Order Complaint No. 784 of 2022

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.784 OF 2022
15th Day of November, 2023
Corum:

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

Sri Jai Kumar Tawarani

…Complainant
Versus

M/s Western Constructions

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing
on 27.09.2023 and subsequently on 31.10.2023 before this Authority in the
presence of Complainant present in person Along with counsel Nikunj Dugar,
and counsel Sai Teja appeared on behalf of the Respondent and upon hearing
the arguments of both 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 Complaint:
3.

The facts of the case, in brief, are that, the complainant is one of the

legal heirs of the late Sri. Vasudev Khemchand, who passed away on 27-041 of 10

1998. Sri. Vasudev Khemchand was the owner of vast extents of agricultural
land in Sy. No 335, 336, 338, 340, 341, 342, and 345 situated at
Puppalaguda village, Rajender Nagar Mandal (now Gandipet Mandal), Ranga
Reddy District. Sri Vasudev Khemchand was a displaced person who migrated
to India from Pakistan during the partition. The lands in the aforementioned
survey numbers, including the land measuring Acre 11-27 guntas in Sy. No.
341 of Puppalaguda village (hereinafter referred to as "the suit schedule
property"), were declared as evacuee properties and were allotted to him by
the competent authority in lieu of land lost by him in the territory of Pakistan,
in accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation
and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. A title deed was issued to him on 08.12.1956,
and he was inducted into possession.
4.

Sri Vasudev Khemchand passed away on 27-04-1998, leaving behind

his wife, Smt. Naynid Bai, and his two sons, Sri Hari Kishan Tawrani and Sri
Heman Kumar Tawrani. Sri Hari Kishan Tawrani passed away on 29-022000, leaving the Complainant as one of his Class - I legal heirs and a
successor to his estate. The Complainant, along with his family, became
entitled to a 50% share in the subject land apart from other lands.
5.

Mr. Mahmood Mohiuddin, one of the Promoter of the Subject Project,

approached the Complainant and his family members and offered to mediate
for the settlement of civil and criminal disputes pending between the
Complainant and his family and Mr. Hemant Kumar Tawrani. Under these
circumstances, Mahmood Mohiuddin sought to settle the disputes between
the Complainant and his family members and Mr. Hemant Kumar Tawrani
under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 06/08/2005, whereby
the Complainant and his family members paid significant amounts to Mr.
Hemant Kumar Tawrani.
6.

Mr. Mahmood Mohiuddin also extorted substantial sums of money from

the Complainant and his family members through cheques and bank

2 of 10

transfers, claiming a threat to their lives and pressuring them into hasty
decisions.
7.

Mr. Mahmood Mohiuddin, in collusion with Mr. Hemant Kumar

Tawrani, induced the Complainant and his family members to execute an
Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney (AGPA) with possession
dated 07-03-2006. This AGPA was registered only in 2017 without the
knowledge of the Complainant and his family members.
8.

The AGPA falsely indicated that the properties covered under the

agreement, including the subject property, were sold for a mere sale
consideration of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In reality, the value of the lands was
worth several crores of rupees.Mr. Mahmood Mohiuddin obtained another
document, a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 07.03.2006, without
authority to sell or dispose of the lands, including the scheduled property.
9.

In 2003, a suit was filed by Mr. Mohan Singh and others for specific

performance of an agreement of sale dated 21-01-1963, allegedly executed by
Vasudev Khemchand in favor of Mumla Bai. The suit was instituted in the
name of the sole defendant, Vasudev Khemchand, who had already passed
away in 1998.
10.

Mr. Mohan Singh and others obtained an ex-parte decree against the

deceased

Vasudev

Khemchand,

which

is

considered

null

and

void.

Subsequently, they executed sale deeds based on the void decree.
11.

On the strength of these sale deeds, several sequential sale deeds, gift

deeds, and other documents were created to give the impression of changing
hands of the suit schedule property, even though these documents were
rooted in the null and void decree. Mr. Mahmood Mohiuddin filed a suit in
O.S. No.700/2007 seeking to cancel the judgment and decree dated 07-032003 in O.S. No. 68 of 2003, as well as the sale deeds executed in pursuance
of that decree. However, this suit was later withdrawn in 2016.
3 of 10

12.

After withdrawing the suit, Mr. Mahmood Mohiuddin engaged in the

creation of multiple documents and transfer deeds, collusively, to give the
appearance of legitimate transactions on the property.
13.

The Complainant and his family members have filed a suit in O.S. No.

91 of 2020 challenging these transactions and seeking a declaration of their
title.
14.

The Respondent has submitted an application before this Authority to

approve its Project titled "Western Springs" as a RERA registered project,
falsely indicating that there are no pending litigations related to the Project.
15.

The Respondent has concealed the fact that there is a suit filed by the

Complainant and his family members bearing O.S. No. 91 of 2020, seeking
declaration of title and declaring the DGPA dated 04-04-2018 as null and
void.
16.

The Complainant and his family members have actively contested the

suit and filed complaints with the HMDA to revoke the sanction plan and
cancel a Simple Mortgage Deed dated 11-10-2021.
B. Relief Sought:
17.
i.

The Complainant seeks the following relief:
To

revoke

the

Registration

of

Project

Registration

Number:

P02400005326;
ii.

To debar the Promoter from accessing the RERA website in relation to
the Project Registration Number: P02400005326;

iii.

To specify the name of the Promoter in the list of defaulters and display
the photograph of the Authorized Officer and Partners of the Promoter
on its website;

iv.

To direct the Promoters of the Respondent to pay 10% of the estimated
cost of the project as damages; and

v.

To inform the other Real Estate Regulatory Authorities in other States
and Union territories about such revocation of registration.

4 of 10

B. Reply by the Respondent
18.

In response to the complaint filed by Mr. Jai Kumar Tawrani the reply

filed by the Respondent, Western Constructions Windsor Park LLP are as
follow:
i.

The Respondent has acknowledged that an inadvertent mistake
occurred in their application for the registration of their real estate
project

in

Sy.No.341

of

Poppalguda

Village,

Gandipet

Mandal,

Rangareddy District. It was mistakenly stated that there were no
pending litigations related to the project, whereas there are indeed
certain litigations.
ii.

The Respondent, in their reply, expresses their sincere regret for the
oversight and has assured the RERA Authority that they are taking
necessary steps to rectify the error in the registration application and
are prepared to face any penalties imposed by this Authority.

iii.

The Respondent has also alleged that the Complainant, Mr. Jai Kumar
Tawrani, is attempting to take advantage of this lapse while trying to
conceal the illegal, mischievous, and malafide actions of himself and his
family members in collusion with their previous attorney and associate,
Mr. Mahmood Mohiuddin.

iv.

In response to the above, the Respondent argues that the Complaint is
false, speculative, and manipulative, and that the Complainant has
resorted to suppression and misrepresentation of facts. The Respondent
firmly denies all adverse contentions and allegations in the Complaint.

v.

The Respondent further contends that none of the issues raised by the
Complainant fall within the jurisdiction of this Authority, and the
related matters are sub-judice. They argue that entertaining such
speculative applications would defeat the purpose of this Authority and
the RERA Act, which could lead to an inundation of civil disputes better
suited for adjudication by civil courts.

vi.

The land under scrutiny was originally owned by Smt. Bharatha
Lakshmi, who was involved in a series of conveyance transactions.

5 of 10

vii.

Smt. Bharatha Lakshmi initiated a set of transfers by way of gift deeds.
Initially, she conveyed an extent of Ac. 0.24 gts to her younger
daughter, Smt. K. Samarajya Lakshmi, under a gift deed dated
30.10.2007 bearing document No. 7802 of 2007. Additionally, Ac. 0.30
gts were conveyed to her granddaughter, Smt. K. Tulsi Priya, under a
separate gift deed, No. 7803 of 2007. Later, the remaining extent of Ac.
0.16 gts was transferred to her grandson, Kandyala Palani Karthik,
under a gift deed dated 28.10.2016 with document No. 7129 of 2016.
All these donees were duly inducted into possession of their respective
gifted extents by Smt. Bharatha Lakshmi.

viii.

Sri Yelamanchili Ravinder Kumar, who owned Ac. 0.20 gts, opted to sell
his entitlement. Accordingly, he entered into a sale deed dated
02.11.2016, documented as No. 7131 of 2016, conveying his interest to
K.B. Narayan Raju and Smt. K. Jyothi, who were then duly inducted
into possession of the same.

ix.

Sri P. Gangi Reddy, another landowner with an entitlement of Ac. 2.13
gts, opted for separate gift deeds. He conveyed Ac. 0.20 gts each to his
grandchildren, Neha Sura and Nihal Sura, and Ac. 0.33 gts to his
daughter, Smt. P. Usha Reddy, through registered gift deeds. The
respective document numbers were 957 of 2011 dated 15.03.2011,
2104 of 2011 dated 20.07.2011, and 5108 of 2014 dated 18.10.2014.
Following these transactions, the recipients were inducted into
possession of the extents gifted to them, while Sri P. Gangi Reddy
retained the remaining extent of Ac. 0.20 gts.

x.

Smt. P. Saraswathi, the wife of Sri P. Gangi Reddy and a co-owner, also
engaged in a similar set of transactions. She conveyed Ac. 0.20 gts each
to her above-named grandchildren and Ac. 0.33 gts to her above-named
daughter through registered gift deeds. The document numbers were
958 of 2011 dated 15.03.2011, 2105 of 2011 dated 20.07.2011, and
5107 of 2014 dated 18.10.2014. Like her fellow co-owners, Smt. P.
Saraswathi retained Ac. 0.20 gts after these transactions.

xi.

Subsequently, several landowners, namely Sri Sarath Sura, Sri P. Gangi
Reddy, Smt. K. Samarajya Lakshmi, Smt. P. Saraswathi, Smt. Chereddy
6 of 10

Venkata Surya Sashikala, and others, collectively sold and conveyed an
extent of Ac. 3.02 gts from their respective entitlements in Sy. No. 341
to M/s. Western Constructions under registered sale deeds. These sale
deeds were documented as Nos. 3119 of 2018, 3120 of 2018, 3121 of
2018, and 3229 of 2018, all dated between 03.04.2018 and 04.04.2018.
xii.

To facilitate the development of the entire land in Sy. No. 341, the
landowners and M/s. Western Constructions entrusted the project to
M/s. Western Constructions Windsor Park LLP (formerly known as M/s.
Ektha Western Windsor Park LLP) under a registered Development
Agreement-cum-GPA dated 04.04.2018 with document No. 3230 of
2018. Notably, Mohammed Mohiuddin, who was involved in the ongoing
dispute, also became one of the signatories to this agreement.

xiii.

The respondent raises the issue of a civil suit initiated by Mohammed
Mohiuddin, who represented himself as well as his above-named
principals, i.e., Meena Hari Kishan Tawrani, Jai Kumar Hari Kishan
Tawrani (complainant herein), Savitha Hari Kishan Tawrani, and Jyothi
Hari Kishan Tawarani. This suit was directed towards specific
performance of an alleged agreement of sale dated 25.03.2006, said to
have been executed by Mohammed Mohiuddin as the attorney of his
said principals under an alleged AGPA document. The complainant is
one of the main parties to this suit.

xiv.

Despite

the

settlement

and

previous

legal

actions,

Mohammad

Mohiuddin continued with illegal activities with the intention of
extracting more benefits. Legal actions were initiated against him and
his Principals in response.
xv.

The Complainant's family, being aware of Mohammad Mohiuddin's
activities, cancelled the General Power of Attorney given to him in
March 2020. However, their previous actions and commitments through
their attorney are binding.

xvi.

The Complainant and their family members are attempting to use the
present complaint to harass and extort money from the Respondents
and their project. Respondent contend that this is an attempt to defame
the project and exploit a lapse due to ignorance.
7 of 10

xvii.

Further, emphasize that unless there is a restraining order from a
competent court, this Authority has the power to register a project
irrespective of pending litigation. The complaint's intention appears to
be an abuse of the system.

xviii.

Finally, the Respondent requests that the complaint be rejected in its
entirety.

C. Hearing Conducted:
19.

The relief sought pertains to the revocation of the registration granted to

the Respondent for the project under section 7 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.
This Authority has previously considered this matter and was of the
preliminary opinion that the present complainant is not maintainable. During
the Hearing the Learned counsels for the Complainant and Respondent
reiterated the allegations made in the written submissions made to this
Authority. However, the Counsel for the Complainant failed to provide any
form of evidence or information that would satisfy the criteria for classification
as an “aggrieved person” as stipulated in the RE(R&D) 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
allotters, or a voluntary association. Consequently, the Complainant does not
meet the definition of an aggrieved person as defined in Section 31 of the
RERD Act. Section 31 is reproduced below:
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.
20.

Further, the Complainant agreed that the said complaint maybe is a

civil dispute as it pertains to the ownership dispute which is not within the
8 of 10

purview of this Authority’s jurisdiction. But the second issue raised by them
is with regard that the promoter/developer deliberately did not disclose about
the pending litigations in the RERA application/Form B, relying on the title
report and Form B affidavit declaration dated 04.10.2022 there are many
third party rights being established. The Respondent have deliberately
suppressed this information from RERA authority and also Allottees and is a
clear case of misrepresentation and is in violation of section 4(2)(1)(b) of the
RE(R&D) Act .
D. Observation of this Authority:
21.

The observations and findings of this Authority so far as relief(a) in the

complaint filed by the Complainant is concerned, though the sub section of 1
of section 7 of the Act stipulates the revocation of Registration in certain
circumstances, the Authority observes that as the title dispute is yet pending
before the Competent court and revocation under section 7 of the RERD Act,
2016 may be inappropriate at this stage, the authority will not be getting into
the merits of the title dispute of the present project, and in cases of such
disputes, the complainants first shall seek recourse with the the civil court. It
is not denied that the disputed matter is already pending before the
competent authority between the present complainants and the Respondent.
Therefore, if the complainants perceive any form of illegal activity on the part
of the Respondent regarding their right to develop the Real Estate project,
they can seek redress from the Civil Court or the Appropriate Authority. This
Authority cannot grant the relief in the present Complaint.
22.

However, this Authority most significantly observes that the Form B

and original RERA Application filed before TS RERA incorrectly stated that
there are no pendency of litigation cases over the said property which is a
direct violation of section 4(2)(1)(b) of the RE(R&D) Act and Rule 14 (1) (d)
of TS RE (R&D) Rules.
Direction of Authority

9 of 10

23.

In view of the observations and discussion made above, this Authority

hereby passes order as under and issues the following direction under section
37 and 38 of RE(R&D) Act.
i.

The Respondent is directed to pay Rs. 11, 54,000/- as penalty under
section 60&61 of the Act. The penalty is being imposed for furnishing
incorrect information in the application to TS RERA and Form B dated
04.10.2022 stating that there is no pendency of litigations over the
subject project, payable in favour of TS RERA FUNDS through Demand
Draft or online payment to A/c No.50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC
Code: HDFC0007036 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of this order.

24.

Given the ongoing civil litigation and the nature of the dispute, this

authority is of the view that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter at
this

stage.

The

complainant's

claims

are

intertwined

with

the

civil

proceedings, and it is only appropriate for the civil court to decide on the
ownership and possession of the property.
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) within 60 days from the receipt of this Order.

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

10 of 10