Order Complaint No. 82 Of 2020

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.82 OF 2020
30th Day of December, 2023
Corum:

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

Sri Govardhan Chary

…Complainant
Versus

M/s SAS Infra Pvt. Ltd.

…Respondent

The present complaint came up for hearing on 23.08.2023, 26.09.2023 and
21.12.2023 before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant and Counsel
for Complainant, Sri Maheshwaran and Counsel for Respondent, Sri T. Vijay
Kumar Reddy & Ms. Preeti Aggarwal and upon hearing the arguments of both the
parties, this Authority passes the following ORDER:

2.

The counsel for respondent vehemently urged that, the present Complaint

filed by the Complainant is not maintainable on the ground that, the complainant
made a similar complaint to the Authority earlier and after taking into
consideration the documents filed by the Complainant and the Reply by the
Respondent, this Authority, vide its Order dated 06.09.2021 dismissed the matter
holding as under:
“Relief sought by complainant is ambiguous and not specific. Therefore, the
relief sought is hereby rejected. However, the parties are at liberty to approach
competent civil court for remedy.”

1 of 2

3.

From the record it is apparent that, the pleas which were raised by the

complainant in the earlier complaint are reiterated in the present complaint except
additional pleas that the MOU’s and Agreements are entered by the respondent
with him and others without obtaining RERA registration.

4.

The Authority is of the considered view that, the additional pleas raised in

present complaint were available to the complaint when the earlier complaint was
made to the Authority. As such, the complaint might or ought to have raised the
above-said additional pleas in the earlier complaint itself. Therefore, it is not
permissible for the complainant to file the additional pleas which is clearly barred
by the principle of constructive res judicata.

5.

It is also to be noted that the prayer sought in the earlier complaint and the

present complaint are also similar i.e., to take action against the Respondent
Builder.

6.

In view of the observations made above, without going into the merits, the

complaint is closed.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon'ble Chairperson,
TS RERA

2 of 2