Order Complaint No. 229 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO. 229 OF 2024
13th December 2024

Corum:

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

Smt. Hoorunnisa Begum
W/o. Late Sri. Mir Hyder Ali Khan,
Aged 62 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o H.No.6-3-1089/C/1, "Baitul Aman",
Gulmohar Avenue, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda,

…Complainant

Hyderabad – 500 082.

Versus
M/s. Safah Constructions,
Rep. by Mohd Farhan Shaffi,
S/o Mohd Shaffi Osman,
Aged 40 years, Occupation: Managing Partner,

…Respondent

R/o 8-2-695/W/9, Road No.9, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing

on

07.08.2024

before

this

Complainant’s counsel Anitha Ahuja

Authority

in

the

presence

of

and Respondent’s counsel, Kopal

Sharraf. Upon hearing the arguments of the parties, 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 15

A. Brief Facts on behalf of the complainant:
3.

The Complainant respectfully submits that the Respondent is a

construction company represented by Mr. Mohd Farhan Shaffi, the
Managing Partner. The property in dispute is owned by the Complainant’s
spouse, Late Mir Hyder Ali Khan, and the Complainant’s sister-in-law, Mrs.
Liaqatunissa Begum. The property is located at Shaikpet village, Banjara
Hills, rear side of Road No. 14, admeasuring 2242 square yards, out of
which 1642 square yards belonged to the Complainant's spouse, and 600
square yards belonged to Mrs. Liaqatunissa Begum. The Respondent,
through illegal means, took possession of this land for development purpose.
4.

The Complainant submits that, while her spouse was in the hospital

undergoing chemotherapy, signatures were obtained on various documents
without his knowledge or consent. The Respondent took advantage of the
Complainant’s fragile emotional state and secured her spouse’s signatures
on important agreements related to the property development, which were
merged with her sister-in-law’s property under a joint agreement without
proper understanding.
5.

The Complainant states that the signatures obtained from her spouse

on the documents are invalid due to her spouse’s poor health condition at
the time, being heavily medicated. These actions by the Respondent,
obtained clandestinely, were meant to usurp the scheduled property and
deprive the Complainant and her family of their rightful ownership.
6.

The Respondent has deliberately delayed the proceedings, knowing

that the Complainant’s spouse was suffering from cancer since 2015. The
actions of the Respondent have left the Complainant and her family in a
vulnerable position, causing emotional and financial distress.
7.

The

Respondent

acted

fraudulently

by

impersonating

the

Complainant’s spouse even after his death. They continued to pursue the
property under the name of the deceased in sworn affidavits, declarations,
mortgage deeds, and rectification deeds. These documents, executed after
2 of 15

the death of the Complainant’s spouse, are invalid and violate the provisions
of the RERA Act.
8.

The Complainant submits that all title documents, forms, and

permissions related to the project, including the mortgage and rectification
deeds, executed on behalf of the Respondent should be declared null and
void. The project, known as Safah Eminence, should be reverted to the
Complainant and her family as they are the rightful owners.
9.

The Respondent fraudulently registered the project under false

affidavits and declarations using the name of a deceased person. The project
was registered under RERA on 30/03/2021 with the registration No:P02500002719, valid until 09/11/2024, based on these false declarations.
The registration is in direct violation of the RE(R&D) Act and must be set
aside by the Appellate Authority.
10.

The Complainant filed several complaints and representations but was

ignored by the authorities. Despite multiple follow-ups and court orders, no
concrete action has been taken by the concerned authorities. The
Complainant has faced delays due to non-availability of officers and other
procedural issues.
B. Reliefs sought:
11.

In view of the facts mentioned in paragraph 4 above, the complainant

prays for the following reliefs:
a. To declare the registration certificate bearing Regn No. P02500002719
as null and void, thereby cancelling the same, and consequently
directing the Respondent to hand over the project to the complainant.
b. To impose a penalty on the Respondent for violating the provisions of
the RE(R&D) Act, specifically for obtaining the revised building
permission without the consent of the flat owners and for deviating
from the sanctioned plan, in contravention of Section 14 of RE(R&D)
Act.

3 of 15

c. To compensate the complainant for the delay in completing the project
and for using substandard materials and products that deviate from
the specifications mentioned in the Agreement of Sale and Prospectus.
d. To appoint an expert committee to ascertain the total livable area and
common area of the project, ensuring that the Respondent is held
accountable for overcharging the allottees for the common area.
e. To conduct an enquiry into the diversion of funds paid by the allottees,
which were misused for the commercial blocks owned by the Respondents,
instead of completing the residential project as per the agreement.
f. And to pass such other orders as this Honourable Authority may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.
C. Interim Orders:
12.

Complainant prayed for the following interim relief:
a. Restrain the Respondent from proceeding with further construction on the
scheduled premises bearing No. 8-2-309/7/5, Plot No.3, Shaikpet Village,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.
b. Restrain the Respondent from advertising or selling the constructed units of
the project or alienating the property in any other manner until the final
decision of this complaint.
c. Restrain the Respondent from issuing occupancy certificates or obtaining
any further permission until the project is reverted to the complainant.
d. Call for the records of bank accounts of the Respondent in relation to the
project and ensure that the accounts book and financial statements, duly
certified by a chartered accountant, are submitted for inspection, as
required under Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act.

D. Reply on behalf of the Respondent:
13.

It is submitted that the Complainant has approached this Hon'ble Authority

by suppressing material facts and with unclean hands. The Complaint is not
maintainable under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, and the Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017, and is liable to be dismissed.

4 of 15

14.

It is submitted that all allegations made by the Complainant in the

Complaint are denied as false and baseless, except what is specifically admitted
herein. No averment in the Complaint shall be deemed to be admitted by the
Respondent for want of specific traverse. The Complainant has approached this
Hon'ble Authority with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts, and
therefore has no locus standi to maintain the present Complaint.
15.

It is submitted that the Complaint is not maintainable under the provisions

of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Telangana
State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 ("RERA Rules"). The
Complainant has failed to establish any right or entitlement to seek relief under
RERA.
16.

Vide the registered Development Agreement cum General Power of Attorney

(GPA) dated 14.10.2014 (Registered Doc No. 1712 of 2015), Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan
gave the property bearing No. H.No.8-2-309/7/5 in Survey No. 129/81,
admeasuring 1642 sq. yds., situated at Shaikpet Village, Banjara Hills, Road
No.14, for development to the Respondent.
17.

As per the terms of the Development Agreement, Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan was

entitled to a 33.33% share of the developed area, while the Respondent retained a
66.67% share of the developed area. Thereafter, with the Respondent’s consent, Mr.
Mir Hyder Ali Khan sold his entire share of 33.33% in the Property to Mr. Mohd
Shaffi Osman, vide Sale Deed dated 23.06.2015 (Registered Doc No. 3172 of 2015)
for a sale consideration of Rs. 3,01,40,000/-. Consequently, neither Mr. Mir Hyder
Ali Khan nor any person claiming under him has any interest in the Property.
18.

The Complainant has deliberately suppressed the fact that Mr. Mir Hyder Ali

Khan had already alienated his entire interest in the Property via the Sale Deed
dated 23.06.2015. The Sale Deed was placed before the Hon'ble High Court of
Telangana in W.P No. 23248 of 2022, but the Complainant continues to suppress
this fact in the present proceedings before this Hon'ble Authority.
19.

In light of the above, the Complainant has no locus to maintain the present

Complaint. A copy of the Sale Deed dated 23.06.2015 is filed and copies of the Writ
Affidavit and Counter Affidavit filed by the Complainant in W.P No. 23248 of 2022.

5 of 15

20.

The Complainant has falsely alleged that the Respondent has impersonated

Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan and that the Respondent lacks the authority to register the
project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ("RERA"). It
is submitted that Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan passed away on 24.02.2016, as evidenced
by the Death Certificate filed by the Complainant herself, which is after he had sold
his interest in the Property to Mr. Mohd. Shaffi Osman.
21.

The assertion that the project registration was obtained based on a false

declaration of a deceased person is wholly incorrect and malicious. The
Complainant’s averments regarding the "payment schedule" are equally false, as no
such schedule exists in the Development Agreement.
22.

The Respondent, as the valid Power of Attorney holder under the

Development Agreement cum GPA, was authorized to represent Mr. Mir Hyder Ali
Khan before all statutory authorities. This includes signing declarations, forms,
affidavits, and other documents necessary for obtaining the required permissions
for the Property.
23.

As per Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, where the agent has an

interest in the property subject to the agency, the agency cannot be terminated to
the prejudice of such interest. Therefore, the agency of the Respondent did not
terminate upon the death of Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan.
24.

The Complainant is attempting to interfere with the development of the

Property, despite having no locus standi. She seeks to unjustly enrich herself by
claiming rights over the project after having acknowledged the sale of Mr. Mir
Hyder Ali Khan’s interest through a legal notice dated 16.06.2021, to which the
Respondent replied on 28.06.2021. The Complainant is now suppressing both the
notice and reply in her current submissions.
25.

It is further submitted that the project has already received the Occupancy

Certificate on 20.01.2023 (Annexure R-6). The Complainant’s relief seeking
cancellation of the Occupancy Certificate is infructuous and cannot be entertained
at this stage.
26.

The Complainant has falsely alleged that the Respondent impersonated Mr.

Mir Hyder Ali Khan and filed a false declaration. The Death Certificate shows that
Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan passed away on 24.02.2016, after selling his 33.33%
6 of 15

interest in the Property. Therefore, the allegations of false declarations are blatantly
false.
27.

The Complaint is an attempt to unjustly enrich the Complainant, who has

no legal standing, by suppressing material facts. The Complainant’s repeated
misstatements and vague allegations regarding the payment schedule and
registered development agreement are unfounded.
28.

It is submitted that the Complainant had issued a legal notice dated

16.06.2021 to the Respondent, acknowledging the Sale Deed dated 23.06.2015,
while making false claims about additional construction. The Respondent replied
on 28.06.2021, clarifying that no additional construction had been made and that
Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan had no remaining interest in the Property.
29.

In light of the above, the Complainant has no locus to maintain the present

Complaint, and the reliefs sought are not maintainable. The Respondent has validly
obtained the required Occupancy Certificate for the Project, and the Complainant's
claim that the project registration should be declared null and void is entirely
without merit. It is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Authority be pleased to
I.

Dismiss the Complaint with costs, and

II.

Pass such further orders as this Hon'ble Authority deems fit and proper in
the interest of justice.

E. Rejoinder to the reply of respondents
30.

The Complainant denies the Respondent’s assertion regarding the existence

of an unregistered gift deed dated 27/08/1987, as referenced in the Development
Agreement cum GPA dated 14/10/2014 (Registered Doc No. 1712/2015). There
was no valid Development Agreement cum GPA executed in 2014 or thereafter. The
Respondent's claims are based on an ante-dated and legally void document, and no
rights flow to the Respondent or his father from this document.
31.

The Complainant denies that her late husband, Mir Hyder Ali Khan,

executed a registered sale deed selling his 33.33% share in the Property to Mohd.
Shaffi Osman, as claimed by the Respondent in the alleged sale deed (Registered
Doc No. 3172/2015). This sale deed is false and denied, as no super built-up area

7 of 15

existed in 2014 or 2015 to be sold. No permissions were obtained from GHMC, and
no construction had commenced, making the sale deed illegal, null, and void.
32.

The Complainant denies that her late husband alienated his entire interest

in the Property, and further denies the Respondent’s assertion that the
Complainant suppressed this fact. The Complainant was unaware of the execution
of any such documents, and the Respondent's claim is without merit.
33.

The Hon'ble High Court observed that the Complainant has the right to

approach this Hon'ble Authority under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016, for revocation of the registration certificate. The
Complainant has diligently pursued this matter, and her rights remain intact. Any
claims by the Respondent suggesting undue delay are false and baseless.
34.

The Respondent fraudulently impersonated the Complainant's late husband

after his demise and wrongfully registered the project in his name without the
Complainant's knowledge. This illegal registration must be declared null and void
by this Hon'ble Authority, as the Respondent's actions constitute fraud.
35.

The Respondent has submitted false affidavits and fabricated documents, to

this Hon'ble Authority. These documents were submitted fraudulently, and the
Respondent's actions should be declared unlawful.
36.

At the time when these documents were allegedly executed, late Mir Hyder

Ali Khan was suffering from severe cancer and undergoing chemotherapy. He was
heavily medicated and in no condition to understand or execute any documents.
37.

The Respondent obtained these documents without the knowledge of the

Complainant or her sons, during the critical illness of her husband, who passed
away on 24/02/2016. The Respondent’s actions are deceitful and should be
deemed void.
38.

The registered development agreement is fraudulent as it lacks any payment

made to the Complainant's spouse. In a normal development agreement,
substantial advance payments are made, but in this case, no such payment
occurred. The Respondent did not fulfill the terms of the agreement, and thus, no
contractual rights arise from this document.

8 of 15

39.

The Complainant asserts that the alleged sale deed is incorrect and that no

amounts were paid as stated in the document. There was no construction on the
Property at the time, and thus no rights or authority flow to the Respondent or his
father from the development agreement or sale deed.
40.

The Respondent's claims that the registered documents (sale deed and

development agreement cum GPA) are valid and legally binding are misleading.
Neither document provides any legal rights or authority to the Respondent or his
father. Both the sale deed and the development agreement are void from the outset
and cannot confer any legal standing to the Respondent.
41.

The Complainant prays that the registration certificate issued to the

Respondent by this Hon'ble Authority be declared null and void, as no valid
documents exist before or after her husband’s demise that would grant the
Respondent any legal rights to claim the Property. The Respondent’s rights, if any,
are nullified, and the registration certificate should be revoked accordingly.
(Ref: Para 7 of Respondent's reply)
42.

The Respondent had no right or authority to sign declarations, forms, or

statements required by RERA or GHMC on behalf of the Complainant's late
husband. The permissions obtained by the Respondent through these false
representations must be revoked by this Hon'ble Authority.
43.

The Complainant and her sons did not benefit from the alleged 33.33%

share in the Property as claimed by the Respondent. No construction of the super
built-up area existed in 2015, and no payments were made to the Complainant's
spouse. Therefore, the Respondent’s defence based on this false assertion is
without merit.
44.

In view of the above submissions, the Complainant prays that this Hon'ble

Authority dismiss the Respondent's claims based on fraudulent documents. The
registration certificate issued to the Respondent must be revoked, and all reliefs
sought by the Complainant should be granted in full.
F. Observations of the Authority:
45.

The complainant additionally submitted that due to non availability of the

officers in this Authority in the year 2021, the complainants were constrained to
9 of 15

file WP 23248/2022 in which the Hon’ble High court disposed of the matter stating
“ the aforesaid provisions governing the field make it very clear that for revocation
of certificate of registration, there is a remedy provided under the Act. Therefore
writ petition stands disposed of with a liberty to take shelter of the provisions of the
Act read with rules framed thereunder”.
46.

Learned counsel for the complainant and respondent has filed brief written

arguments.
47.

On the basis of rival contentions of the parties and law on the subject, the

point that arise for consideration in this case is as under:48.

Point no. 1: Whether the Present Complaint is Maintainable Before the

Authority?
1. The present case requires the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) to
adjudicate the maintainability of a Complaint filed by Smt. Hoorunnisa Begum
(the Complainant) against Mr. Mohd Shaffi Osman (the Respondent). The
Complaint arises from a property dispute related to a Sale Deed executed by
the Complainant’s late husband, Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan, who transferred his
33.33% share in a property to the Respondent through a registered Sale Deed
dated 23.06.2015. The Complainant is challenging the transaction on the
grounds that she was unaware of the sale and that her husband’s interest in
the property should not have been fully transferred without her knowledge or
consent. The Respondent, on the other hand, maintains that the Complaint is
not maintainable before this Authority for several reasons, including the
Complainant’s lack of locus standi, her inability to claim interest in a property
legally transferred via the Sale Deed, and the absence of any breach of
obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(RERA).
2. The facts underpinning this case are central to determining its maintainability.
Smt. Hoorunnisa Begum is the widow of Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan, who was a
co-owner of the property in dispute, holding a 33.33% share. On 23.06.2015,
Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan executed a Sale Deed transferring his share of the
property to the Respondent, Mr. Mohd Shaffi Osman. This Sale Deed was duly
registered as Document No. 3172 of 2015, signifying the legal transfer of Mr.
Hyder Ali Khan’s interest in the property to the Respondent. Following the
10 of 15

death of her husband, the Complainant has sought to challenge the legality of
the Sale Deed, alleging that it was executed without her knowledge and that
she retains a claim to the property.
3. However, the Respondent has consistently maintained that the Sale Deed was
executed lawfully and that, upon its execution, all interest in the property
previously held by Mr. Mir Hyder Ali Khan was extinguished. As a result, the
Respondent contends that the Complainant has no valid claim to the property,
as she has inherited no interest in it following her husband’s sale. In addition,
the Respondent argues that the Complaint does not meet the jurisdictional
requirements under RERA, as it pertains to property ownership and title
disputes rather than matters falling under the regulatory framework of RERA,
which is focused on protecting homebuyers and ensuring the proper conduct
of developers in real estate projects.
4. The Respondent’s key argument against the maintainability of the Complaint
rests on the Complainant’s lack of locus standi. Locus standi refers to the legal
standing or capacity of a party to bring an action before the court or regulatory
authority. The principle is founded on the idea that only those individuals who
are directly affected by a legal issue or have a personal stake in the matter are
entitled to pursue legal remedies. In the present case, the Respondent asserts
that the Complainant lacks locus standi because her husband, Mr. Mir Hyder
Ali Khan, lawfully transferred his interest in the property to the Respondent
through the Sale Deed. Once the Sale Deed was executed, Mr. Hyder Ali Khan
no longer held any legal interest in the property, and therefore, after his death,
there was no interest left for the Complainant to inherit or claim.
5. The Respondent further contends that the Complainant does not qualify as an
"aggrieved person" as defined under Section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act. Under this
section, only an aggrieved person can file a Complaint with the Regulatory
Authority against a promoter or developer for any violations of the provisions
of RE(R&D) Act or its TG RERA Rules. In the Respondent’s view, the
Complainant does not meet the definition of an aggrieved person because she
is not an allottee, homebuyer, or stakeholder in the project. Instead, her
claims pertain to the ownership and title of the property, which are matters
best suited for adjudication by a civil court, and beyond the scope of RERA.
The Respondent emphasizes that RERA’s jurisdiction is limited to real estate
development projects and transactions between promoters and buyers, and it
does not extend to disputes over the validity of Sale Deeds or ownership rights.
11 of 15

6. Additionally, the Respondent highlights that the Complainant’s allegations of
fraud in the execution of the Sale Deed are without merit and unsupported by
evidence. The Sale Deed was executed voluntarily and lawfully, and the
Complainant has not provided any proof of coercion, undue influence, or
misrepresentation in the transaction. In cases involving allegations of fraud,
the burden of proof lies on the party making the allegations, and mere
assertions of wrongdoing are insufficient to invalidate a validly executed legal
document. The Respondent points to case law that supports this view, such as
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1], where the Supreme
Court held that fraud must be clearly established by the party alleging it, and
vague or unsubstantiated claims cannot form the basis for annulling a
transaction.
7. In order to assess the maintainability of the Complaint, it is essential to
examine the relevant statutory provisions under the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016. Section 31 of RE(R&D) Act provides that an
"aggrieved person" may file a Complaint with the Regulatory Authority
regarding any contravention or violation of the said Act’s provisions by the
promoter or developer. The said Act is primarily aimed at protecting the
interests of homebuyers and regulating the behaviour of real estate developers
to ensure transparency, accountability, and timely completion of real estate
projects.
8. The term "aggrieved person" is crucial for determining who can file a
Complaint under RERA. Although the said Act does not provide a precise
definition, the phrase has generally been interpreted to include homebuyers,
allottees, and stakeholders who are directly affected by the actions or
omissions of the promoter in relation to the real estate project. It is important
to note that RERA was not designed to adjudicate disputes over property
ownership or title, which fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts.
9. The powers of the Regulatory Authority under RE(R&D) Act are also limited to
specific actions, such as imposing penalties on promoters for failing to comply
with the said Act’s provisions, revoking the registration of real estate projects,
and ensuring the protection of buyers’ rights. Section 7 of the RE(R&D) Act
allows the Regulatory Authority to revoke the registration of a project if the
promoter defaults in complying with the obligations under the said Act.
However, such revocation can only occur if there is a breach of RE(R&D)
provisions, such as failure to complete the project, mismanagement of funds,
12 of 15

or violation of the terms of the agreement between the promoter and the buyer.
In the present case, the Complainant has not provided any evidence of such
breaches, making her demand for revocation of the project’s registration legally
unsustainable.
10. Indian courts have consistently upheld the principle of locus standi and have
provided guidance on the application of this doctrine in various legal contexts,
including under RERA. One of the leading cases on locus standi is Ayaaub
khan Noor khan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra &Ors. [(2013) 4 SCC
465], where the Supreme Court held that locus standi is a jurisdictional issue
that must be satisfied before a party can be heard. The Court emphasized that
only individuals who have a direct interest or substantial connection to the
matter are entitled to pursue legal action. In the context of the present case,
the Complainant lacks a direct interest in the property following the execution
of the Sale Deed by her husband, which eliminates her locus standi to
maintain the Complaint.
11. Another case that is very similar to the present case is Arun Porob Mambro
and Wides Properties and Holdings vs. GERA Development Pvt. Ltd [Case
No.: F. No. 3/RERA/Complaint (152)/2020/561]- This case, filed under Section
7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, was brought
before

the

Real

Estate

Regulatory

Authority

(RERA)

in Goa

by

the

complainants, Arun Porob Mambro and Wides Properties and Holdings. The
complainants sought the revocation of the RERA registration granted to the
respondent, GERA Development Pvt. Ltd., on the grounds that the respondent
had no legal title to the property in question and had obtained RERA
registration by submitting false and fraudulent documents.The complainants
alleged that the respondent had falsely claimed ownership of the disputed
property, supporting their argument with a detailed history of how the
property had devolved to their family. They contended that the title report
submitted by the respondent to RERA was fabricated and thus amounted to
fraud on both the Authority and prospective buyers. Based on this, the
complainants sought to revoke the registration granted to the respondent's
project, asserting that the respondent’s actions amounted to fraudulent
practices under the RE(R&D) Act.In response, GERA Development Pvt. Ltd.
maintained that they had legally acquired the property and held valid
ownership rights. The respondent pointed out that the complainants had filed
multiple civil suits regarding the title of the property, all of which were still
13 of 15

pending before civil courts. They argued that the Goa RERA Authority was not
competent to adjudicate disputes relating to the ownership or title of the
property, as these matters fell under the jurisdiction of civil courts.
12. Upon reviewing the case, the Goa RERA Authority observed that while the
complainants claimed ownership of the disputed property, they had not
presented any declaration from a competent civil court affirming their
ownership. The Authority reiterated that it lacked the jurisdiction to rule on
ownership disputes or to question the validity of title documents, which were
issues reserved for civil courts. Without a court declaration confirming that the
complainants had ownership rights over the property, the Authority could not
take action to revoke the respondent's registration on the basis of the alleged
fraud.
13. As a result, the Goa RERA Authority dismissed the complaint, concluding that
the claims of fraud could only be substantiated if a civil court declared that the
respondent did not have legal title to the property. The complainants were
advised to seek such a declaration from a civil court before approaching the
RERA Authority for further action. Accordingly, the request for revocation of
the RERA registration was denied, and the case was dismissed on the grounds
that it was not maintainable before RERA in its current form.In conclusion,
the complaint was rejected, with the RERA Authority stating that it was
beyond its jurisdiction to decide on ownership disputes, leaving the
complainants to pursue their claims in a civil court before taking any further
action under the RE(R&D) Act.
14. Based on the statutory provisions and judicial precedents discussed above, it
is evident that the present Complaint is not maintainable before the Real
Estate Regulatory Authority. First, the Complainant lacks locus standi to bring
the Complaint because she has no direct or substantial interest in the
property after her husband sold his 33.33% share to the Respondent. The Sale
Deed, executed on 23.06.2015, represents a complete and final transfer of
interest, and the Complainant has not demonstrated any legal basis for her
claim to the property.
15. Second, the Complainant’s claims fall outside the scope of RE(R&D) Act, as
they pertain to the validity of the Sale Deed and allegations of fraud. These are
issues of property ownership and title, which are best adjudicated by civil
courts, beyond the scope of RERA. The primary purpose of RERA is to ensure
transparency in real estate transactions, and protect the interests of
14 of 15

homebuyers. It does not have the jurisdiction to resolve disputes over property
title or ownership.
16. Finally, the Complainant has not provided any evidence of a breach of
RE(R&D)Act provisions by the Respondent. Her request for the revocation of
the project’s registration under Section 7 of RE(R&D) is not supported by any
facts or legal arguments that would justify such an action. The project’s
registration can only be revoked if the promoter fails to comply with the
obligations under RE(R&D) Act, such as delays in project completion or
misappropriation of funds, neither of which has been demonstrated in this
case. Further the Occupancy certificate is already issued by the competent
authority- Planning & Development control Authority categorising the said
project is completed.
17. In conclusion, the present Complaint is not maintainable before the Real
Estate Regulatory Authority. The Complainant lacks the necessary locus
standi to file the Complaint, as she has no direct interest in the property
following the execution of the Sale Deed by her late husband. Additionally, the
claims raised by the Complainant relate to issues of property ownership and
title, which fall outside the jurisdiction of this Authority. As such, the
Complaint is dismissed at the threshold for lack of maintainability.
46.

In light of the above findings, the present complaint stands dismissed.

47.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

15 of 15