Order Complaint No. 757 of 2023

BEFORE THE
TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD
COMPLAINT NO.757/2023/TSRERA
Dated: 27th September 2023
Sri Donthineni Yadagiri Rao

….Complainant
Versus

1. M/s HSR Venutures Pvt Ltd.
2. Commissioner GHMC
3. District collector, Ranga Reddy District
4. Asst. Director, Survey and Land Records
5. Commissioner & IG
6. Tahsildar

….Respondents

Quorum:

Dr.N.Satyanarayana IAS (Rtd), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri. K. Srinivas Rao, , Hon’ble Member
Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Appearance:

This case came up for a hearing on 11th October 2023
before this Authority, None appeared on behalf of the
Complainant whereas, of the Respondent party present in
person. After hearing the submissions made by the
parties, the Authority passed the following order.
ORDER

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 "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 a title
land dispute.
A. Facts of the Complaint:
2.

The complainant alleges that M/s HSR Ventures Pvt. Ltd. is committing

frauds and irregularities by obtaining permits for non-existent survey
1 of 5

numbers against the law and regulations. It is claimed that for their HSR
ARC AND HSR RAMACHANDRA MANOR Project, HSR Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
obtained GHMC Building Permit No. 53495/HO/EZ/Cir-3/2016, dated 0907-2018 in respect of the land in Survey No.57/I of Karmanghat Village,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. However, it is pointed out that
the project has been registered with this authority in respect of the land in
Survey No.57/1(One) of Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, which is inconsistent with the GHMC permit. This is alleged
to be against the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act and Rules.
3.

It is further alleged that HSR Ventures Pvt. Ltd. submitted records

before GHMC in respect of the land in Survey No.57/I of Karmanghat
Village,

Saroornagar

Mandal,

Ranga

Reddy

District.

However,

the

documents related to HSR ARC AND HSR RAMACHANDRA MANOR project
mentioned Survey No.57/1(One) instead of Survey No.57/I, which is said to
be illegal as per GOMS No. 168, MA & UD Department dated 07.04.2021
building rule 26(h), implying that HSR Ventures Pvt. Ltd. committed fraud.
4.

The complainant asserts that the Pahani records of Karmanghat Village

from 1954 to 2022 at the Saroornagar Tahsil Office do not mention Survey
No.57/1(One). After sub-dividing the land in Survey No.57 in Karmanghat
village, Pahani records have been recorded mentioning survey numbers
57/A to 57/V, but no record has been recorded mentioning Survey
No.57/1(One). The complainant claims that registration under Section 5 of
the RERA office for the non-existent Survey No.57/1(One) is against the
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act and is
illegal.
5.

Additionally, it is alleged that HSR Ventures Pvt Ltd. is not undertaking

project construction in Survey No. 57 of Karmanghat Village but is
occupying government ceiling surplus land in Survey No. 58 and carrying
out construction. This is viewed as deceiving the buyers by showing the
approvals given by GHMC & RERA in survey no.57 for the constructions
being done in survey no.58. The complainant claims to have filed complaints
with the District Collector Ranga Reddy District and Commissioner &
2 of 5

Director Survey, seeking action against Mandal Surveyor for submitting a
wrong report in collaboration with HSR Ventures Pvt Ltd.
B. Relief(s) sought:
6.

The Complainant has sought the following relief(s):

a) In view of the facts mentioned above, The Authority may be pleased to
cancel the registration granted to HSR Ventures Pvt Ltd Vide RERA
registration number P02400000088 dated 19.12.2018.
b) Direct the respondent No.1 to stop the construction works.
c) Direct the Respondent No.2 to cancel the Building permission vide permit
No. 53495/HO/EZ/Circle/3/2016 dated 09.07.2018.
d) Direct the Respondent No.3 to direct the Respondent No.4 to survey the
complaint Schedule Property.
e) Direct the Respondent No.5 to not to entertain any registrations of
complaint Schedule Property i.e. Survey No.57/1(One), Karmanghat village,
Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
C. Reply from the Respondent:
7.

In response to the complaint and the subsequent show-cause notice

issued by the Authority, M/s HSR Ventures Pvt Ltd. has submitted their
reply, as follows:
1. M/s HSR Ventures Pvt Ltd. contends that the land to an extent of Ac.3.00
in Sy.No.57/Part in Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, is owned and possessed by the owners Putta Srilatha, Putta
Raghuram Reddy, and P. Venugopal Reddy. They assert that the land was
duly surveyed and demarcated by the Mandal Surveyor in the year 2015,
and appropriate building permits were obtained from GHMC for the
development.
2. The respondents state that the complainant, Sri Yadagiri Rao, has no
direct

or

contractual

relationship

with

the

subject

property

under

development. They argue that Yadagiri Rao lacks locus standi to complain
about private property and that he cannot be considered an aggrieved
3 of 5

person eligible to lodge a complaint with the Authority under Section 31 of
the RERA Act.
3. It is further noted that prior to filing the complaint with RERA, the
complainant approached GHMC and the Commissioner, GHMC, who
subsequently addressed the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, for information
regarding the land under development. The Additional Collector, Ranga
Reddy District, reported that the subject land falls under Survey
No.57/Part. GHMC subsequently rejected the complainant's complaint.
4. M/s HSR Ventures Pvt Ltd. contends that the complainant's actions seem
to be motivated by financial gain, as he has lodged complaints without
supporting documents or evidence to substantiate his allegations.
6. In light of the above, the respondents request that the Authority dismiss
the complaint filed by Sri Yadagiri Rao and drop the Notice and Show Cause
Notice issued to them.
D. Hearing Conducted
8.

The matter came up for a hearing before this Authority on 27.09.2023,
wherein none appeared on behalf of the Complainant and Respondent
Company was represented by its Managing Director.

9.

During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the said
Complainant is neither a allottee nor a Land owner. The complainant is
nowhere connected to the said project. The complainant has made
several bogus complaints against the Respondent company for the said
project in where one of the complaints were made to the GHMC, and the
result of such complaint was that the said land as per the District
collector vide letter no. LP/5101/2021. Dt. 20.07.2022 the disputed site
is falling in sy. No 57 of Karmanghat Village.

E. Directions of this Authority:
10.

Based on the information provided, the Authority has determined that

the Complaint in question does not satisfy the criteria for classification
as

an

"aggrieved

person"

as

stipulated

in

the

2016

Act.

This

determination is based on the fact that the Complainant does not fall into
any of the specified categories, which include being an allottee, an
association of allottees, or a voluntary association. As a result, the
4 of 5

Complainant does not meet the definition of an aggrieved person as
defined in Section 31 of the RERA Act. Section 31 is reproduced as herein
under:
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 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.
11.

So, in the view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, due to lack of

locus standi of the complainant to submit the current application under
Section 31 of the RERA Act, the present complaint is dismissed.
12.

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
Telanagana 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.
13.

The case file shall be duly archived within the Registry for record-

keeping purposes.
Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA
Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA
Sd/Dr.N.Satyanarayana ,IAS (Rtd, Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA
5 of 5