Order Complaint No. 795 of 2022

BEFORE THE
TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY, HYDERABAD
COMPLAINT NO.795/2022/TSRERA
Dated: 27th September 2023
Between:1. Boorgubavi Pentaiah
2. Boorgubavi Narsing Rao
3. Boorgubavi Prabhakar
4. Smt. Vasantha
5. Smt. Anasuya
6. B. Venkatesh
7. B. Lavanya
8. Buddi Lalitha
9. Smt. Bharathi
10.

Smt. Uma

11.

Smt. Kalamma

….Complainant(s)
Versus

M/s Sunyuga Infra Pvt. Ltd.

….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 27th September 2023
before this Authority. None appeared on behalf of
complainant and of the Respondent party present
represented by its Managing Director. After hearing the
submissions made by the parties, the Authority passed
the following order.
ORDER

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
1of 6

Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) for
violation and contravention of the provisions of the Act of 2016 made there
under.
A. Facts of the case as stated in the complaint filed by the
Complainant:
2. The Complainant has made the following submissions in the complaint:
i.

The Complainants, namely (1) Boorgubavi Pentaiah, (2) Boorgubavi
Narsing Rao, (3) Boorgubavi Prabhakar, (4) Vasantha, (5) Anasuya,
(6) Venkatesh, (7) Lavanya, (8) Lalitha, (9) Bharathi, (10) Uma, and
(11) Kalamma, are contesting in O.S. No. 161 of 2022 on the file of
the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge at Medchal. This suit was
filed by M/s. Sunyuga Infra Pvt. Ltd., represented by its M.D. D.
Vishwanath Reddy. The said suit pertains to the above-mentioned
survey numbers. During the pendency of the suit, if any permission
is issued by this authority in favour of M/s. Sunyuga Infra Pvt. Ltd.,
it may not be valid in the eyes of the law due to the pending suit.
This could lead to multiplicity of litigations and would be against the
principles of natural justice. Any permission granted unilaterally by
this authority without the knowledge or consent of my clients would
also be against the principles of natural justice.

ii.

Furthermore, submitted that they are the absolute owners, being the
legal heirs of the Original Protected Tenant named Boorgubavi Pedda
Mallaiah @ Garise Pedda Mallaiah. He acquired the said property
measuring Acre 11-33 Guntas in Sy.No.145, situated at Doolapally
Village, vide Proceeding No. V/304/LRE/75 dated 03-06-1976,
issued by the concerned authority under Section 38-E of the
Protected Tenancy Act.

iii.

Also, submits that since Complainants have absolute rights in the
said survey numbers, M/s. Sunyuga Infra Pvt. Ltd. is obtaining sale
deeds without the knowledge or consent of Complainants. They are
approaching this authority on the basis of created and false sale
deeds executed by third parties who have no connection with the
2of 6

scheduled survey number. Therefore, when the matter is in dispute
in the civil court, this authority lacks the power to entertain or issue
any permission to M/s. Sunyuga Infra Pvt. Ltd.
iv.

Consequently, requested to not issue any construction permission to
M/s. Sunyuga Infra Pvt. Ltd. as the original case is pending in O.S.
No. 161 of 2022, filed by M/s. Sunyuga Infra Pvt. Ltd., before the
Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge at Medchal. This request is
valid until the conclusion of the case.

B.

Relief(s) Sought:

3.

The relief sought is not to grant permission to construct Sy.No. 145,

situated at Dulapally Village.
C.

Reply by the Respondent:

4.

The Respondent by the way of written reply dated 21.02.2023 made the

following submission that:
i.

The Complaint made by Ch. Dasarath Advocate on behalf of his
clients Boorugubavi Pentaiah & 10 others against Respondent is
beyond the scope or jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Authority. The
Complaint does not fall under the definition of purchasers/allottees
as per Sec. 2 (d) of RERA Act, 2016. There is no cause of action. In
view of this fact, the Complaint is not maintainable and is solely
made to extract money from Respondent without any legal basis.

ii.

In fact, Respondents herein filed OS No. 161/2022 against Mr.
Boorugubavi Pentaiah & 4 others and obtained injunction orders in
IA No. 175/20220 as they were illegally interfering with the
possession of land measuring approximately Acre 04-20 Gts., in Sy.
No. 145 of Dulapally Village, Gandimaisamma Dundigal Mandal,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana State. The suit was filed for
perpetual injunction against the above persons, and the orders are
in favour of the Respondents herein and against the Complainants.

iii.

The above order should favour Respondents, not the complainants,
as they suffered adverse orders in the above suit. My client states
that they have not yet applied for any permission and the
3of 6

Complainants have failed to file any case against my client to
establish their rights.
iv.

Unless

the

Complainants

obtain

favourable

orders

against

Respondent herein in their favour, such complaints have no merit
and can be ignored.
v.

Therefore, requesting this Authority to dismiss the Complaint on the
grounds of lack of jurisdiction and cause of action.

D.

Rejoinder filed by Complainant:

5.

The Complainants by the way of written reply dated 30.05.2023 made

the following submission that:
i.

It is stated by the respondent that a civil suit is pending,
O.S.No.161 of 2022, against complainants and other third parties.
Since the schedule property, which the respondent, M/s. Sunyuga
Infra Pvt. Ltd., intends to develop, without the knowledge or
consent of the original pattedar (Complainants), it is in dispute in a
competent civil court. Therefore, this authority should reject the
sanction permission sought by the respondent.

ii.

Additionally, the respondent stated in their reply that Section 2(d)
of the RERA Act 2016 does not establish a cause of action.
However, Section 2 of the same act is very clear that when the
property is in dispute in a competent civil court, as per Section
2(zg), (zk), and zk(v), the act is applicable. Therefore, this authority
has the power to reject the sanction permission filed by the
respondent when the case is pending before the competent civil
court. This authority should not grant permission to make
construction on the schedule property until the suit is concluded.

iii.

Therefore, requesting that no permission be granted for the
construction of a multi-storey building in favour of the respondent,
M/s. Sunyuga Infra Pvt. Ltd., in the interest of justice.

E.

Hearing Conducted

4of 6

6.

The matter came up for a hearing before this Authority on 27.09.2023,

wherein no one appeared on behalf of the Complainant, and the Respondent
Company was represented by its Managing Director.
7.

During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the Complainant
is neither an allottee nor a landowner as per the documents of the local
authority produced before this Authority. Subsequently, an Interim Order
was issued vide I.A No. 175 of 2022 in O.S No. 161 of 2022, filed by the
Respondent against the Complainant. In this order, the Hon'ble Court of
PRL. Junior Civil Judge-cum-XX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at
Medchal granted an Ex-parte Order ad-interim injunction in favor of the
Respondent, restraining the Complainants, their henchmen, agents,
workers, relatives, legal heirs, or anyone else claiming through him from
interfering

with

the

peaceful

possession

and

enjoyment

of

the

Respondent over the schedule property in dispute (Sy. No. 145 of
Dulapally Village).
8.

Furthermore, the Respondent has not yet applied for any such
permission for the said project as it is still in the land acquisition stage.

F.

Directions of this Authority:

9.

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 Complainant does not meet the
definition of an aggrieved person as defined in Section 31 of the RERA Act.
Section 31 is reproduced herein:
(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.
5of 6

10.

Therefore, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above and I.A No.

175 of 2022 in O.S No. 161 of 2022 filed by the Respondent against the
Complainant, where the Hon'ble Court of PRL. Junior Civil Judge-cum-XX
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Medchal passed an Interim Order
restricting the herein Complainant from interfering into the matters of the
disputed land, the Complainant lacks the locus standi to submit the current
application under Section 31 of the RERA Act, the present complaint is
dismissed.
11.

If any party is aggrieved by this Order, they may approach the TS Real
Estate

Appellate

Tribunal

(vide

G.O

Ms.no.8,

dated

11.01.2018,

designating the Telangana State Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal as
the TS Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the
Act until the regular Tribunal is established) within 60 days from the
receipt of this Order.
12.

The case file shall be duly archived within the Registry for recordkeeping 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

6of 6