Order Complaint No. 654 Of 2022

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.654 OF 2022
2nd 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

Sri A. Chandrasekhara Reddy

…Complainant

Versus

M/s Ashrita Group

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
26.09.2023, 01.11.2023, 19.12.2023 and 09.01.2024 before this Authority in the
presence of the Counsel for Complainant and Complainant in person, and Counsel for
Respondent 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 “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.

1 of 5

A. Brief facts of the Complaint
3.

The Complainant submits that, even though he has no direct damages with the

Respondent Company, he seeks to bring to the notice of this Authority the following facts
about the Property being Residential Complex named “Jewels County” situated in Survey
Nos. 229/A1/1, 229/AA, 229/A, 243/A, 236, 229/A2, 243/AA, 243/AA2 and 229/AA
situated at Kistareddypeta village, Ameenpur Mandal, Sanga Reddy District:
i.

HMDA

accorded

Technical

Approval

vide

Application

No.030870/SKP/R1/06/HMDA/22112079 dated 08.01.2021
ii.

RERA registration vide Registration No.P01100002614 dated 23.02.2021. Expiring
on 31.12.2026.

iii.

Before getting approval of HMDA, builder have to undertake the adherence to
every provision of HMDA. While getting the approval, M/s Asritha's Group has
undertaken and executed a Simple Mortgage Deed of 10% of total property i.e.,
8,310.43 Sq. mtrs in A, B, C and D Blocks in favour of Metropolitan
Commissioner, HMDA through document 23155/2020 dated 07.09.2020.

iv.

By breaching the condition, the Respondent sold out some of the mortgaged
property to third party without the release permission of HMDA officials. One of
the transactions is Flat No. A-203 (west facing), in 2nd Floor of 'Emerald - A Block'
measuring 1152 sq.feets with undivided share of land admeasuring 28.16
sq.yards through Sale Deed No.30762/2021 dated 16.08.2021 at Office of the
Joint Sub-Registrar, Sangareddy (R.O).

v.

Builder is permitted for 2 cellars, 1 stilt and 10 Floors. In contradiction with
HMDA Rules, puttings were installed in C -Block and 3rd cellar is being
constructed without 'No Objection Certificate' from State Disaster Response & Fire
Services Department.

2 of 5

vi.

In contrary with the conditions of HMDA, builder has completed 3 rd cellar in
Block-D.

vii.

Further, according to the hearsay information, the builder entered into the
Agreement to Sell of Flats in 11th and 12th Floors of A, B, C and D Blocks without
permission and physical existence.

B. Reply on behalf of the Respondent:
4.

Vide Reply dated 03.01.2023, the Respondent submitted that the complaint is

with ulterior motive to cause damage to the Respondent Company's reputation and also
cause a wrongful loss.
5.

The concerned authorities have given approval for the same Vide RERA No.

P01100002614 dated 23.02.2021 and also approval from HMDA technical team vide
approval No. 030870/SKP/R1/06/HMDA/22112079 dated 08.01.2021.
6.

Respondent has also Created a simple mortgage dead vide No. 23155/2020 with

concerned authorities in pursuance of the approvals required from authorities.
That one Smt. Nagamadhavi Gangarapu w/o Narahari Pulaiah had shown interest in
purchasing a Flat No. 403 in A-Block in the said venture. In pursuance of same,
Registered Sale deed was executed vide No. 30762/2021 dated 16.08.2021 at SRO
Sangareddy in respect of semi-finished flat admeasuring 1152 sq.ft with undivided share
of 28.16 sq yards. As the Vendees were Non-Resident Indians working in Tel Aviv, Israel,
the documents were processed and original documents were to be handed over to vendee
at earliest. That when the Respondent collected Original Documents from SRO, it was
found that the document writers had done a typographical mistake of mentioning Flat
no. 203 Instead of 403 in A Block in same venture in the sale deed. Respondent had
3 of 5

informed the same immediately to Vendees and requested them to come for rectification
of

said

document.

The

Asritha's

Group

had

also

booked

a

slot

for

rectification/cancellation dated 03.01.2021 by paying a challan of the 3,000/ dated
31.10.2021 to the registration and stamps department of Government of Telangana
State.
7.

Respondent submitted that the cancellation of Sale deed was executed vide Doc.

No. 43725/2022 dated 27.12.2022 at SRO Sangareddy. As such the Original Sale deed
of Flat No. 203 stands cancelled and new sale deed for 403 has also been executed in
favour of the vendee as agreed upon vide Doc. No. 43724/2022 dated. 27.12.2022.
8.

The Respondent further submitted that M/s Asritha Group has a good reputation

in market and are known for their clean sales and sales procedures. As such they have
all necessary approvals for residential projects and the complainant has given this
Complaint with mala fide intent to make wrongful gain and is trying to malign the
reputation of the Respondent Builder.
C. Observations & Directions of the Authority:
9.

It is observed that, the Complainant, upon on its own submission admitted that

he’s neither an allottee, nor an agent or even a promoter or landowner in the subject
Project. He merely seeks to bring to the notice of this Authority, certain actions being
undertaken by the Respondent, which, allegedly, are in violation of the Act, 2016. In this
regard, it is pertinent to note that Section 31 read with definition of ‘person’ under
Section 2 (zg) of the Act, 2016, empowers any “aggrieved” person to file a complaint
before this Authority 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. However, it is nowhere substantiated as to how the

4 of 5

Complainant is an aggrieved person in the present scenario as, he did not admit to be an
allottee/agent/promoter. In such circumstances, for the Complainant not having any
locus standi to file the present complaint, the Complaint is dismissed.
10.

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
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

5 of 5