Order Complaint No. 597 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.597 OF 2023
28th March 2024
Corum:

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

Smt.T.Suvarna Lakshmi

…Complainant

Versus
M/s Bhavya Construction Pvt. Ltd
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing on 28.12.2023 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant
along with counsel Sri Nagender and Counsel Sri Prathap Kumar on behalf of
the Respondent and upon hearing the arguments of the parties, 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
“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 Respondent.
A. Facts of the Case as Stated in the Complaint:
3. That the complainant’s husband late Sri thummala Venkata Ratnam along
with three others namely 1. Smt.SHaikKauser Jan 2. Sri Koripilli Venkat Rao
and Sri Genikala Kishore had jointly purchased a land total admeasuring
14036 sq.yards or 116 guntas ( in which the complainant’s husband exclusive
share is total admeasuring 3509 sq. yards) in sy.no.291 and 292 situated at
Kukatpally Village and Muncipality through Registered Agreement of Sale

1 of 9

Cum General Power of Attorney with possesin vide Reg, doc no. 1731 of 2009
dated: 3rd June of 2009 from its law full owners.
4. Further that, on 01.09.2020 complainant’s husband had died and recently
it came to the notice of the complainant that her husband’s partner colluded
with

the

Vendors

and

Sri

V

Aditya

Managing

Director

of

Bhavya

Constructions had executed sale deed with two false and fake documents
mentioning the complainant’s husband name without his signature vide reg
doc. No. 7643/2014 (Agreement of sale cum general power of Attorney with
possession) and 7642/2014 Sale Deed without separation and demarcation of
mu husband share as per the document no. 1731 of 2009.
5. Further that the reply to the RTI Act, dated 02.08.2022, the complainant
came to know that the said Sri V Aditya Managing Director of Bhavya
Construction had obtained Muncipal permit no. 2472/GHMC/KPL/2022-BP
from the concerned authority by submitting illegal docs without having
signature or authorisation of her late husband, hence the permit is invalid
and illegal and the Respondents are making construction illegally.
6. Further that they have already filed a police complaint in this regard and
the Police Jadathigirigutta Police Station Cyberabad, registered FIR vide
Crime no.694 of 2022 and also received a reply/information from the District
Registrar, R.R District vide Lr. No. 20174/G1/2022 – In the said sale deed
and in Agreement of Sale Cum General Power of Attorney vide document no.
7642/2014 though the name of T.Venkata Ratnam is mentioned at serial no.3
there is no signature of the said person as to the fact of the execution in the
documents. It is clear that he is not attend in execution of the said
documents. Hence the complainant believes that she has right to seek relief
as per law in respect of the share of her husband in the said property. Hence,
requesting this Authority to take action against the Respondent for depriving
them from their legitimate rights and share in the said property.

2 of 9

B. Relief Sought:
7.

To

Cancel

the

GHMC

permission

obtained

vide

permit

no.

2472/GHMC/KPL/2022-BP and to direct the concerned authorities to stop
illegal work on the said site.
C. Reply by the Respondent:
8.

V.Adita , Managing director of BHavya Construction Pvt.Ltdincoperated

under companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of the real estate
construction and development. In pursuance of its business activities the
Company entered into an Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney
and Sale Deed, dated 24.02.2014 registered as Document no. 7643/2014, in
the office of the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy, for the purchase of land
admeasuring Acres 0-29 ½ guntas equivalent to 1747.95 square yards, in
survey no. 292 and acres 0-14.4 guntas equivalent to 1747.95 sq.yards in
survey no. 292 situated at, Kukatpally, Balanagr Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District along with 0-30.5 guntas equivalent to 3,693.88 square yards
(Subject land), from K.Lakshmamma and two others. The company was put in
possession of the purchased extent upon execution of the Agreement.
9.

Further that, K Monamma, K.Lakshmamma, K.Krishnaveni and

Krishnaveni and K.Venugoapalcharry (“Vendors”) and K. Sasikala and three
others (Consenting parties) to the above mentioned Agreement were claiming
title in respect of, halfshare in each, in land totally admeasuring Acres- 329
guntas in survery no.291 and 292, of Kukatpally, Balamagr Mandal, by virtue
of

rival

and

contesting

claims

K.Monamma,

K.Krishnaveni

and

K.Venugopalcharry also entered into an Agreement of Cum General Power of
Attorney dated 03.06.2009 bearing document no. 1731/2009, in favour of
Shaikh Kauser, Koripilli Venkat Rao, Late.T.Venkata Ratnam and Genileka
Kishore (“Agreement Holder”), in respet of one-half share in land totally
admeasureing Acres 3-29 guuntas in survery no. 291 and 292, of Kukatpally.
The complainant is the wife of Late T. Venkata Ratnam, who was a business
partner of the year 2010, as a result of which the K. Monnamma, one of the
Landowners, passed away in the year 2010, as a result of which the GPA

3 of 9

became invalid. Moreover the Agreement itself was invalid as the total
consideration was not paid under the document. The AGPA is also not valid
as K.Lakshamma was not a party to the GPA.
10. That the contesting parties initiatedlegal proceedings against the
Landowner and Agreement Holders, and on the advise of well wishers the
disputes were amicably settled. As a part of the settlement, the Landowners
and Agreement Holders, came together and mutually agreed to sell the subject
land in favour of the company. All parties, including late T.Venkata Ratnam
agreed to sell the subject land in favour of the company in the year 2014
itself. The Landowners and others executed a Sale Deed dated 24-02-2014,
registered as Document No. 7642/2014 in favor of the Company, in respect of
the adjacent land. Further, state that the Company also obtained permission
for the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural purposes from the
Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Kukatpally, vide proceedings dated
05.12.2022, bearing Proceedings No. 2201066788, in respect of the Subject
Property. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority issued a
building permit dated 08-09-2022, bearing Permit No. 3097/ghmc/kpl/2022BP, in favor of the Company for the development of residential high-rise
towers.
11.

That the state that the Company is currently developing a Project over

the Subject Property and the adjacent lands. The Company has also
registered the said Project under Section 5 of the RERA Act, 2017, on the file
of the Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority, vide Certificates
dated

27.06.2022

and

25.11.2022,

bearing

Nos.

P02200004672

and

P02200005370, respectively. The Company has complied with all the
applicable rules and regulations under the RERA Act, 2016, and Telangana
State Real Estate (Development and Regulation) Rules, 2017.
12.

Having placed the true facts on record, wish to address a paragraph-

wide reply to the contents of the Complaint.
13.

The averments in paragraph no. 1 that the late husband of

complainant, Venkata Ratnam, along with three others, namely Smt. Sheik

4 of 9

Kauser Jan, Sri. Koripilli Venkat Rao, and Sri. Genikala Kishore, had jointly
purchased a land totally admeasuring 14036 square yards or 116 Guntas (in
which her husband's exclusive share is totally admeasuring 3,509 Square
Yards) in Sy.No.291 and 292 situated at Kukatpally village and Municipality
through Registered vide reg.. document No.1731 of 2009 dated, 3rd June
2009, from its lawful owners. It is true to the extent that the said parties
entered into an agreement of sale with the Vendors. However, as a result of
the death of the landowner, the AGPA was null and void. The Agreement
Holders were never in possession of the property, and also the entire sale
consideration has not been paid. The complainant is not entitled to belatedly
claim rights in pursuance of agreement dated 03-06-2009 which did not
attain finality.
14.

The averments in paragraph no. 2, stating that due to Covid on 01-09-

2020, her husband expired, leaving behind herself and her two sons, are not
traversed. The averment that the Complainant and her sons recently came to
know that the partners of her late husband colluded with the Vendors and the
undersigned, executing two false and fake documents vide Reg., document
No.7643/2014 (Agreement of sale cum General Power of Attorney with
possession) and document number 7642/2014 (Sale deed) without separation
and demarcation of the share of the husband as per document No.1731 of
2009 is incorrect and denied, and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the
same. The Company was informed that the Agreement Holders, the
Landowners, and Consenting Parties amicably settled the disputes amongst
themselves out of the moneys given by the Company.
15.

The averments in paragraph no.3 in a reply dated 02.08.2022,

furnished under the RTI Act, the Complainant came to know that the
Managing Director of the Company had obtained municipal permit No.
2427/GHMC/KPL2022-BP from the concerned authority by submitting illegal
documents

without

having

the

signature

or

authorization

of

the

Complainant's late husband T. Venkata Ratnam (party to the document No.
1731 of 2009). On the strength of the said documents, the municipal permit
No. 2427/GHMC/KPL/2022-BP obtained by the Company is invalid and
5 of 9

illegal, and the construction work is being undertaken illegally. These claims
are all incorrect and denied, and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the
same. The signature of the husband of the Complainant remained blank in
the Agreement and Sale Deed for reasons best known to the deceased, and
this is clear from the fact that no objections were raised to the execution of
the said documents in favour of the Company for more than 9 years. The
above-mentioned Agreement and Sale Deed have been executed in accordance
with the terms agreed upon by the parties therein. The Agreement and Sale
deed are duly registered documents that were executed during the lifetime of
the Complainant's husband, and the parties were fully aware of the said
transaction. Moreover, the Agreement Holders and the Vendors were paid
valid consideration, and the same was duly acknowledged.
16.

The averments in paragraph no.4 that the Complainant has already

given a police complaint in this regard and the police Jagathgirigutta Police
Station, Cyberabad, registered a crime vide Crime No. 694 of 2022, and also
received a reply/information from the District Registrar, RR. Dist. Vide Lr. No.
20174/G1/2022, stating "[in this said Sale Deed (7062/2014) and in
Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney vide document No.
7643/2014 though the name of T. Venkata Ratnam is mentioned at serial
no.3, there is no signature of the said person as to the fact of execution in the
documents. His thumb impression was not taken in the two documents.
Therefore, it is clear that he is not present during the execution of the said
documents - the complainant (T. Suvarna Lakshmi) has the right to seek relief
as per Law in respect of the share of her husband in the said property]" are all
incorrect and denied. The averment that the Complainant, being a widow and
law-abiding citizen with great respect and faith, and requesting to take action
against the said persons such as depriving them of their legitimate right and
share in the said property of her deceased husband creating false and fake
impugned unlawful documents, and obtaining an illegal Municipal Permit by
No. 2427/GHMC/KPL/2022-BP by trespassing and trying to do illegal
construction, etc., to do justice to them by cancelling the impugned Municipal
permit No. 2427/GHMC/KPL/2022-BP and direct the concerned authorities

6 of 9

to stop the illegal work on the said site are all misconceived, incorrect, and
denied, and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
17.

The undersigned has filed a quash petition bearing CrLP No. 5948 of

2023 before the Hon'ble High Court, seeking to quash the FIR bearing No.
694 of 2022, which was registered on the basis of a complaint by the
Complainant as referred to above. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to
pass orders dated 18.08.2023, allowing the petition filed by the
undersigned and quashing the proceedings in pursuance of FIR No.
694/2022, on the file of the Jagathgiriguta Police Station, Cyberabad. In
paragraph No. 25 of the said order, the Hon'ble High Court also held that
the Agreement Holders (including the husband of the Complainant) had no
accrued rights over the property. The Complainant has issued the
complaint with false and misleading facts, and the Complainant is not in
any manner aggrieved. The Complainant or her husband were never in
possession of the property, and constructions had come up way back in
the year 2014 and 2015 itself.
18.

The Complainant has no cause for action, and the present complaint

has been issued with a malafide intention to unsettle already settled
rights. The present Complaint has been filed after a period of 9 years from
the date of the Agreement of Sale and Sale Deed in favour of the Company.
The Company wants to realize unjust gains from the Company.
19.

Therefore, in light of the above-mentioned, request authority to reject

the complaint filed.
D. Observations and Directions of the Authority:
21.

The present complaint came up for hearing on 20.09.2023, 12.10.2023,

14.11.2023, and 28.12.2023 before this Authority in the presence of the
Complainant and Counsel for the Complainant, Sri Nagendar, and Counsel
for the Respondent, Sri Prathap.
22.

The counsel for the respondent vehemently urged that the present

complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable on the ground that
the complainant does not have the locus standi to file the complaint under

7 of 9

section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 before this Hon’ble Authority, as the
complainant is neither the allottee nor an affected party for the purposes of
raising the complaint under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. It is
further stated that the complaint, therefore, is not maintainable and is also
beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Authority. Further, stating that the
nature of the complaint raised by the Complainant is in the nature of a civil
dispute, which cannot be agitated before this Hon’ble Authority.
23.

At the onset, it is stated that one of the main purposes of this legislation

is to support and safeguard the interest of allottees within the real estate
sector, particularly in light of the increasing prevalence of fraudulent
practices employed by builders. It is clear that the matter pertains to the land
title dispute, which does not fall under the jurisdiction of this Authority.
Further, the relief sought by the Complainant to cancel the permission
granted by GHMC cannot be awarded by this Authority as it does not fall
within the jurisdiction of this Authority. In this context, the Complainant has
failed to furnish the Authority with any supporting evidence or an
authorization letter establishing their qualification as an aggrieved person and
not as a promoter in accordance with the definition outlined in Section 31 of
the RERD Act. Section 31 is reproduced herein for reference:
(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 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.

24.

In light of the aforementioned perspective, the Authority concludes that

the present complaint is not maintainable, and accordingly, it is dismissed.

8 of 9

25.

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) as per section 44 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,

Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Chairperson

TS RERA

TS RERA

TS RERA

9 of 9