Order Complaint No. 437 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.437 OF 2023
16th November 2023
Corum:

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

Sri K Chandrasekhara Reddy

…. Complainant
Versus

Sri Venkayamma
M/s Myscape Properties
Sri Arun Kabra

…. Respondents

The present matter, bearing Complaint No. 437 of 2023, was heard
before this Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, on 11th October and 9th November
2023. The hearing was conducted in the presence Respondent represented by
its Counsel and none appeared on behalf of the Complainant
2.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both parties,

this Authority hereby issues the following ORDER:

3.

This order is issued to address the complaint filed before this authority

under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the "RERD Act"), in conjunction with Rule 34(1) of
the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"). The complaint revolves around the
1 of 4

interference of property, and concurrently, the Complainant has also
represented the same matter against various authorities to take action against
the Respondent.
4.

Complainant has filed O.S. N. 552 of 2020 on the file of VIII Additional

Junior Civil Judge at Kukatpally against (1.) Smt. K. Venkayamma, (2.)
Myscape Properties PVT Ltd., (3). Arun Kabra, 4. Smt. Usha Kabra, in respect
of land measuring 2420 Sq. ds (Ac 020 gts 20 gts), in Sy. No. 02/A situated at
Nanakramguda, Serilingampally Mandal, R.R. District. The said suit is
pending. He purchased the above-mentioned extent of land through sale deed
No. COPPER 6341/98, dated 18-08-1998, and his vendor, T. Anil, purchased
the land in Sy. No. 98 part (Ac. 1-00), land in Sy. No. 99/AA measuring Ac. 024 gts, and land in Sy No. 102/A measuring Ac. 01-20 gts, through sale deed
No. 9107/1996 executed by D. Somalingam and his family members. Further,
he submits that T. Satyanarayan Singh, who is the father of his vendor T. Anil
Singh, also purchased land in Sy. No. 102/AA, measuring the Ac. 0.35 gts,
vide sale deed No. 2408/1991 dated 23-3-91 from Smt. K. Danamma and
others. Further, he submits that his vendor alienated an extent Ac. 0-20 gts
(2420) Sq. yards to him via sale deed No. 6431/98. That Smt. K.
Venkayamma and Myscape Properties Private Limited started interfering with
his possession from the North side, compelling him to file O.S. No. 552/2020.
5.

Further, he submits that suppressing all these facts and also the

pendency of O.S. No. 552/2020 on the file of VIII Additional Junior Civil
Judge, at Kukatpally, they obtained permission for construction in the abovesaid property. Therefore, he requests the cancellation of the building
permission given in respect of 2420 Sq. yds (Ac. 0-20 gts) in Sy. No. 102/A,
situated at Narayanakhed Serilingampally, (M), R.R. District, in view of the
pendency of O.S. No. 552/2020 and the suppression of the factual aspects.
6.

It has been observed that this Authority, under the RERD Act, lacks

jurisdiction to address disputes related to property interference activities
undertaken by the Respondents. Nevertheless, the Authority is of the view
that the Complainant should address their concerns regarding their
interference with the possession to the competent authority. The Complainant

2 of 4

herein has prayed this Authority to cancel the Building permissions acquired
by the Respondent for the same project. However, it is to be noted that RERA
provides only registration for the projects and not sanctions for the
construction to take place.
7.

Further, it is observed by the Authority that the Respondent, while

registering its Project under TS RERA, has disclosed about the existing
litigations and has not suppressed the pending litigants.
In the lieu of the above, it is observed by the Authority, on 11th October 2023
and 9th November 2023, wherein, the complainant failed to attend the
hearings and in its written complaint, the Authority was unable to be
convinced that a dispute between the neighboured landowner and the
registered landowner of the project, concerning land interference, falls within
the jurisdiction of this Authority. This Authority's jurisdiction extends only to
inter se disputes between the promoter and allottee. In cases of such
disputes, the complainants can seek recourse with the competent sanctioned
authorities or the civil court. It is not denied that the disputed matter is
already pending before the Civil Court between the present complainants and
the Respondent. Therefore, if the complainants perceive any form of illegal
activity on the part of the Respondent regarding their right to develop the Real
Estate project with regard to land interference or land encroachment shall
initially approach the Appropriate Authority.
8.

Hence, this Authority is of the view that the present Complainant does

not meet the criteria for classification as an "aggrieved person," as prescribed
by the provisions of the 2016 Act. This determination is grounded in the fact
that the Complainant does not fit within any of the designated categories
outlined in the Act, which encompass being an allottee, an association of
allottees, or a voluntary association. The Complainant, in this instance, has
been unable to furnish the Authority with any evidentiary support or an
authorization letter demonstrating his qualification as an aggrieved person in
accordance with the definition articulated in Section 31 of the RERD Act.
Section 31 is reproduced herein for reference:
31 (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
3 of 4

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.
Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include the
association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under
any law for the time being in force.
9.

Given the ongoing civil litigation and the nature of the dispute, this

authority is of the view that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter at
this

stage.

The

complainant's

claims

are

intertwined

with

the

civil

proceedings, and it is only appropriate for the civil court to decide on the
ownership and possession of the property.
10.

In light of the above, this authority hereby dismisses the complaint fild

on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and refers the parties to pursue their
claims through the appropriate civil court. This dismissal is without prejudice
to any rights the parties may have in the civil proceedings.
11.

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 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

4 of 4