Order Complaint No. 313 of 2024
Order Details
| Order Type | TG-RERA Authority |
|---|---|
| Complaint/Case Number | Complaint No. 313 of 2024 |
| Year | 2024 |
| Order Category | Regular Order |
| Order Date | 17 Oct 2025 |
| Complainant | Venkateswara Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013. |
| Respondent | Hyderabad, Telangana- 500096. |
| PDF Document | Download PDF BU_181025162425786.pdf |
Full Order Text
BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 17th October, 2025
Quorum:
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO. 313/2024/TGRERA
1. Smt. Bhatter Madhavilatha
2. Mr. Pradeep Bhattar
H.No: 2-3-685/5 & 5/1, Flat 103, Sheela apts,
Venkateswara Nagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad-500013.
…Complainants
Versus
1. Bhuvanteza Infra Projects Pvt Ltd,
#201, 2nd floor, Lumbini Amruta Chambers,
Nagarjuna circle, Rd:3,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500082
2. Mr. Jerripothula Phane Bhushana Rao,
Flat # 301, SR Mansion Apartments, Road No. 70,
Plot 75, HUDA Enclave, Aswini Layout,
Prashasan Nagar, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana- 500096.
3. Mr.Chekka Venkata Subramanya,
Flat C-110, Jayabheri orange county, Road; 2,
Financial district, Nanakramguda,
Telangana- 500032.
4. Mrs. Bhagya Lakshmi Chekka,
Flat C-110, Jayabheri orange county, Road; 2,
Financial district, Nanakramguda,
Telangana-500032.
5.Mr. Jerripothula Raj Kumar,
Flat # 301, SR Mansion Apartments, Road No. 70,
Plot 75, HUDA Enclave, Aswini Layout,
Prashasan Nagar, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana- 500096.
…Respondents
Page 1 of 3
This 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 Respondents.
3.
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 04.02.2025, the Complainant appeared
and the Respondents were absent. The Complainants were directed to effect personal service
of notice upon the Respondents. The matter was next listed on 11.03.2025, on which date the
Complainants, appearing online, submitted that they had served notice upon Respondents No.
3 and 4. It was further stated that the remaining Respondents, namely No. 1, 2, and 5, had either
refused to accept the notice or were not found at the given addresses. It is pertinent to note that
no proof of service was filed by the Complainants on the said date.
4.
The matter was subsequently listed on 09.04.2025, on which date none appeared for
either of the parties. In view of the non-representation, the hearing was adjourned, and
directions were issued for fresh notice to be served upon all parties. Thereafter, the Complaint
was again listed on 10.06.2025. On this subsequent date as well, there was no representation
from either side. The record indicates that no written submissions were filed, nor was any
explanation furnished to this Authority for the continued non-appearance.
5.
As a matter of due process, this Authority granted a final opportunity and again directed
issuance of fresh notices to both parties.
6.
The matter was finally posted for hearing on 11.07.2025. On the said date also, there
was no appearance from the complainant or any of the respondents. The records reveal that
notice issued to the complainant was served. However, notices addressed to the respondents
were returned unserved.
7.
Despite being aware of the scheduled hearings and having been served with notice, the
complainant has consistently failed to appear before this Authority or to take any steps toward
prosecuting the matter. The repeated non-appearance, without explanation, despite being
afforded multiple opportunities, indicates a clear lack of interest and diligence on the part of
the complainant.
Page 2 of 3
In view of the above factual circumstances and in the interest of judicial discipline and
fairness, this Authority is of the considered opinion that adequate and reasonable opportunities
have already been extended to the complainant. No further purpose will be served by keeping
the matter pending indefinitely.
9.
Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution.
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 3 of 3
Related Orders
Interim Order Complaint No.228 of 2025
Rangareddy, Telangana, 500077)Order Complaint No. 386 of 2025
Koti, Hyderabad-500027.Order Complaint No. 153 of 2024
Telangana – 500011.Order Complaint No. 152 of 2024
Telangana – 500011.Order Complaint No. 151 of 2024
Telangana – 500011.Need Complete Property Verification?
Get ownership details, EC records, survey sketch, zone checks, geo-insights & AI analysis - all in one place