Order Complaint No. 227 OF 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.227 OF 2024
13th Day of December 2024

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

Sri Macharla Santhosh

…Complainant

Versus
M/s Paradise Peak Pvt Ltd

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for
hearing on 20.11.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant
present in person and there was no representation on behalf of the
Respondent and upon hearing the contentions of the complainant, this
Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
the “RE(R&D) Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Rules”) seeking directions from this Authority to take action against the
Respondent.

1 of 6

A.

Brief facts on behalf of the Complainant

3.

The Complainant, an advocate, while providing legal opinion to his

clients who were interested in purchasing plots in the Respondent's project,
verified the details and discovered discrepancies.
4.

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent, M/s Paradise Peak

Private Limited, developed a 50-acre layout project in 2018 and sold
approximately 550 plots without registering the project with this Authority.
The Respondent allegedly entered into a Development Agreement-cumIrrevocable GPA with landowner Ram Mohan Chinta, vide Document No.
10646/2018, for the development of a total land area admeasuring 51 acres
and 18 guntas, located in Sy. Nos. 338/A and 340/A, within the
municipality of Zaheerabad District. The site is situated adjacent to Allana
Factory and opposite the Legends layout.
5.

While the Respondent obtained DTCP layout approval on 26.09.2019

vide Lr.D.D.No.4547/2018/H, no application for RERA registration was
made. Additionally, the Respondent sold plots to third parties without
registration, as evidenced by the Encumbrance Certificate, and failed to
secure mandatory insurance, exposing buyers to financial and legal risks.
6.

The Complainant further contended that the buyer’s interest is further

jeopardized by a dispute between the landowner and the Respondent which
led to filing Arbitration Application bearing No. 151 of 2023, which was
adjudicated by the Hon’ble High Court on 10.11.2023, appointing Hon’ble
Justice L. Nageswara Rao, a former Supreme Court Judge, as arbitrator.
7. The Complainant alleged that the Respondent misled buyers by failing to
comply with legal obligations, like RERA registration of the project, and
neglecting to disclose the ongoing arbitration dispute.
B. Relief Prayed:
The complainant prayed for the following relief(s)

2 of 6

i.

To punish the sole Respondent for Violating Sections 3, 4, 16 and
other applicable sections of RERA as per sections 59, 60, 61 &
other applicable sections of the Act.

ii.

To publish the non- application of RERA and violations committed
by the Respondent on the RERA website and in the local
newspapers to alert innocent home buyers.

iii.

Direct the Respondent not to sell any plots at the real estate project
undertaken by the Respondent without RERA registration so that
innocent buyers are not cheated.

C. Points for consideration
i.

Whether the Complainant is an “aggrieved person” under
section 31 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016?

ii.

Whether the Respondent violated the Sections 3 and 4 of the RE
(R&D) Act, 2016, by failing to register the project situated in
Sy.Nos.338/A and 340/A, Zaheerabad Municipality, with this
Authority and selling plots to third parties without obtaining
such registration?

D. Hearing conducted
8.

The matter was heard on 20.11.2024, with the Complainant present

and the Respondent absent. The Complainant reiterated the contents of his
complaint and. highlighted alleged violations of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, by
the Respondent, stating that it was selling plots in Sy. Nos. 338/A and
340/A, Zaheerabad Municipality, Sanga Reddy District, without registering
the project with this Authority. The Complainant requested this Authority to
take necessary action to protect buyer’s interests and ensure the
Respondent’s compliance with the Act.
E. Observations of the Authority:
9.

This Authority, upon examining the complaint, found that the

Complainant does not qualify as an aggrieved party under Section 31 read
with section 2(zg) of the Act, 2016

as the complainant is not aggrieved
3 of 6

under the provisions of the Act, 2016 and no apparent legal injury is
inflicted to him by virtue of the violations committed on part of the
Respondent herein.
10.

Section 31(1) clearly stipulates that “(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.” However, the complainant has failed to establish
as to how his legal rights under the provisions of the Act, 2016 have been
breached by the Respondent.
11.

Further, the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Dr. Yogesh Keshav Bele

vs. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority [(2023) 6 AIR Bom R 154],
categorically held that:
“Section

31(1)

of

the

RERA

Act

uses

the

expression

"any

aggrieved person". The word "person" is defined under Section 2(28) of
the RERA Act. The said word "person" is further qualified as
"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 a 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
4 of 6

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.
11.

A bare perusal of the above quoted judgement makes it abundantly

clear that the complainant’s legal rights have not been infringed, and
therefore he does not have locus standi to file the present complaint
12.

However, during the hearing, it came to this Authority’s notice that

the Respondent failed to register a project admeasuring Ac 12.00 Gts in
Sy.Nos.338/A

and

Ac

39.18

Gts

in

Sy.No.340/A

at

Zaheerabad

Municipality, Sanga Reddy District. Given that the project area exceeds 500
square meters, it falls within the eligibility criteria for mandatory
registration under Section 3(2) of RE (R&D) Act, 2016. Additionally, the
encumbrance certificate submitted to the Authority revealed that plots
within the project were sold without obtaining the necessary registration.
This constitutes a clear violation of sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the RE (R&D)
Act,2016, as well as Rule 1(2) of the Telangana Real Estate Rules, 2017
making them liable for penalties under section 59 and 60 of the RE (R&D)
Act 2016.
13.

Consequently, this Authority suo moto issued a Show Cause Notice to

the Respondent, directing them to explain their actions. However, no reply
was received from the Respondent within the stipulated timeframe, resulting
in compelling this Authority to proceed in accordance with the Provisions of
the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.

F. Directions of the Authority
14.

In light of the above discussion, this Authority, vide its powers under

Sections 37 and 38, deems it appropriate to issue the following directions to
the Respondent:
a. For apparent and abject violation of sections 3(1) & 4(1), the
Respondent is liable for penalty under sections 59(1) and 60
5 of 6

and therefore, the Respondent is directed to pay Rs.11,49,210/(Rupees Elven lakhs forty nine thousand and two hundred and
Ten only) within 30 (Thirty) days to TG RERA funds through
Demand Draft or online payment to A/c No.50100595798191,
HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036;
b. The Respondent is also directed to take steps to file an
application for registration in accordance with section 4 read
with the Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules, 2017 within fifteen (15)
days;
c. Until the application, as mentioned in direction (b) is made in
accordance with law, for registration to the Respondent, the
Respondent is strictly restrained from advertise, market, book,
sell or offer for sale, or invite person/s to purchase in any
manner related to the said project situated in Sy.Nos.338/A and
340/A; and
d. Failure to comply with the directions by the Respondent as
stipulated above shall attract penalty under section 63 of the
Act,2016.

15.

Accordingly, the complaint is disposed of.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,

Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS

Hon’ble Member,

Hon’ble Member,

(Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson

TG RERA

TG RERA

TG RERA

6 of 6