

the complaint which is filed with a mala fide intention by overriding the pending
civil dispute before the Civil Court for adjudication of title in respect of a larger
extent of land including the subject Real Estate Project land of this Respondent
and as such, the above complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
Further this Authority cannot adjudicate the title over the properties as a Civil
Court.

12.

Complainants herein have intentionally suppressed the fact of pending

other two civil suits which were filed by one Smt. Jyoti Naraindas Ahuja (said to
be sister of Late Brij Kumar Baktani and daughter of original owner late Motilal
Chandumal) against the Complainants herein and others including this
Respondent as under;
i.

O.S.No.296 of 2020 on the file of the Hon'ble IX Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad for Partition and allotment of half share
from out of the suit schedule property including the subject project land

ii.

O.S.No.31 of 2021 on the file of the Hon'ble XXVII Additional Chief Judge,
City Civil Courts at Secunderabad. Since said Smt.Jyoti Naraindas Ahuja
did not secure any favourable orders in her earlier partition suit i.e., O.S
No.296 of 2020, by suppressing the same, she had filed a similar Suit for
similar relief of Partition in respect of very same property including the
subject Real Estate Project land. The Hon'ble Court dismissed said petition
vide Order dated 17-08- 2021 with a finding that,

5 of 18

"In the light of the material brought on record by the contesting
Defendants and in view of the annunciation of the principles laid down
in the authorities the Defendants relied upon, it has to be and as such
held that the Plaintiffs have miserably failed to make out prima facie case
in their favour. Equally, the balance of convenience does not lie in favour
of the Plaintiffs rather it lies in favour of the contesting Defendants, who
are proved to be in settled possession of the properties they purchased
since long time. Moreover, neither late Chandumal Bhaktani or his legal
heirs for a considerable period of nearly 50 years remained mute
spectators without agitating against the alienations the D13 (i.e.,
Hassaram) made being the GPA of late Chandumal Bhaktani leads the
Court to hold that by moonshine claim the Plaintiffs appear to have been
litigating for the suit properties. Therefore, the question of Plaintiffs
suffering from irreparable loss or any hardship would not arise. Rather
granting of temporary injunction would result into great loss and injustice
to the contesting Defendants. Therefore, I hold under this point that the
Plaintiffs are not entitle for the prayed injunction. In the result, the
Petition is dismissed with costs”
13.

That said order became final as no appeal is preferred till-date.

14.

It was submitted that the Complainants have filed the above complaint

claiming that they are the legal heirs of one Sri Motilal Chandumal and succeeded
to the property left by him and however, the Complainants have not filed a single
authenticated document evidencing that they are the legal heirs of said original
owner Motilal Chandumal and succeeded to his property by virtue of succession

6 of 18

and consequently, for claiming of the relief(s) in the above complaint against this
Respondent subject to applicability of the RERA Act.

15.

It was submitted that the Complainants, without any right or title in

respect of said land, have executed a GPA in favour Madas Dayanand and Madas
Shivanand and in pursuance of said GPA, said power of attorney holders and
complainants herein along with their henchmen have attempted to interfere with
peaceful possession and enjoyment of this Respondent in and over the said larger
extent of land including the subject project land and consequently, this
Respondent and others were constrained to file a Civil Suit bearing O.S.No.659
of 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble III Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy, at
L.B.Nagar. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an interim injunction vide
order dated 19-06-2018 in I.A.No.573 of 2018 restraining them from interfering
with the peaceful possession of this Respondent and also restraining them from
alienating the same in favour the third parties vide order dated 19-06-2018 in
I.A.No.574 of 2018 and said interim orders are in force.

16.

It was submitted that said original allottee Motilal Chandumal, during his

lifetime, through his registered GPA Holder alienated and conveyed said lands in
favour of the predecessors-in-title of this Respondent way back in the year 1970
under registered Sale Deeds dated 21-07-1970 bearing document Nos.618 and
622 of 1970 and ultimately parted with the possession of this Respondent & its
associates. Since said Motilal Chandumal himself ceased to have any ownership
rights, title or interest, if any, in and over the said lands during his lifetime and
the question of claiming any sort of ownership or title by the Complainants herein
by virtue of alleged succession doesn't arise at all.

7 of 18

17.

That the Complainants have approached this Authority with unclean

hands by suppressing the material facts including the pending civil litigations
before the various civil courts and filed the above frivolous complaint with a mala
fide intention to harass and black-mail this Respondent to achieve their illegal
demand under the threat of above complaint despite pendency of their claim
before the Civil Courts and as such, the complainants are not entitled for any
equitable relief(s) as prayed for and liable to be dismissed with costs.

Rejoinder
18.

The Complainants filed a rejoinder and submitted that the contentions

raised by the sole respondent that the complaint is not maintainable as the
complainant cannot be an aggrieved person as per Section 31 of the Act, 2016 is
totally misplaced. That section 2 (zg) "Person" includes (i) an individual; (ii) a
Hindu undivided family; (iii) a company etc., As per the said proviso, the
complainant being an individual within the meaning of person is entitled to file a
complaint and what all stated in Section 31 of the Act "Person" shall include the
association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under
any law for the time being in force.

19.

It was submitted that there is no exclusion of any other person from filing

the complaint. The said explanation is given that the association of allottees or
any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being
in force is not there in section 2(zg). Therefore, there is no prohibition or bar for
complainant to file complaint. The complainants are aggrieved persons within the
meaning of Section 31 R/w Section 2(zg) of the said Act.

8 of 18

20.

It was submitted that the Respondent gave unnecessary and unwanted

details, however, conveniently and intelligently omited to mention the pendency
of the suit proceedings at the time of filing of the application before your esteemed
authority which fact amounts to suppression of fact. Mere filing of legal opinion
cannot be treated as part and parcel of the mandatory filling of the columns while
uploading the details for obtaining of approval from your esteemed authorities.
The application submitted by the Respondent goes to disclose that he deliberately
stated in the column Litigations related to the project "No". This fact goes to
establish that the Respondent suppressed the true facts and further in his
Affidavit-cum-Declaration FORM 'B' [See Rule 3(4)] in Para 2 he stated that "That
the said land is free from all encumbrances". All these facts goes to establish that
the Respondent deliberately suppressed the said fact of pendency of the suits
knowing fully well that if the same were disclosed he might not get approval from
this Authority.

21.

That apart the sole respondent enclosed the proceedings of the Land

Reforms Tribunal and Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division dt.5.11.2007
which goes to establish that to setup a false claim over the subject matter of the
property and thereby he obtained the said proceedings knowing fully well that
the subject matter of the lands are non-agricultural lands and the provisions of
A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 is not applicable.
The said proceedings are collusive and not binding on the complainants and do
not confer any right, title in favour of the Respondent.

9 of 18

Points for consideration:
22.

In consideration of the above rival contentions raised by the parties hereto,

the following points for consideration arise for adjudication before this Authority:
I.

Whether complainant herein is an aggrieved person in terms of the
provisions of the Act, 2016?

II.

Whether the Respondent has violated any provisions of the Act, 2016 read
with Rules, 2017? If so, is the Respondent liable for penalty for such
violation, if any?

III.

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

23.

The matter was called for hearing, wherein the Complainants appeared

and reiterated the contents of the Complaint. The Respondent also appeared and
reiterated contents of the Reply as mentioned above. This Authority has taken
into consideration the respective contentions of the parties and the documents
filed thereby which form part of the record.

Point I
24.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainants are landowners or

purportedly claim to be landowners and that in accordance with Section 31 of
the Act, 2016 they cannot be categorized as ‘aggrieved persons’ as they are not
aggrieved under the provisions of this Act. He relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Yogesh Keshav Bele vs. Maharashtra Real
Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors. (Second Appeal No.432/2023, Order
dt.25.08.2023), which categorically holds that,

10 of 18

“14. Section 31(1) of the RERA Act uses the expression "any aggrieved
person". The word "person" is defined under Section 2(28) but in
Section 31(1) the said word "person" is further qualified by
"aggrieved". It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be
permitted to meddle in any proceedings unless he satisfies that he
falls within the category of "aggrieved person". Only a person who has
suffered legal injury can challenge the act/action/order in a Court of
law. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules.
The phrase "aggrieved person" used in Section 31(1) of the RERA Act
would mean a person who is regulated or governed by the said Act
and there is an injury of the right conferred under the said Act. The
phrase used in Section 31(1) is "any aggrieved person" and not "any
person". The Appellant is not covered by the RERA Act and therefore
he cannot be said to be an "aggrieved person" to take recourse to
Section 31(1) of the RERA Act. The Appellant complainant can at the
most lead evidence as witness but he cannot claim the status of an
adversarial litigant. The Appellant complainant cannot be a party to
the lis because no legal right is conferred on him by the RERA Act.
Thus from the above analysis it is evident that the Appellant having
no concern whatsoever cannot be said to have any locus standi to
knock the doors of the RERA Act. The Appellant has knocked wrong
door by taking recourse to RERA for redressal of his grievances.”

25.

It was also submitted that the Complainants are represented through the

GPA however the said GPA has not been filed by the Complainants herein to
establish the existence of such alleged GPA. The Respondent also submitted that

11 of 18

Complainants, without any right or title in respect of said land, have executed a
GPA in favour Madas Dayanand and Madas Shivanand and in pursuance of said
GPA, said power of attorney holders and complainants herein along with their
henchmen have attempted to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment
of this Respondent and consequently, this Respondent and others were
constrained to file a Civil Suit bearing O.S.No.659 of 2018 on the file of the
Hon'ble III Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy, at L.B.Nagar. The Hon'ble Court
was pleased to pass an interim injunction vide order dated 19.06.2018 in
I.A.No.573 of 2018 restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession
of this Respondent and also restraining them from alienating the same in favour
the third parties vide order dated 19.06.2018 in I.A.No.574 of 2018 and said
interim orders are in force.

26.

It is well settled that the term “aggrieved person” means the person whose

legal right has been violated by the actions of the Respondent which form part of
his statutory obligations under the provisions of the Act, 2016. Merely stating
that the Complainants are ‘person’ in accordance with Section 2(zg) does not
mean they have suffered any legal injury under the provisions of the Act, 2016.
Evidently, the Complainants have failed to produce any documentary evidence to
state that they are aggrieved under the provisions of this Act and the actions of
the Respondent, which are in violation of the provisions of the Act, 2016 or the
Rules thereunder, have caused serious specific injury to the Complainants.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the Complainants are aggrieved persons under
in accordance with Section 31 of the Act, 2016.

12 of 18

27.

The Respondent also asserted that the Complainants have failed to

produce the GPA through which the Complainants are being represented by one
Sri M. Shivanand S/o Sri M. Dayanand. It is seen that the Complainants have
filed the complaint through the said GPA holder, have filed Vakalatnama through
the said GPA holder, have also filed their rejoinder affidavit through this very GPA
holder, however, have admittedly, failed to file any such GPA which is not
permissible in law. If the Complainants stated to have been represented through
a power of attorney holder, it is mandatory to file a copy of such power of attorney
to establish the very fact that the complaint is being filed in accordance with due
process of law.

28.

It is further observed that the Complainants have failed to specifically aver

to the said allegation in their rejoinder, thereby implying that no such General
Power of Attorney (GPA) was executed in favor of Sri M. Shivanand by the
Complainants. When an allegation is raised by the Respondent, it is incumbent
upon the Complainants to specifically rebut the same, as the burden of proof
regarding the execution of the GPA has shifted onto the Complainants. In the
absence of a specific rebuttal to the plea advanced by the Respondent, it is to be
presumed that the Complainants have no contention in this regard, and the court
shall proceed on the basis of the Respondent’s assertions.

29.

Therefore, the present Complaint is liable to be rejected, and no reliefs, as

prayed for by the Complainant, can be granted for (a) the complainant not being
an aggrieved person, and (b) for not having locus standi to file the present
complaint as no GPA has been filed on its behalf. Point I is answered accordingly.

13 of 18

Point II
30.

The Complainants mainly submit that the Respondent has suppressed the

pendency of various suits pending between the parties amongst others and
therefore, the registration granted by this Authority is liable to be revoked. The
Complainant also raised certain discrepancies regarding the title flow of the
subject land/project land which, being adjudicated by the courts in the suits
mentioned above, cannot be adjudicated before this Authority. The Complainants
also submit that the Respondent has only mentioned the pendency of these
litigations in the legal opinion filed by it but has failed to show it on the website
which clearly poses a direct question as to whether there are any litigations on
the project land, to which the Respondent, mala fidely, stated ‘no’ putting the
potential allottees at risk and suppression of material facts. Therefore, he prayed
to revoke the registration in the interest of justice.

31.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that the Respondent has diligently

uploaded the pendency of such litigations in the legal opinion as mandated under
Section 4 and the same is accessible to every person who is accessing the TG
RERA website. It was submitted that Rule 14(1)(a)(iii) only mandates providing
details of the litigations on the subject land/project land and that such details,
provided in the legal opinion, duly uploaded on the website with access to
everyone does not constitute any violation of the Rule. However, said argument
cannot be taken into consideration as, during the time of uploading the litigation
history, the tab on the website clearly questions whether there are any litigations
or not, for which the Respondent has clicked ‘no’ despite admitting that there is
pendency of litigations in its legal opinion.

14 of 18

32.

The Respondent has also relied upon the judgment of the Maharashtra

Real Estate Regulatory Authority in Pulin Co-Operative Housing Society Limited
vs.

Tirupati

Developers

(Complaint

No.CC006000000209962,

Order

dt.10.06.2024) in which it is held as under:
“However, presuming that this complaint is maintainable before the
MahaRERA, as far as the substantive omes sought by the
complainant under section 7 of the RERA, it is pertinent to note that
as per the provision of section 7 of the RERA, the MahaRERA
registration may be cancelled if the promoter makes default in doing
anything required by or under the RERA or if the promoter violates
any of the terms or conditions of the approval given by the competent
authority or if the promoter is involved in any kind of unfair practice
or irregularities as specified under section 7(1)(a) to (c) and (A) and (B)
of the RERA. However, in the instant case, as stated hereinabove, the
complainant has not produced any cogent documentary evidence to
show that the respondent has violated any of the terms or conditions
stipulated in the provisions of section 7 of the RERA. Therefore, the
prayer for revocation of projects registered by the respondent with the
MahaRERA sought by the complainants is devoid of any merits. Also,
the complainant has not established the fact that the respondent is
involved in any kind of unfair trade practice or irregularities by
submitting any order passed by the competent court of law. Moreso,
the complainant has also not submitted any cogent documentary
proof on record of MahaRERA i.e. any order passed by the competent
authority to establish the fact that respondent has done any violation
of various permissions granted by it. Hence, the relief sought by the

15 of 18

complainant under section 7 of the RERA for revocation of the
MahaRERA project registration granted to the respondent is devoid of
any merits.

23. However, in the present case, the MahaRERA has also noticed
that although there is Special Civil Suit No. 358 of 2022 filed by the
respondent

against

the

complainant

society

seeking

specific

performance of the development agreement. Admittedly, the said suit
is filed with respect to the project land. Although the said suit is filed
subsequent to the registration of this project with MahaRERA, the
same needs to be disclosed on the MahaRERA website in 'pending
litigation column' as mandated under section 4 of the RERA read
along with relevant rules made thereunder.
…
25. However, in compliance with principles of natural justice the
respondent is directed to upload the details of pending litigation i.e.,
Special Civil Suit No. 358 of 2022 on the MahaRERA website in the
pending litigation column within a period of 15 days from the date of
this order. Failing which appropriate penal action would be taken
against the respondent under section 63 of the RERA, if such noncompliance by the respondent is brought to the notice of MahaRERA
by the complainant.

33.

However, it is admitted that litigation history in relation to the Project was

not uploaded on the website in the manner and form as the Application under
Section 4 is sought. That means, when the website clearly sought for information

16 of 18

as to whether there are any litigations on the subject Project, the Respondent
promoter could not have clicked ‘no’ for an answer despite knowing there are
litigations which have been elaborately enumerated in the legal opinion filed in
this behalf. Merely uploading the detailed legal opinion but concealing the factum
of pending litigation on the specific tab is impermissible and misleading to the
general public. The primary goal of creating a web portal for the project is to
provide allottees or potential allottees with easy and convenient access to readily
available information. If the process becomes complicated and they are required
to sift through documents, it undermines the very purpose of having the web
portal.

34.

Therefore, this Authority is of the considered view that the Respondent has

not complied with provisions of Section 4 and Rule 14(1)(a)(iii) in the spirit and
essence of the said provisions, thereby calling for penalty to be imposed on the
Respondent under Section 60 of the Act, 2016. Point II is answered accordingly.

Point III
35.

In accordance with the discussions made in Paras 24 to 29 above, this

Authority is of the considered view that the Complainant is not liable for grant of
reliefs as prayed for.

36.

However, in accordance with the discussions made in Paras 30 to 34, vide

this Authority’s powers under Section 37 and 38, Respondent is directed as
under:
i.

For misleading the general public/potential allottees by not uploading
litigation status on the website, the Respondent is liable for penalty of

17 of 18

Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) payable within 30 days in
favour of TG RERA FUNDS through Demand Draft or online payment to
A/c No.50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036; and
ii.

In the interest justice and for the protection of the rights of potential
allottees, to upload the litigations on the TG RERA website, within a period
of 7 (seven) days thereby showcasing the pendency of various civil suits
including the interim orders issued therein, as mentioned above, in
accordance with Section 4 read with Rule 14(1)(a)(iii), failing which
appropriate action shall be initiated against the Respondent as per Section
63 of the Act, 2016.

37.

Complaint is hereby disposed of. 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

18 of 18