Order Complaint No. 502 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.502 OF 2023
16th Day of November, 2023
Corum:

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

Sri G. Venkateshwara Rao

…Complainant
Versus

Sri Surabhi Venkat Reddy

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
12.10.2023 and 14.11.2023 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for the
Complainant, and none for the Respondent and upon hearing the arguments, 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 “Act”) read
with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) requesting appropriate action against
the Respondent Builder.

A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant submitted that the Complainant is plot owner of survey

numbers 174, 175, 176/2 at Kuntloor village, Abdulapurmet, Ranga Reddy
District,

1 of 2

plotted by late Sri G.V. Subba Rao out of 5 acres 37 guntas. Late Sri Surabhi Jagan
Mohan Reddy acquired the said land from his father Sri Late Surabhi Venkat
Reddy. During his life time, he appointed Sri G.V.Subba Rao as his registered G.P.A
for the said land and as such he obtained sanctioned layout and plotted the said
land and subsequently sold out to various purchasers and there after registered
plots also in the names of purchasers.

4.

That Sri Jagan Mohan Reddy died in the year 2010 thereafter his son, the

Respondent with a mala fide intention, started grabbing the said land as if he is the
legal hair of the late S. Jagan Mohan Reddy. Further, no construction is being
taken place in the said land. The Respondent is plotting the land and obtaining
requisite layout permissions make again plots by obtaining layout as if he is the
owner and therefore, the Complainant prayed that appropriate action be taken
against the Respondent in this regard.

B. Observations and Directions of the Authority:
5.

The matter was heard finally on 14.11.2023, wherein the Complainant

reiterated the contents of his Complaint. Respondent, upon Notice was absent.
Upon perusal of the Complaint and record filed, it is apparent that there is no
prayer in the Complaint. The copy of the layout shown is of the year 1969. How this
Authority has jurisdiction over the said matter is not mentioned in the complaint.
There also appears to be boundary dispute and title dispute between the parties.
The Complainant failed to plead how this Authority has jurisdiction over the
subject matter and therefore, in light of this jurisdictional deficiency, the matter is
hereby disposed of.

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

2 of 2