Order Complaint No. 414 Of 2022

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.414 OF 2022
30th Day of December, 2023
Corum:

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

Smt. D. Ramadevi

…Complainant
Versus

M/s EIPL Projects

…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing
on 15.07.2023, 17.08.2023 and 09.08.2023 before this Authority in the
presence of Dr. D. Ramadevi, the Complainant, the Complainant, and Sri K
Manoj Kumar on behalf of the Respondent and upon hearing the arguments of
both the parties, this Authority passes the following ORDER:
A. Facts of the Complaint:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant above-named

vide her representation dated 13.07.2022 addressed to this Authority praying
for taking necessary action against Sri P Reddisekhar Reddy, representative of
M/s EIPL Projects for not allotting car parking spaces to the Complainant as
per the National Building Code, 2005.

2.

That the case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant is the

owner of Flat C 306 at Apila Apartments, Narsingi (hereinafter referred to as the

1 of 6

“Project”). She purchased the said flat with 2 (two) car parking spaces from the
Respondent herein. That the HMDA accorded technical approval to the said
Project on 19.01.2018 with certain conditions which specifically obliges the
Respondent, under condition no.13, to comply with provisions of the National
Building Code, 2005. Further, this Authority granted registration to the Project
on 16.01.2019 and the representative of the Respondent submitted all the
details with regard to the Project including, specifically, the plan of car parking
spaces.

3.

She submits that the Respondent allotted 2 (two) car parking spaces

which are 15 ft 1 inch in length and 7 ft 4 inches in width each. She states
that, as per the National Building Code, 2005, the car parking space to be
provided must not be less than 13.75 sq meters (148.004 sq ft) i.e., 5.24 meters
length and 2.6 meters width [17 ft 2 inches (length) x 8 ft 6 inches (width)].

4.

She further submits that the number of car parking spaces to be

provided in the Project are 788 as per the plan submitted by the Respondent
before this Authority but more than 810 car parking spaces were allotted. That
also, she submitted representations to the in-charge of maintenance wing,
APILA on 18.12.2021 and 29.01.2022, however no action was taken. A similar
representation was also submitted to Sri P. Reddisekhar Reddy, authorized
person for the Respondent and to HMDA, but to no avail.

5.

Aggrieved by this, the Complainant approached the Hon’ble High Court of

Telangana at Hyderabad vide Writ Petition No.41006/2022, wherein, vide Order
dated 14.11.2022, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to direct this Authority to

2 of 6

consider the representation filed by the Complainant herein. Accordingly, the
present complaint is being considered on merits.

6.

Along with the said Representation, the Complainant also submitted the

following documents:
(a) Letter dated 18.12.2021 addressed to in-charge of maintenance wing, APILA
(b) Letter dated 29.01.2021 addressed to in-charge of maintenance wing, APILA
(c) HMDA Technical Approval Letter dated 19.01.2018
(d)

Proceedings

of

Executive

Officer,

Gram

Panchayat,

Narsingi

dated

02.06.2018
(e) TS RERA Registration Certificate dated 16.01.2019
(f) Details of project particulars furnished by M/s EIPL Projects to TS RERA
including car parking spaces
(g) Letter dated 30.03.2022 addressed to Sri P Reddisekhar Reddy

B. Reply on behalf of the Respondent:
7.

That this Authority issued Notice dated 23.05.2023 directing the

Respondent to submit its reply to the contentions raised by the Complainant
along with Architect Certificate certifying the area and measurements provided
for car parking in respect of Flat No. C 306. And, vide Reply dated 03.07.2023,
the Respondent only submitted that as per specifications under the Sale Deed,
Flat bearing No. C 306 consisting of 2160 sq ft including the common areas
with double car parking has been handed over to the complainant. He further
submitted that such car parking is as per HMDA norms and therefore, the
complaint is frivolous. Along with the reply, he filed a photograph of the parking
space assigned to the complainant where 2 cars are parked. Vide another Reply

3 of 6

dated 07.09.2022, the Respondent reiterated that the car parking space had
been allotted to Flat C-306 owner, Smt. D. Ramadevi as per the HMDA norms.
It is pertinent to note that the Respondent did not file Architect’s Certificate
certifying the area and measurements provided for car parking along with its
Reply.

C. Points for consideration:
8.

After consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case,

the following issues arise for adjudication:
(i) Whether the Respondent Builder has violated Section 14(1) by virtue of
not complying with the mandatory conditions under the Approval Layout
plan issued by the HMDA?
(ii) Whether the Complainant’s relief, as prayed for, be granted? If yes, to
what extent?

Point (i)
9.

Admittedly, the HMDA has accorded Occupancy Certificate to the Project

on 25.05.2021 and in the said Certificate it is clearly mentioned that “the
Owners/Builder/Developer/Licensed

Architect/Engineer/Structural

Engineer

have given the Building Completion Notice that the Building has been completed
as per the specifications of Sanctioned Plans and it is declared that the building
conforms in all respects to the requirements of the building regulations contained
under the statutory provisions in the respective Municipal Act and Building Bye
Laws/Rules issued by the Govt.” And further that “this is to certify that the
building has been inspected and is declared fit for occupation.” This establishes
that the HMDA has scrupulously inspected the Project premises and

4 of 6

accordingly certified the same to be fit for occupation which in turn signifies
that the sanction has been followed in stricto senso. It is also pertinent to note
herein that the description of the Building in the Occupancy Certificate issued
by HMDA is as per the sanction plan including the parking area.

10.

Therefore, the Respondent has not violated Section 14 (1) of the Act, as

the Occupancy Certificate duly certifies that the Building is as per the Sanction
Plan issued by the HMDA.

Point (ii)
11.

As far as the relief is concerned, this Authority has considered the facts

and circumstances and hereby brings to the notice of the Complainant that the
Authority has registered the Project as per the sanctioned plan & proceedings
given by HMDA and since the Occupancy Certificate is issued to the Project, it
is presumed that the said conditions have been inspected carefully and followed
in accordance with the Sanction Plan.

12.

In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention that Clause 15 of the

G.O.Ms No.168 dated 07.04.2012 under sub-clause (a)(iv) particularly states
that “the parking requirements shall comply as given in these rules. The parking
facilities and vehicles driveways etc. shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the
Sanctioning Authority.” Hence, as the Sanctioning Authority has already
certified the Building to be in consonance with the applicable rules and the
sanctioned plan, therefore no violation of Section 14 arises on part of the
Respondent Builder.

5 of 6

13.

Therefore, in light of the above discussions, the present matter is

disposed of.

14.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate

Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Dt.11-01-2018, the Telangana State
Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act till the regular Tribunal
is established) within 60 days from the date of receipt of this Order.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon'ble Chairperson,
TS RERA

6 of 6