Order Complaint No. 807 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.807 OF 2023
28th Day of March, 2024
Corum:

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

Sri Maruthi Lalitha Ravi Krishna

…Complainant

Versus
Koneru Nageshwara Rao
M/s Udaya SSV Projects
M/s SSR Estates LLP
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing
on 31.20.2023 and 31.01.2024 before this Authority in the presence of
Complainant and 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
“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 Case as Stated in the Complaint:
3.

The case pertains to a property located in Brindavan Colony, Narsinghi

Village, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District. The property consists of two
plots, namely Plot No. 21/3A (E5/9) and Plot No. 22 (E5/10), with a total area
of Ac. 13-08gts in Sy.No.136. The property was purchased by the late Mr. M.
Ramarao in 1967. Plot No. 21/3A was registered in the name of Mrs. M.V.
Seshamma.

1 of 5

4.

The original pattedar of the land, Mr. K. Sriramulu, appointed Mr. P.V.

Kutumba Rao as his GPA through a registered document (Document No.11 of
1967). The land was laid out as part of Brindavan Colony, with a large park,
roads, and plots, as shown in the original layout map. The layout was
approved by the Sarpanch of Narsingi Village in 1967.
5.

Mr. Kutumba Rao sold numerous plots to third-party buyers within

Brindavan Colony for over 35 years from 1967 until 2002 through registered
sale deeds. These transactions were not objected to by the original pattedar,
Mr. Sriramulu, until his demise in 2005.
6.

The revenue authorities did not update the land records (Pahanis) to

reflect the sale of plots within Brindavan Colony, leading to discrepancies in
land

ownership

records.

An

encumbrance

search

reveals

numerous

transactions related to the plots within the colony.
7.

After Mr. Sriramulu's death, his children applied for the mutation of the

entire land in their name based on a 'Will Deed' (Doc.No. 145/Book/III/2005),
which was registered just hours before his death, under suspicious
circumstances. The mutation was granted without proper site visits and
verification of land records.
8.

Plot owners within Sy.No.136 applied for and received LRS for their

plots, further confirming the legitimacy of the layout.
9.

The RDO, Rajendranagar Division, issued land conversion orders,

allowing for the change in land use, further benefiting the LRs of Mr.
Sriramulu.
10.

The LRs of Mr. Sriramulu entered into a Development Agreement cum

General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) with M/s. UDAYA SSV PROJECTS for the
development of the entire land in Sy.No.136, claiming to be the absolute
owners and possessors.
11.

M/s. UDAYA SSV PROJECTS occupied the land, removed plot

boundaries and roads, and erected metal sheet barricades around the

2 of 5

property. Multiple plot owners filed police complaints against this illegal
occupation.
12.

Several FIRs have been filed by affected plot owners against M/s.

UDAYA SSV PROJECTS for land grabbing and illegal occupation.

B. Prayer:
13. Immediate action shall be taken by HMDA and Narsingi Municipal
Authorities to correct their mistakes and submit true facts before the Hon’ble
Courts to expose the criminal fraud perpetrated by Koneru Nageswar Rao &
Ors.
C. Reply by the Respondent:
14.

The complainant consistently engages in the practice of fabricating false

complaints with a malicious intent to derive undue advantages, thereby
confounding authorities with illicit documentation
15.

The complainant neither holds the status of a flat purchaser nor

possesses an agreement in their project. False complaints have been proffered
by the complainant to HMDA, courts, and other authorities, all of which have
been unequivocally dismissed.
16.

A recent inquiry conducted by HMDA, inclusive of hearings involving all

relevant parties, culminated in an order dated 16.11.2023, thereby rejecting
the complainant's allegations. A copy of said order is appended herewith
17.

Koneru Nageshwar Rao and others, as absolute landowners of the

parcel measuring AC-13-08 gts., sought permission on 18.11.2019 to erect a
multi-storied building in Sy. No. 136 of Narsingi Village and Narsingi
Municipality.
18.

Following a meticulous examination of land documents and field survey

reports, technical approval was granted by HMDA authorities via Approval
Letter No. 030598/ZOA/R1/U6/18112019 dated 15.11.2020. Additionally,

3 of 5

HMDA sanctioned the construction of two (2) additional floors beyond the
initial permission of 2 cellars + 9 upper floors.
19.

During the preparatory phase for commencement of construction, a

show cause notice was issued by HMDA dated 02.06.2021 to M/s Udaya SSV
Projects, the then developer, in response to a complaint lodged by Mr. M.L.
Ravi Krishna dated 30.04.2021, alleging encroachment upon roads, park
areas, etc.
20.

Subsequently, the complainant filed a petition before the Hon'ble I

Additional JCJ cum XV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, seeking a
temporary injunction. The Interlocutory Application (I.A) was disposed of by
the honorable court, opining that the complainant failed to substantiate the
existence of his land in survey no. 136 and the associated layout. The plea
was rejected on the grounds that the complainant approached the court
without clean hands.
21.

From the aforementioned evidence, it is evident that the complainant

has been unable to substantiate the existence of his land in survey no. 136 or
the presence of a layout therein. Consequently, there is no foundation for
disturbing the boundaries, roads, and public park, as no layout exists in
survey no. 136, the basis upon which technical approval was accorded by
HMDA.
22.

Furthermore, the complainant himself acknowledged that survey no.

137 is government land, and a dispute between the government and third
parties is ongoing. The complainant's attempt to encroach upon survey no.
136, owned by the Respondent, is an endeavor born out of the complainant's
inability to gain access to his lands in survey no. 136, leading to the creation
of false complaints with a malicious intent to secure ulterior benefits.
23.

Another complaint with identical subject matter was lodged with HMDA

by the same complainant on 10.10.2022, prompting the Respondent to file a
Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana.

4 of 5

24.

HMDA authorities conducted a comprehensive investigation, and the

complaints proffered by the complainant were rejected as he failed to
substantiate the existence of the layout and his land.
25.

Furthermore, the project is duly registered with RERA, and the requisite

permission for an additional 2-floor building has been obtained from HMDA.

D. Observation and Direction of the Authority:
26.

The matter was finally heard on January 31, 2024, during which the

complainant reiterated the contents of their complaint. Upon thorough
examination of the complaint and record file, it is evident that the relief
sought by the complainant pertains to HMDA and not this Authority. The
complaint failed to specify how this Authority has jurisdiction over the subject
matter. When questioned about this during the hearing, the complainant
indicated a lack of awareness regarding the jurisdiction of this Authority.
Additionally, there appears to be a boundary and title dispute between the
parties involved. Consequently, the Authority concludes that the complainant
has not adequately established the jurisdiction of this Authority over the
subject matter. Therefore, due to this jurisdictional deficiency, the matter is
hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA

5 of 5