Order Complaint No. 175 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 175 of 2025
Dated: 6th November, 2025
Quorum:

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

1. Muralidhar Anantham
2. Kavitha Anantham
R/o: H.No. 4196, Street 12, Vidyuth Nagar,
Tellapur, Ramchandra Puram Mandal,
Sangareddy District, Telangana
…Complainants
Versus
M/s S Square Infra Builders,
R/o: 2nd Floor, Plot No. 1137, Road No. 56,
Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana
…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing on 06.08.2025 before this Authority in the presence of the Complainants in person, and
Counsel for Respondent Mr. Sai Santosh Bendi and upon hearing the submissions of both the
parties, this Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant 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 Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainants, are the allottees and owners of Villa No. 13 in the Urban Green

Villas community, situated at Patighanpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Tellapur Municipality,
Sangareddy District, Telangana.
4.

The villa was purchased in the year 2024 based on the gated community brochure and

the HMDA approved plan of the project being developed by M/s S Square Infra.
Page 1 of 7

---

The grievance of the Complainants arises from deviations carried out by the

Respondent in violation of the project brochure and the HMDA-approved plan. Specifically, in
January 2025, the Respondent removed the existing greenery (lawn) originally shown in the
approved plans behind Villa 13 and replaced it with a gaming zone constructed with cement
structure.
6.

The new structure is designed to accommodate high-intensity floodlights and activities

likely to cause excessive noise, heat, and disturbance. The Complainants contend that such
alterations will directly impact the health of the residents, and once operational, it will make
living in the house unbearable.
7.

It is submitted that, despite repeated requests to remove the deviation and adhere to the

agreed plan, the Respondent has been reluctant to comply to what was agreed and continues to
provide excuses to delay the process.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
I.

An instruction to the Respondent, M/s S Square Infra to remove the deviation already
constructed behind Villa 13 at the earliest possible and maintain the greenery (lawn)
instead, as committed in Villas brochure and HMDA plan.

II.

An instruction to the Respondent, M/s S Square Infra to adhere to their brochure and
HMDA plan in providing amenities behind Villa 13 at the earliest possible, and suggest
them not to deviate and also instruct not to cause further inconvenience to the residents
of Villa 13.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent:
9.

At the outset, the Respondent categorically denies all allegations and averments made

by the Complainants as false, misleading, and legally untenable. It is submitted that the
complaint is an abuse of process, filed with suppression of material facts, and is vexatious in
nature.
10.

The Respondent states that it is a reputed developer undertaking the project “Urban

Greens” in Patighanpur Village, Sangareddy District, in strict compliance with all statutory
requirements. Necessary approvals were obtained, including HMDA Layout Approval No.

Page 2 of 7

---

The Complainants, being the owners of Villa No. 13 in the project, have raised a dispute

relating to a piece of land adjacent to their villa, alleging that the Respondent has illegally
commenced construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan. The Respondent submits that this
allegation is baseless and arises from a misreading of the sanctioned layout plan, which is a
public document available even before the Complainants’ purchase. The said plan clearly
earmarks the land in question as “Open Space/Amenity Area”. This space was always intended
to be a common amenity for the use and benefit of all residents and was never designated,
either in the plan or any contractual document, as a private green space for the exclusive
enjoyment of the Complainants or any single villa owner.
12.

It is further submitted that the Respondent, acting in good faith, had received written

and oral representations from a substantial majority of villa owners requesting a more active
recreational facility, and accordingly the area was modified from a passive lawn into a multipurpose court. The Respondent contends that this is not a deviation from the sanctioned plan,
since the land use continues to remain “Amenity/Recreational,” but merely a modification of
the form of amenity provided for the greater good of the community, a right which vests with
the developer. Despite this bona fide decision, the Complainants have initiated multiple and
parallel proceedings on the exact same cause of action before different forums, including W.P.
No. 10483 of 2025 before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, which is subjudice, as well as a complaint before HMDA, which resulted in a notice dated 03.06.2025. The
Respondent submits that such conduct amounts to forum shopping and an abuse of process.
13.

The Respondent relies on the Doctrine of Election, as discussed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ireo Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. v. Abhishek Khanna (2021) 3 SCC 241, to
contend that the Complainants having already invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of
the High Court, are precluded from simultaneously pursuing the same grievance before this
Authority. The Respondent further contends that judicial propriety and the principle of lis
pendens require that parallel proceedings be avoided so as not to result in conflicting decisions.
14.

The Respondent also points out that the Complainants’ reliance on the wording in their

Sale Deed (Doc No. 3931/2024), where the eastern boundary is described as “Park,” is
misconceived. The governing statutory document is the HMDA-sanctioned plan, which
designates the area only as “Open Space/Amenity Area.” The word “Park” is merely a general,
Page 3 of 7

---

Without prejudice to these objections, the Respondent submits that it has at all times

acted in conformity with the sanctioned plans. It is further submitted that, as a gesture of
goodwill and to put an end to the controversy, the Respondent has voluntarily commenced and
is in the advanced stages of restoring the area to its original state as a lawn. This voluntary
action, however, should not be construed as an admission of wrongdoing but renders the
grievance of the Complainants infructuous. The Respondent therefore submits that the present
complaint is devoid of merit, vexatious and oppressive, forming part of a multi-pronged
litigation strategy designed to harass the developer. Accordingly, it is prayed that the complaint
be dismissed with exemplary costs for abuse of process.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
16.

In response to the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent on the issue of

maintainability, the Complainants submit that the allegations of “forum shopping” and
invocation of the doctrine of election are unfounded and made only to derail the proceedings.
The Complainants categorically deny any abuse of process. It is submitted that multiple forums
were approached only in response to the continued violations and inaction of the Respondent
and concerned authorities, not for concurrent reliefs but for specific and distinct redressals. The
reliefs now sought before this Hon’ble Authority fall squarely within the exclusive statutory
jurisdiction of RERA under Sections 11(4), 14, and 31 of the RE(R&D) Act, and are distinct
from general constitutional remedies.
17.

With regard to the issue of illegal deviation, the Respondent’s contention that

conversion of an open lawn into a multipurpose court is not a deviation is untenable. Any
structural addition or modification of sanctioned open space, without revised approval from
HMDA amounts to deviation under Section 14 of the Act. It is further submitted that the
assertion that the space was always “amenity” area does not authorize unilateral conversion
without due consultation and approval. It is submitted that the claim of “majority resident
support” is vague, undocumented and contested. It is stated that no such proposal was ever
transparently shared or consent obtained from the allottees like the Complainants, whose villa
directly adjoins the affected space.
Page 4 of 7

---

With regard to the Respondent’s claims that the area is being “restored to a lawn” as a

goodwill gesture, the Complainant submits that no official confirmation, timeline or
photographic evidence of such restoration has been shared with the Complainants. It is
therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to direct the Respondent to submit
an affidavit undertaking that the deviation will not be repeated in the future and that any
changes to the layout will strictly comply with law and prior consent of affected allottees.
19.

It is further submitted that the Complainants have endured immense mental stress, time

loss and financial cost in pursuing multiple complaints solely due to the Respondent’s highhanded and arbitrary actions. This includes architectural disruption, depreciation in property
value, loss of peace, and legal expenditure.
20.

In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may be

pleased to direct the Respondent to submit a written undertaking/affidavit before this Authority
affirming that no deviations or modifications from the sanctioned layout plan will be
undertaken in the future without due permissions and prior written consent from affected
residents, and that the amenity space in question shall remain a landscaped lawn as per the
original plan and shall not be converted to any other form. It is further prayed to award
exemplary compensation to the Complainants for the mental agony, legal expenses and time
lost due to the Respondent’s actions, to take cognizance of the Respondent’s attempts to
mislead this Hon’ble Authority by mischaracterizing the nature of the deviation and attempting
to escape accountability, and to pass such other orders or directions as may be deemed just,
equitable and necessary in the interest of justice and fair play.
E. Observations of the Authority:
21.

Upon the perusal of all the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record by all

the parties, this Authority proceeds with the following observations. The present complaint
arises from the grievance of the Complainants, who are allottees and owners of Villa No. 13 in
the project “Urban Green Villas,” developed by the Respondent, M/s S Square Infra at
Patighanpur Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District. The Complainants contend that
the Respondent has deviated from the HMDA-approved layout plan and project brochure by
removing the landscaped lawn area located behind their villa and constructing cemented
multipurpose gaming zone in its place. The Complainants have sought directions to the
Respondent to remove the deviation, restore the area to its original state as a landscaped lawn,

Page 5 of 7

---

The Respondent, on the other hand, has denied all allegations of illegality or deviation

and contended that the area in question is designated as “Open Space/Amenity Area” as per the
sanctioned layout, and that modification of the amenity from a lawn to a recreational court does
not amount to a violation, since the land use remains within the same permitted category. It is
further stated that such modification was carried out based on requests received from a majority
of the villa owners and for the overall benefit of the community.
23.

The Respondent has further submitted that it has, at its own expense, commenced and

is in the advanced stage of restoring the area to its original state as a lawn in order to maintain
harmony and put an end to the dispute. The Respondent has also produced photographs
evidencing the ongoing restoration work.
24.

In view of the above, this Authority observes that the main relief sought by the

Complainants, namely, the restoration of the area behind Villa No. 13 to its original form as a
lawn, has effectively been met by the Respondent’s voluntary act of reinstating the space. As
such, the grievance raised in the complaint stands redressed, and the complaint is rendered
infructuous.
25.

However, this Authority deems it necessary to reiterate that promoters are bound by the

statutory obligations under Section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, which mandates that every
real estate project shall be developed and completed in accordance with the sanctioned plans,
layout plans, and specifications approved by the competent authorities.
26.

Accordingly, while noting the Respondent’s compliance and restoration efforts, this

Authority directs the Respondent to strictly adhere to the sanctioned plan and the approved
layout henceforth, and not to carry out any modification or deviation in the project’s common
areas without obtaining due approvals and requisite consent as prescribed under the RE(R&D)
Act.
F. Directions of the Authority:
27.

Vide the powers vested under Section 37 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, this Authority

issues the following directions:
i.

In view of the Respondent having restored the area situated behind Villa No. 13 to its
original state as a lawn, as evidenced by the photographs and material placed on record,
Page 6 of 7

---

The Respondent, M/s S Square Infra, is directed to strictly adhere to the sanctioned
layout plan and approved specifications of the project as mandated under Section 14 of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

28.

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by Respondents shall attract penalty in

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
29.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be 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 7 of 7

---