Order Complaint No. 535 Of 2023

`BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.535 OF 2023
30th Day of March 2024
Corum:

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

1. Sri Sesha Sai Lingamguntla
2. Sri Shyam Sunder
3. Smt. Venkata Satya Bhavani
4. Sri Prabhakar Goud
5. Sri Pentam Shankaraiah

…Complainants
Versus

1. M/s Infocity Builders
2. Sri P. Ramesh
3. Sri G. Deepti
4. Smt. K. Ramadevi
5. Smt. K. Chilakamma
6. Sri G. V. Ramana
7. Sri M. Buchi Babu
8. Sri L. V. Subbaiah
9. Sri Ch. Venkata Ratnam
10. Sri B. Sarojini Devi
11. Sri Sujithkumar Ananthula
12. Sri Surna Srisailam
13. Sri Kothapalli Veerendhar
14. Smt. Masetti Mounika
15. Sri Konagala Ranjith
16. Smt. Nandi Swathi
17. Ms.Gunapati Sandhya
18. Smt. Anjani Kumari Perla
19. Smt. Chandana Imadisetty
20. Sri Goda Vishnu Mohan
21. Sri Raja Sekhar Pula Venkata
22. Sri Kovelapudi Prasad

…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
17.10.2023, 08.11.2023 and 23.11.2023 before this Authority in the presence of
Counsel for the Complainant, Sri K. Anirudh Reddy & Sri Drupad and Managing

1 of 18

Partner of the Respondent No.1 Builder, Sri U. Balaswamy and none for the
remaining Respondents despite service of notice hence, set ex-parte, 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.

Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainants submit that they are the owners and possessors of parcel

of lands in Sy.No.44/1 situated at Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District. The details are enumerated as follows:
S.No.

4.

Name of the Owner

Extent in Sq Yds

1.

Lingamguntla Seshasai

150

Sale Deed
No.
13038/89

2.

Shyam Sundar

208.33

9987/2001

3.

Venkata Satya Bhavani

300

3724/1998

4.

Prabhakar Goud

133.33

5294/2005

5.

Pentam Shankaraiah

200

1686/2005

Doc.

That they have been in continuous possession of the property and while the

things stood thus, one Sri P.Ramesh S / o Late Shivaiah, without having valid title
and original documents have entered into a Development Agreement with M / s
Infocity Builders, a partnership firm represented by its partner Sri U Balaswamy.

2 of 18

5.

That after entering into the said DAGPA, M/s Infocity Builders have

fraudulently obtained building permission from GHMC by suppressing material facts
and with fabricated documents vide permit Dt.20.05.2019 No.1/C21/07924/2019,
in File no.1 / C 12/17580 / 2017 and subsequently obtained RERA registration vide
No.P02200000674, Dt.29.04.2019 for their project "Infocity Emerald". On perusal of
the details mentioned on the TSRERA website, it is found that the said builder did
not update court case details on the subject land and has mentioned "NO" under the
court case tab in the application submitted to RERA thus violated Rule 14 (1)(a)(iii)
of the Rules, 2017 by not mentioning/uploading court case details in the online
application.

6.

The Complainants approached the GHMC office and lodged a complaint

against the Respondents for obtaining building permission with fabricated
documents. A Writ Petition was filed against the GHMC and other unofficial
respondents praying the Hon'ble High Court to direct the GHMC to take necessary
action in the matter. After careful examination of the project by the court monitored
committee and the GHMC, the GHMC cancelled the building permission granted in
favour of the Sri P.Ramesh & others and M/s Infocity Builders and also consequently
cancelled LRS granted to them vide Proceedings.No.1/C12/17580/2017/21,
Dt.07.01.2020 under Section 450 of the GHMC Act on the grounds of
misrepresentation and suppression of facts.

7.

Further, in W.P.No.6252 of 2020 filed by Sri P. Ramesh and others against

the Complainants, the Hon'ble High Court has passed status quo orders,
Dt.21.04.2020 directing the petitioners (Sri P. Ramesh & others) not to carry out any
construction on the subject schedule land until further orders. However, the said
petitioners (Sri P. Ramesh & others) in utter disregard of the status quo orders have

3 of 18

carried out construction and sale activities. Aggrieved by this, Sri A. Natarajan (one
of the landowners & Complainant) has filed a contempt case vide CC.No.7 of 2021
against Sri P. Ramesh and others for violating the status quo orders, Dt.21.04.2020
in W.P.No.6252 of 2020 which is pending for adjudication.

8.

Furthermore, it is submitted that on a parallel track, aggrieved by the

fraudulent acts of Respondent No.1 Builder, the Complainant filed individual suits
vide OS Nos. 349, 350, 351, 445, 529, 818 of 2010 & OS No.225 of 2011 against Sri
P.Ramesh, M.Pentesh and Chintapatla Kondal Ro before XIV Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, LB Nagar seeking declaration of title and
recovery of possession wherein a common judgment was passed in the said suits on
03.10.2018 dismissing the suits. Aggrieved by the dismissal of suits we have filed
Appeal Suits vide AS Nos. 1637 & 1638 of 2018 and AS No.235 of 2019 challenging
the common judgment before the Hon'ble High Court which is pending for
adjudication.

9.

Accordingly, they submitted that following are the violations committed by the

Respondent No.1 Builder:

a. Builder has violated Rule 14 (1)(a)(iii) of the Rules, 2017 by not
mentioning/uploading court case details in the online application for
registration of project with RERA.
b. Builder is involved in unfair practice or irregularities by developing a project
without having valid title and in violation of Hon'ble High Court interim orders.
c. Even after cancellation/revoking of building permission by GHMC, and the
status quo orders of Hon'ble High Court being in force, the Builder has
proceeded with the construction activities over the subject land.

4 of 18

Reliefs Sought:
10.

In view of the above, it was prayed for the following reliefs:

a. To cancel/revoke the registration of the project u / s 7 of the Act, 2016 as the
building permission and LRS were already cancelled by GHMC which was
confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in the interim orders.
b. To penalise the builder u / s 61 of the Act for violating Rule 14 (1)(a)(iii) of the
Rules, 2017 by not mentioning/uploading court case details in the online
application for registration of project with RERA.

11.

Along with the Complaint, they have filed Sale Deeds of the Complainants,

Cancellation

of

building

permission

by

GHMC

vide

Proceedings.No.1/C12/17580/2017/21, Dt.07.01.2020, Status Quo orders of the
Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.6252 of 2020, Contempt Case CC No.7 of 2021, AS
No. of 2018.

Notice to the Respondent:
12.

Accordingly, vide Notice dated 24.07.2023, served upon the Respondents, this

Authority directed the Respondents to submit a reply in terms of Rule 34 (1) & (2) of
the Rules, 2017 along with such other information with regard to the Project.

13.

Subsequently, only the Respondent No.1 Builder, vide Reply dated

08.08.2023, submitted that all the allegations levelled by the Complainants are false
and untenable and deserves no consideration, as such the averments made by the
Complainants are hereby denied for want strict proof and the complaint is liable to
dismissed for want of locus standi, as the Complainants are not having any interest

5 of 18

in the project registered RERA and they are not the buyers of any unit in the subject
project.

14.

He submitted that the dispute between the Complainants and Respondents

are being dealt with Civil Courts, since the dispute is a title dispute and the
Complainants wrongfully claiming the interest and title over the lands held by
Respondents and they lost their suits in the lower court and the Appeals are pending
before the High Court and no stay or injunction orders were granted by the Hon'ble
High Court in the said appeals. Further, after perusal of all papers and documents,
GHMC has granted permission and thereafter we obtained the Registration
Certificate from RERA and there was no fabrication as alleged by the Complainants.

15.

He added that to harass the Respondents herein, the Complainants has made

false complaint before GHMC and the GHMC has suspended the permission and the
matter has been carried out by us to the High Court for State of Telangana and the
Hon'ble Court has granted interim relief in W.P.No.6252/2020 and 6267/2020 and
the Hon'ble Court has granted liberty to the Respondents to carry out the
construction activities, however the construction shall be subject to outcome of the
W.P.No.6252 and 6267/2020 dated 15-06-2020. As such there was no violation done
by the Respondents herein.

16.

The Respondent No.1 Builder submitted that the Complainants without

having any right, title or interest over the properties enjoyed by the Respondents
herein have filed Suits vide Nos.350, 351, 445, 529, 818/2010 and O.S.No.225 of
2011 against some of the Respondents on the file of XIV Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, R.R. District and after elaborated trial, the Hon'ble Court pleased to dismiss
the said suits. Against which the Complainants herein have filed appeals vide AS

6 of 18

Nos. 1637 and 1638 of 2018 and A.S.No.235 of 2019 and the same are pending, but
in those appeals no orders were granted. As such there was no hurdle to the
Respondents to continue the construction activities in the approved project.

17.

He submitted that no violations were committed by the Respondents as

mentioned by the Complainants herein and the orders of cancellation/revocation of
the building permission by GHMC has been suspended by the High Court for State
of Telangana and the W.P. is still pending for adjudication. Accordingly, he prayed
for dismissal of the present complaint.

Hearing Conducted:
18.

That the matter was called for hearing on 17.10.2023 when the Complainants

was present and reiterated the contents of the Complaint. As the Respondent was
absent, the matter was adjourned to 08.11.2023. On the said date, the Complainants
were present again and filed an Interlocutory Application numbered as I.A.
No.1/535/2023/TSRERA in which additional documents such as Orders passed in
Writ Petition No.6252/2020 & 6257/2020 along with encumbrance and registered
sale deeds executed by the Respondent No.1 Builder were produced alleging that
without having a valid GHMC permission, the Respondent No.1 Builder proceeded to
enter into sale transactions. The Complainants, in the said I.A also prayed for
impleadment of 12 parties in whose favor the sale deeds were executed by the
Respondent No.1 Builder.

19.

Notice was issued on the said Application and as parties, despite notice being

served on Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 and 22
and returned for the remaining Respondents, the above-mentioned Respondents

7 of 18

failed to appear before the Authority. Therefore, the said I.A. was allowed and
Respondent Nos.2 to 22 are set ex-parte vide Order dated 23.11.2023.

20.

This Authority reserved the matter for orders.

21.

Vide Reply dated 29.11.2023 to I.A. No.1/535/2023/TSRERA, Respondent

No.1 Builder reiterated the contents of its Reply dated 08.08.2023 and submitted
that the I.A seeking impleadment of the proposed Respondent Nos.11 to 22 is liable
to be dismissed in limine and since the Complainants themselves have no locus
standi to file the main case, the present application is liable to dismissed. He
submitted that there are civil disputes between the Complainants and Respondents
since a long time and the suit for declaration vide O.S. No.351, 445, 529, 350,
818/2010 and O.S.No.225 of 2011 against some of the Respondents on the file of
XIV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District and after elaborated trial, the
Hon'ble Court was pleased to dismissed the suits filed by the present
Petitioners/Complainants and they preferred Appeals vide AS Nos. 1637 and 1638
of 2018 and A.S.No.235 of 2019 on the file of Hon'ble High Court for State of
Telangana and the same are pending and no injunction or stay has been granted by
the Hon'ble High Court in the above said appeals.

22.

He submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has given liberty to the Respondent

No.1 herein to proceed with the construction. Further, that the Complainants have
intentionally and deliberately have suppressed material facts with regard to the title
dispute between them and the Respondents herein, to bring the present complaint
and I.A. within the ambit of RERA act and applicable rules. He added that they are
neither the owners nor pattadars of the subject land and they are not qualified as
"Aggrieved Persons" under Section 31 of the Act. Further, there are pending appeals

8 of 18

filed by the Complainants before the Hon'ble High Court for State of Telangana vide
A.S.Nos. 1637 and 1638 of 2018 and A.S.No.235 of 2019, which are pending for
adjudication. Further the Respondent herein obtained the permissions and
sanctions from the competent authorities in fact initially those were revoked but the
Respondent herein and other respondents approached the Hon'ble High Court and
got suspended the revocation orders and the said Writ Petitions are still pending for
adjudication and there were no orders against the Respondents for not making any
constructions or any alienations thereof.

23.

The Respondent No.1 submitted that the Complainants have not got any

substantiative right or title to the property and have not got any reliefs from the
Hon'ble High Court in the appeals filed by them, have filed the instant case as well
as the present I.A. with false and malicious intents to cause hardship to the
Respondents and proposed Respondents.

24.

He submitted that the Complainants cannot be termed as "AGGRIEVED

PERSON” as stipulated in the Act and they won't fall in any categories, which include
being any allottee, association of allottees or a voluntary association. In fact, the
Complainants are unsuccessful claimants of the subject land as per the Judgement
and Decree in O.S. No. 350, 351, 445, 529, 818/2010 and O.S.No.225 of 2011
rendered by Hon'ble XIV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, R.R. District. And the
important and crucial paragraphs of the Judgement are as follows for assisting this
Hon'ble Authority to take a just and fair and impartial decision:

Page 31 - "Therefore, this Court holds that, plaintiffs (complainants herein)
cannot get title over the suit plots under such Ratifications Deeds, Therefore,
Issue No.1 is decided against the Plaintiffs".

9 of 18

Page 32 Para 29 Later portion - "They further contend that, their land is quiet
different from the plots purchased by the plaintiffs (complainants herein).
Plaintiffs are illegally claiming the lands belonging to the defendants (some of
the Respondents herein). In this regard, PW1 himself in his cross examination
deposed that, Basith Khan (who sold land to the Complainants and some of the
Respondents) filed affidavit before JCJ, Miyapur stating that, the suit land is
different from the land belonging to the defendants."

Page 33 & 34 Para 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35 - "PW3 in his cross examination
deposed that, Plaintiff is my neighbouring plot owner. My plot want not occupied
by any defendants. I have got my own layout. My plot, plots of plaintiffs of these
batch cases are adjacent to one another. I do not know whether PW2 sold 30
guntas of land to defendants. I have no documentary proof to show that, said
schedule plots are located in the land held by defendants".

"The evidence of PW3 is important since he is the owner of one of the plots. PW3
has not stated anywhere that, defendants have occupied the lands belonging
to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs themselves failed to prove about location of their plots in
the suit survey numbers. They have not filed approved layout map into the court.
On the other hand, defendants have filed sufficient documents to prove the
possession of defendants over 30 guntas of land purchased by defendants".

"The land purchased by defendants is separate and distinct. Since the plaintiffs
claiming their title, it is their primary duty to get the land surveyed through
official surveyor and to demarcate the plots belonging to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
have not taken any such steps in this regard. Plaintiffs have also not explained

10 of 18

the reason for not taking any such steps to locate the suit schedule plots on the
spot.”

"Plaintiffs themselves failed to locate their own plots by adducing proper
evidence including layout into the court and therefore, they cannot claim that
their plots are occupied by defendants. On the other hand, defendants filed their
own documents to prove their possession over the land an extent of 30 guntas
purchased by them".

"For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the contention of the
plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs cannot seek eviction of the defendants from the
suit schedule properties. Therefore, issue No.2 also decided against the
plaintiffs”.

"Since this issue is decided against the plaintiffs, plaintiffs are not entitled to
seek perpetual injunction in respect of suit properties. Therefore, issue no.3 is
also decided against the plaintiffs.”

"IN THE RESULT, sits of the plantiffs in OS 350/2010, 349/2010, 351/2010,
352/2010, 445/2010 529/2010 818/2010 and 225/2011 are dismissed
without costs".

25.

In conclusion, he prayed to dismiss the I.A and the main case by imposing

exemplary costs on the Complainants for filing frivolous and false case against the
Respondents by wasting the precious time of this Authority and for causing hardship
to the Respondents herein.

11 of 18

Rejoinder on behalf of the Complainant No.1:
26.

The Respondent, vide Rejoinder dated 29.11.2023 to the Reply dated

29.11.2023 to I.A. No.1/535/2023/TSRERA, submitted that the Counter/Reply
framed and filed is misconceived and false. That Respondent No. 1 in the main case
has suppressed the material facts and fraudulently filed for registration with this
Hon'ble Authority. Respondent No. 1 builder is developing the project by suppressing
true facts that the building permission and layout permission granted in their favour
have been cancelled. The Complainant No. I have an interest in the land upon which
the illegal constructions are being made and Respondent No. 1 suppresses the same
and is selling the properties to various purchasers and cheating them. The
Complainant No. I have got locus standi to file the present case being the landowner
and the averment that the present application is liable to be dismissed is
misconceived and baseless.

27.

It was submitted that the Hon'ble High Court vide W.P.No.6252 of 2020 and

W.P.No. 6267 of 2020 in its order dated 15.06.2020 warned the Respondents that
the constructions that are being made on the subject property are at the risk and
cost of the Respondents (i.e., Petitioners therein) and only upon the undertaking to
clear the site in the event the Hon'ble High Court finding that the said constructions
made are illegal and unauthorized. That the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated
15.06.2020 has nowhere granted permission to the Respondents to alienate the
subject property and Respondent No. 1 taking advantage and misinterpreting the
said order had illegally alienated the property. Thus, the illegal alienation by
Respondent No. 1 has acted against the orders of the Hon'ble High Court with the
sole intention of defrauding.

12 of 18

28.

It was submitted that a perusal of the Orders dated 21.04.2020 in Writ

Petition Nos. 6252 and 6267 of 2020 passed by the Hon'ble High Court would
evidence that the Hon'ble High Court only granted status quo orders with respect to
Respondents therein, i.e., Government Authorities to not carry out demolition and
the Respondent No. 1 herein to not carry out any construction till the disposal of the
writ petitions or passing of further orders. Thereafter, the said orders in Writ Petition
Nos. 6252 and 6267 of 2020 were modified vide Orders dated 15.06.2020 and status
quo (only limited to demolition) were extended for another 12 weeks and it was made
clear that constructions being made are at the risk and cost of the Respondents
herein, who undertook to clear the site in the event of the Hon'ble High Court finding
that the construction made is illegal and unauthorized. That the said order has not
been extended by the Hon'ble Court thereafter.

29.

It was submitted that taking advantage of the said order of the Hon'ble High

Court suppressing the said fact that building permission and layout permission have
been cancelled, Respondent No. 1 has completed the construction and is also selling
flats to third parties. A perusal of the sale deeds filed by the Complainant would
evidence that Respondent No. 1 has stated the building permission bearing no.
1/C12//07924/2019 dated 20.05.2020 and suppressed the fact that the same has
been suspended vide Proceeding No. 1/C12/17580/2017/21 dated 07.01.2020.
Also, Respondent No. 1 has falsely averred in the sale deed that the property sold is
free of all disputes and there are no encumbrances over the project, which is patently
false and incorrect.

30.

It was submitted that the Respondent No.1 has himself agreed that there are

civil disputes between the Complainant No. 1 and Respondents and also regarding
the existence of Writ Petitions filed before the Hon'ble High Court which was earlier

13 of 18

suppressed from this Hon'ble Authority while filing for registration and is now
illegally selling flats to third parties and deceiving the purchasers as though there
are no title disputes and permissions obtained have been cancelled.

31.

It

was

submitted

that

the

GHMC

revoked

its

permission

due

to

misrepresentation and suppression of material facts by the Respondent No. 1
Builder. The Respondents herein have approached the Hon'ble High Court
challenging the revocation order and obtained a status quo order, but no such
suspension against the said revocation orders was granted. The said interim status
quo order was last extended vide order dated 15.06.2023 in WP No. 6252/2020 &
WP No. 6267/2020 and the same was extended only until twelve (12) weeks, which
was never extended thereafter. Further, that the said interim order never granted
liberty to Respondent No. 1 to construct and/or alienate the property, whereas the
Respondent No. I builder was merely constructing the project at its own risk and
cost.

32.

It was submitted that Complainant No. 1 being the owners/possessors of his

extent of land holdings, has an interest in the property on which the Respondent No.
1 builder is constructing the real estate project "Infocity Emerald". Hence, the
Complainant No. 1 herein are aggrieved persons for the violation of the provisions of
the RERA Act and the rules and regulations of this Hon'ble Authority.

33.

In conclusion, he prayed for RERA registration for “Infocity Emerald” to be

revoked and to penalise the builder u/s 61 of the Act for violating Rule 14 (1)(a)(iii)
of the Rules, 2017 for not mentioning/uploading court case details in the online
application for registration of project.

14 of 18

Observations and Directions of the Authority:
34.

The Complainants before this Authority claim that they are the owners and

possessors of parcel of lands in Sy.No.44/1 situated at Miyapur, Serilingampally
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by virtue of Sale Deed Document Nos. 13038/89,
9987/2001, 3724/1998, 5294/2005 and 1686/2005 respectively. Complainant filed
individual suits vide OS Nos. 349, 350, 351, 445, 529, 818 of 2010 & OS No.225 of
2011 against Sri P.Ramesh, M.Pentesh and Chintapatla Kondal Rao before XIV Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, LB Nagar seeking declaration of
title and recovery of possession and vide a common judgment dated 03.10.2018, the
said suits were admittedly dismissed. Aggrieved, they filed Appeal Suits vide AS Nos.
1637 & 1638 of 2018 and AS No.235 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court which is
pending adjudication.

35.

Per contra, the Respondent No.1 Builder submits that Complainants have no

locus standi to file the present complaint. He added that they are neither the owners
nor pattadars of the subject land and they are not qualified as "Aggrieved Persons"
under Section 31 of the Act. That the Complainants have not got any substantiative
right or title to the property and have not got any reliefs from the Hon'ble High Court
in the appeals filed by them. That the Complainants won't fall in any categories,
which include being any allottee, association of allottees or a voluntary association
and therefore, cannot be aggrieved person under the Act, 2016.

36.

However, the very question as to whether the Complainants herein

landowners to the said parcel of land is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble High
Court and in view of the same, this Authority cannot make any observations at a
nascent stage.

15 of 18

37.

Now, upon receipt of a complaint on behalf of the Complainants herein and

subsequent filing of a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, the
GHMC cancelled the permission vide Proceedings No.1/C21/07924/2019, in File
No.1 / C 12/17580 / 2017 Dt.20.05.2019 accorded to the Respondent No.1 Builder
vide Proceedings.No.1/C12/17580/2017/21, Dt.07.01.2020 under Section 450 of
the GHMC Act on the grounds of misrepresentation and suppression of facts.

38.

Upon scrutiny of the said Order of the GHMC it is apparent that the

Respondent failed to submit relevant details of the O.S. Nos. 349, 350, 351, 445,
529, 818 of 2010 & OS No.225 of 2011 before the GHMC, and therefore, for
suppression of facts the said Building Permission was revoked by the competent
authority. Upon scrutiny of the sale deeds and the encumbrance certificate filed by
the Complainants, it is also apparent that the details of the litigation were not
disclosed to the said allottees in abject violation of Rule 38 of the Rules, 2017. Clause
8(1)(v) of the Annexure “AGREEMENT FOR SALE” to Rule 38 categorically provides
that the pending litigation on the land be intimated to the potential allottee.

39.

Further, even though the said sale deeds were executed consequent to the

revocation of the GHMC Building Permission dated 07.01.2020 such as in the year
2021 and 2022 as per the documents filed by the Complainants, no such intimation
of such revocation was stipulated in the Sale Deed, thus showcasing fraud upon the
Respondent No.1 Builder. Therefore, exercising its powers under Section 60 and 61
read with Rule 14(1)(a)(iii) of the Rules, 2017, this Authority imposes penalty of Rs.
Rs.4,79,998/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Seventy-Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and
Ninety Eight Only) on the Respondent No.1 Builder for not disclosing the factum of
pending litigation to the allottees payable within 30 days in favour of TS RERA

FUNDS through Demand Draft or online payment to A/c No.50100595798191,

16 of 18

HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036, failing which appropriate action under
Section 63 will be initiated against the Respondent No.1 Builder.

40.

However, the Complainant has also brought to the attention of this Authority

orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition Nos.6252/2020 and
6267/2020, wherein it is apparent that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble
High Court and therefore, any relief prayed for by the Complainants shall be subject
to the result of the above-mentioned Writ Petitions.

41.

As the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. Nos.6252/2020 and 6267/2020 has

observed that “it is made clear that the construction that are being made are at the
risk and cost of the petitioners, who undertake to clear the site in the event of this court
finding that the construction made are illegal and unauthorised.” In the event of an
judgment rendered against Respondent No.1 Builder, any structure erected by said
entity shall be deemed unlawful as determined by the court. Accordingly, allottees or
prospective allottees are cautioned against assuming risks associated with investing
in or booking flats within said structure. Should demolition be compelled by the
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) pursuant to a court-issued
directive, allottees face potential financial losses.

42.

In view of the above, the RERA Registration granted to the Respondent No.1

Builder bearing Rgn. No. PO2200000674, dt.29.04.2019 for their project "Infocity
Emerald” is kept in abeyance to protect interests of the allottees. If allottee prefers to
withdraw from the allotment in the Project “Infocity Emerald”, the Respondent No.1
Builder has to refund the amounts paid by the Complainants with interest in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder.

17 of 18

43.

The Respondent is made aware that, in the event that the Appeal Suits

pending before the Hon’ble High Court filed by the Complainants are decided in
favour of the Complainant, and they are declared as the landowners, the Respondent
shall be responsible to compensate the allottees in the Project in accordance with
Section 18(2) which provides that “(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in
case of any loss caused to him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is
being developed or has been developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and
the claim for compensation under this sub-section shall not be barred by limitation
provided under any law for the time being in force.”

44.

In lieu of the foregoing directions and observations, the present complaint

stands disposed of. Any miscellaneous applications thereto stand disposed of.

45.

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)
in accordance with Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

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

18 of 18