Order Complaint No. 77 OF 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO. 77 OF 2024
31st Day of December 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 Thota Sudhakar

…Complainant
Versus

M/s Supadha Infra Private Limited

…Respondent

The present complaint, filed by the Complainant, was heard before this
Authority on 23.07.2024, 21.08.2024, 18.09.2024, and 17.10.2024 in the presence
of Counsel for the Complainant, Sri M Shyam Prasad and Counsel for the
Respondent, Sri. M.V. Durga Prasad, and after considering the submissions of both
parties, this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 31

of the Real Estate (Regulation & 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”) seeking directions
from this Authority against the Respondent for alleged encroachment upon the
ancestral land and fraudulent inclusion of the same in the Respondent’s registered
project “GEETHIKA.”
Brief facts on behalf of the Complainant:
3.

The Complainant, a resident of Alkapur Colony and had been duly authorized

by three individuals—Munnuru Padamamma, Munnuru Lavanya, and Thota
Laxmi—via registered General Power of Attorneys (hereinafter referred to as “GPAs”)
to represent their interests in the complaint. It was submitted by the Complainant

1 of 12

that the Respondent had obtained permissions and RERA registration bearing Rgn.
No.P01100005949 for the Project titled "GEETHIKA," limited to specific survey
numbers in Velimela village, RC Puram mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana.
However, the Complainant alleged that the Respondent had encroached upon land
identified as Survey No. 189/A, which formed part of ancestral property owned by
the aforementioned principals and others. This land, referred to as "Disputed Land,"
was under litigation in the Court of the Family Judge cum VII Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, under OS No. 116 of 2016.

4.

The Complainant further alleged that during the pendency of the litigation,

the Respondent had fraudulently developed the disputed land as part of the
"GEETHIKA" project, despite having no legal authority or valid title. Supporting
evidence including satellite images and layout approvals, had been submitted. The
Complainant also contended that the Respondent had provided a false affidavit in
Form-B, falsely claiming legal title to the land and an agreement with the landowners
to obtain RERA registration.

5.

It was further submitted that the Respondent had failed to fulfil their statutory

obligation under Section 11(1)(e) of the Act, 2016 by not providing quarterly updates
on the project. The last recorded system login by the Respondent had been on
February 9, 2023, which evidenced non-compliance.

6.

The Complainant contended that the Respondent's actions had contravened

the objectives of Act, 2016 which aim to ensure transparency and protect consumers.
By offering apartments on disputed land through online and offline channels, the
Respondent had allegedly engaged in unfair practices, putting innocent real estate
consumers at risk of legal battles.

Relief(s) sought:
7.

Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent, the Complainant prayed for the

following reliefs from this Authority:

2 of 12

a. Revoke the RERA registration granted vide number P01100005949, in
accordance with section 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(d) of the RE(R&D) Act.
b. Revoke the RERA registration granted vide number P01100005949, in
accordance with section 7(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act.
c. Penalize the promoter to the maximum possible extent in accordance with
section 60 of the RE(R&D) Act.
d. Exercise the powers entrusted to this Authority under section 35(1) to conduct
an independent inquiry into other fraudulent practices in the project
"GEETHIKA" to determine all violations committed by the promoter.
e. Pass such other orders or specific reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the
complaint may require to meet the ends of justice.

Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
8.

The Respondent filed a detailed counter and submitted that the Complainant

or his principals are not the 'aggrieved person' within the meaning of section 31 of
the Act, as they are not the allottees or the promoters as defined under section 2(d)
or (zk) and that therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.

The Respondent further submitted that the Section 31 of the Act provides for

filing of complaint by any "aggrieved person" against any violation or contravention
of the provisions of the Act, 2016. That the explanation to Section 31 (1) provides
that 'person' shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer
association registered under any law for the time being in force. The Complainant or
his principals are not the allottees or the interested persons in the project and they
do not have any locus to file the present complaint.

10.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant alleged to be the GPA holder

of the alleged owner of land in Sy.No.189/A of Velimela village, RC Puram Mandal,
Sangareddy District and alleges encroachment thereof. The questions relating to title
and possession of land, is essentially a civil dispute, which can be raised in an
appropriate suit, before the competent court and therefore such questions are
beyond the scope of the Act, 2016 and therefore the jurisdiction of this Authority. It
was submitted that the private title disputes cannot be urged before this Authority

3 of 12

under the guise of encroachment. This Respondent is not concerned with the said
land in Sy.No.189/A and it is not subject matter of the project or permissions
obtained by this Respondent.

11.

It was further submitted that the landowners of Sy.Nos. 122, 123, 148, 150

to 162, 165 to 169, 177 to 183, 186 to 188 of Velimela village, RC Puram Mandal,
Sanga Reddy District have entered registered DGPAs with this Respondent company
vide Doc.Nos. 10984/2023, 46185/2021, 36528/2021, 30712/2021, 15860/2021,
15861/2021, 36538/2021, 30717/2021, 5006/2022, 30710/2021, 30713/2021,
13986/2022, 41361/2021, 280/2022, 30715/2021, 14652/2022, 8563/2022,
44153/2023, 30723/2022. This Respondent company obtained permission for
construction

of

community

villas

project

vide

Lr.No.

TS/005071/SKP/PLG/HMDA/2022 dated 04.01.2023 issued by the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority. This Respondent has also obtained a RERA
registration certificate from this Hon'ble Authority vide No.P01100005949 dated
01.04.2023.

12.

That the said project is under construction without any pending disputes or

claims by any third party. The Complainant is the alleged IGPA holder of the alleged
landowners of Sy.No.189/A and the allegation that this Respondent company has
encroached upon the said land is absolutely false and invented for the purpose of
the present complaint, which is purely speculative, intended to malign this
Respondent and extort money. It was submitted that the Respondent company is
developing only the land covered under the DGPAs belonging to the land owners
under the said the DGPAS and not at all concerned with the land in Sy.No.189/A.
The compound wall was constructed somewhere before 2000 and no one raised any
objection including the Complainant and if really there was an encroachment and
the Complainant had any interest, he would not have kept quiet for 24 long years
and acquiesced to the constructions being carried for the last 2 years in a massive
manner.

13.

It was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that filing of a complaint and

seeking relief on the allegation of encroachment is beyond the scope of provisions of

4 of 12

the Act, 2016. That the jurisdiction of this Authority is limited only for the
adjudication of disputes between the allottees, promoters and real estate agents. The
present grievance of Complainant or his principals alleged encroachment, being 3rd
parties is not contemplated by the Act and therefore does not fall under the abovementioned category contemplated by the Act, 2016 and that therefore, the
Complainant and his alleged principals have no locus to file a complaint before this
Hon'ble Authority.

14.

It was submitted that during the pendency of OS.No.116 of 2016 this

Respondent company fraudulently encroached the disputed land and started
developing the layout as if it is part of Geethika without any authority and without
any title over the disputed land parcel property. It is also denied that this Respondent
has failed to provide quarterly up to date on the status of the project whereas this
Respondent has been continually uploading all the quarterly up to date in the
website. It is also denied that this Respondent purposefully acting against the
obligations casted on him by obtaining TS RERA registration is absolutely wrong.

Rejoinder on behalf of the Complainant:
15.

In response, the Complainant emphasized that Section 31 of Act, 2016 allows

any aggrieved person to file a complaint with this authority against any promoter or
allottee or real estate agent. Further, for the purpose of this section, person includes
association of allottees or any registered voluntary consumer association but did not
exclude anything from the definition of person defined under Section 2(zg).
Complainant or his principals are neither claimed as "allottee" nor claimed as
"promoter". The Complainant added, but this does not necessarily mean that
Complainant or his principals are not aggrieved persons. They are certainly aggrieved
persons because Section 2(zg)(i) defines that the person can be an individual.

16.

The Complainant relied upon the case of Sri Vemula Prashanth Reddy & Ors.

Vs Komati Reddy Venkat Reddy and others, the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh observed that “The word person aggrieved are found in several statues. The
meaning of the words person aggrieved will have to be ascertained with reference to
the purpose and the provisions of the statute”.

5 of 12

17.

The Complainant also relied upon the case of Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs

M. V. Dabholkar, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court, at para 27 observed “that the
meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" may vary according to the context of the
statute. One of the meanings is that a person will be held to be aggrieved by a decision
if that decision is materially adverse to him. Normally, one is required to establish that
one has been denied or deprived of something to which one is legally entitled in order
to make one "a person aggrieved". Again a person is aggrieved if a legal burden is
imposed on him. The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" is sometimes given a
restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection of
private legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or deprivation of legal
rights. A more liberal approach is required in the background of statutes which do not
deal with property rights but deal with professional conduct and morality.”

18.

The Complainant, therefore, submitted that Complainant or his principals are

certainly “aggrieved persons” as they are imposed with a legal burden to protect their
own property from third party alienation by committing grave violations under the
cover of registration granted by the Authority. Due to the violations committed by the
Respondents, Complainant or his principals are deprived of their legitimate right to
enjoy their property at Sy No.189 adjoining the Respondent's project named
"GEETHIKA" under RERA Rgn. No. P01100005949.

19.

The Complainant also submitted that he did not file this complaint seeking to

settle the private civil dispute, but because, for the purpose of obtaining RERA
registration, vide Form B para 1, the Respondent made a unfair practice by falsely
representing to this Authority that he have legal title to the land on which the
development of the proposed project will be carried out. The Respondent may have
title for part of the land where development is carried out but not entirely. That
therefore, complaint is filed before this authority seeking to revoke the RERA
registration under Sections 7(1)(c) and 7(1)(d) of the Act, 2016.

20.

The

Complainant

further

submitted

that

Respondent

had

obtained

permissions listed in counter document but is not developing the project fully on the

6 of 12

land where he has legitimate title but on disputed land such as Sy.No.189. The
Complainant submitted satellite images to substantiate his claim. He added the
Complaint made before this Authority is not about encroachment but about
committing the defined violations in the Act, 2016 such unfair practice by means of
submitting false representations to this Authority vide Form-B and for obtaining
RERA registration fraudulently.

21.

Additionally, he submitted that the Respondent had not updated quarterly

status update to the RERA portal which is an obligation casted upon promoter by
RERA Act. On 23.07.2024, there was a scheduled adjournment for this complaint
before this Authority for which purpose, the Respondents had logged into the portal
for quarterly update. It continues to be the last update made by the Respondent on
the RERA portal while quarterly update is a mandatory activity casted upon
promoters thus, an update is necessary by 31st Mar, 30th Jun, 30th Sep and 31st
Dec. Respondent did not made any update for the 3rd quarter i.e., for the month of
Sep and that thus, the Respondent is misleading this Authority about providing
quarterly updates. Therefore, Complainant prayed for the reliefs already prayed in
the original complaint.

Points for Consideration:
22.

This Authority heard and deliberated upon the contentions of both the parties

and the following points sprout for consideration:
I.

Whether the Complainant and their principals qualify as "aggrieved
persons" under Section 31 of the Act, 2016?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought? If yes, to what
extent?

Observations of the Authority:
Point I
23.

The Respondent raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability

of the complaint, asserting that the Complainant does not qualify as an "aggrieved
person" under Section 31 of the Act, 2016 and that the present complaint is liable to
be dismissed.

7 of 12

24.

Section 31(1) of the Act, 2016 stipulates that “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." A
plain reading of this provision makes it abundantly clear that only a person aggrieved
under the provisions of the Act, 2016 is eligible to file a complaint before this
Authority.

24.

The Respondent relied upon the judgment of Dr. Yogesh Keshav Bele vs.

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority, [2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1849], wherein
the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that:
“10. Admittedly, the Appellant is not an “allottee” in the project under
consideration which is developed by the Respondent No. 3 because he
has not booked any flat/property in the said project. The grievance of the
Appellant is with respect to the allegation that the Respondent No. 3 has
violated various laws in the development of the said building including
the challenge to the manner in which the occupation certificate was
received by the developer. The plot of land of the Appellant is adjoining
to the said project developed by the Respondent No. 3. On the basis of
this fact, the grievance of the Appellant appears to be various violations
alleged to have been committed by the Respondent No. 3 in developing
the project including allegation of encroachment by the Respondent No.
3 on the land of the Appellant.
….
13. On a harmonious and holistic reading of various above-referred
provisions of the RERA Act, in my view, a person who is not at all
connected with the project of the promoter since he had not booked any
flat in the said project cannot be said to be an “aggrieved person” under
Section 31(1) for filing complaint. The Explanation to Section 31(1)
provides that “person” shall include the association of allottees or any
voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time
being in force. The “aggrieved person” under the RERA Act could be an
allottee or real estate agent or promoter or association of allottees or any
voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time

8 of 12

being in force. A person who is not at all connected or interested in the
project but seeks to redress his private grievances as a person occupying
the adjoining land next to the project cannot be said to have any locus to
file a complaint and redress his private grievances by taking recourse to
the RERA Act. The remedy of such a person lies somewhere else and not
before the Regulatory Authority under the RERA Act. The said view is
based on a holistic reading of preamble to the Act and the various
provisions which have been analysed above, which clearly point out that
the phrase “aggrieved person” in Section 31(1) of the Act would be an
allottee, promoter or real estate agent or association of allottees or
registered voluntary consumer association. The phrase “aggrieved
person” has to be construed in the context and purpose of RERA Act and
would encompass a person whose rights as an allottee, promoter or real
estate agent or person governed by the Act is infringed. The phrase
“aggrieved person” cannot be stretched on harmonious reading of all the
provisions of the Act and objective of the Act to mean that any person
who alleges violation of various laws by the developer can approach the
Regulatory Authority under Section 31(1) of the Act. Rule 6(1) of the
Maharashtra Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Recovery of
Interest, Penalty, Compensation, Fine Payable Forms of Complaints etc.)
Rules, 2017 also indicates that “aggrieved person” is a person having
interest in the project. At the most an unconnected or unrelated person
may bring to the notice of the Regulatory Authority the alleged violation
and then it is for the said authority to take action based on the
information received (which the Appellant claims to have done relying on
Circulars issued by the Authority), but that would not bring such a person
giving information within the phrase “aggrieved person” for the purpose
of Section 31(1) of RERA Act. If such a person is not satisfied with the
action taken by the Regulatory Authority then the remedy of such a
person would lie somewhere else and not under the RERA Act.
14. Section 31(1) of the RERA Act uses the expression “any aggrieved
person”. The word “person” is defined under Section 2(28) but in Section
31(1) the said word “person” is further qualified by “aggrieved”. It is a
settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in
any proceedings unless he satisfies that he falls within the category of

9 of 12

“aggrieved person”. Only a person who has suffered legal injury can
challenge the act/action/order in a Court of law. A “legal right”, means
an entitlement arising out of legal rules. The phrase “aggrieved person”
used in Section 31(1) of the RERA Act would mean a person who is
regulated or governed by the said Act and there is an injury of the right
conferred under the said Act. The phrase used in Section 31(1) is “any
aggrieved person” and not “any person”. The Appellant is not covered by
the RERA Act and therefore he cannot be said to be an “aggrieved
person” to take recourse to Section 31(1) of the RERA Act. The Appellant
Complainant can at the most lead evidence as witness but he cannot
claim the status of an adversarial litigant. The Appellant Complainant
cannot be a party to the lis because no legal right is conferred on him by
the RERA Act. Thus from the above analysis it is evident that the
Appellant having no concern whatsoever cannot be said to have any
locus standi to knock the doors of the RERA Act. The Appellant has
knocked wrong door by taking recourse to RERA for redressal of his
grievances.”

25.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Respondent submitted

that the Survey No.189, as alleged by the Complainant to have been encroached
upon by the Respondent, is not even part of the development of the Project. Upon
verification of the registration details of the Project “Geetika”, it is clearly established
that only Sy. Nos. 122,123,148,150 to 162,165 to 169,177 to 183,186 to 188, at RC
PURAM, Sangareddy, Telangana have been part of the development which has also
been stated in the permission granted by the HMDA dated 04.01.2023. Therefore,
this Authority is of the considered opinion that the Complainant and its principals
are none but “third-parties” and by virtue of the judgment cited above, the
Complainant and its principals cannot be termed as “aggrieved persons”.

26.

Further, the Complainant submits that he has filed the Complaint, not to

settle civil disputes, i.e., alleged encroachment on the Complainant’s land by the
Respondent, but to show this Authority the violations committed by the Respondent
of the provisions of the Act, 2016. The first violation claimed by the Complainant is
that the Respondent submitted a false Form B declaration and stated to have title

10 of 12

over the entire project land but does not have title to Sy. No.189 which belongs to
the Complainant and its principals. Upon verification, as mentioned above, and also
considering the submission of the Respondent, it is established that Sy. No.189 is
not forming part of the development of the Project which is mentioned in the HMDA
permission as well. Mere submission of a satellite images of the land does not
adequately establish the encroachment on part of the Respondent which has to be
proved before appropriate competent authorities. In such circumstances, it cannot
be said that the Respondent is in violation of any provision more so because the
Respondent has submitted all the required legal title reports to the Authority at the
time of registration to clearly establish its title in the Project.

27.

The Complainant has relied upon the cases of Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs

M. V. Dabholkar, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that meaning of
aggrieved person depends on the context of the statute. In the context of this statute,
aggrieved persons are those whose legal rights have been violated under the
provisions of the Act, 2016. It is clearly established above that there is no violation
in respect of Form B as Sy. No.189, on which the Complainant and its principals
claim ownership, is not forming part of the Project, and therefore, he cannot be said
to have been aggrieved by this very violation where his legal right is not infringed
upon.

28.

It is also pertinent to note that the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction,

namely the Court of the Family Judge cum VII Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Medak, at Sangareddy, in OS No. 116 of 2016, has already taken cognizance
of the matter, and the same is presently pending adjudication with respect to the
alleged encroachment. Admittedly, no order has been passed by the said Court
declaring the alleged encroachment and in the absence of any specific findings to
this effect, this Authority cannot delve into the matter at this stage. Furthermore,
the identification of encroachment falls within the exclusive domain of the
appropriate authorities tasked with such matters, and not this Authority.

11 of 12

29.

In light of the observations made above, Point I is answered in negative and

the Complainant and its principals are held “not aggrieved persons” under Section
31 of the Act, 2016.
Point II
30.

As it is established above that the Complainant and its principals are not

aggrieved persons, consequentially, all the reliefs claimed for by the Complainant
cannot be granted in his favour, and therefore Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

31.

However, notwithstanding the dismissal, this Authority notes the allegation

regarding the Respondent’s non-compliance with Section 11(1) of the Act, 2016
which mandates promoters to provide quarterly updates on the Project’s progress.
The Authority, in its regulatory capacity, will independently examine this matter and
take appropriate action against the Respondent should evidence substantiate the
Respondent’s failure to comply with this statutory obligation.

32.

In lieu thereof, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

12 of 12