Order Complaint No.33 OF 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.33 OF 2025
27th Day of March 2025
Quorum:

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

Dr. Lubna Sarwath
R/o 404, navnaami Residency,
Plot No.1&2, Ramoji Enclave,
Poppalguda, Hyderabad 500032
[email protected]

…Complainant
Versus

1. M/s Phoenix Global Spaces Private Limited,
represented by its Authorised Representative
Office at Plot No.1057/M, Road No.45 Jubilee Hills,
Shaikpet, Telangana, India - 500033
2. M/s Sumadhura Constructions Private Limited,
represented by its Authorised Representative
Office at Door No: 8-2-293/82/A/7, Plot No : 1131,
2nd Floor Jubilee Hills Road No:36
Hyderabad, Telangana 500033
3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District
Office at Integrated District Office Complexes,
Kongara Kalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana 501510
4. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.
Through its Managing Director,
Regd. Office: "Parisrama Bhavanam",
6th Floor, 5-9-58/B, Fateh Maidan Road,
Hyderabad-500 004

…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing
on 18.02.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for Respondent
No.1, Sri Pavan Polkampally, Counsel for the Respondent No.2, Sri Kamuni
Sukumar, Authorized Representative of the Respondent No.3 and Authorized
Representative of Respondent No.4 and none for the Complainant, despite service

1 of 44

of notice, and after hearing the arguments, this Authority passes the following
ORDER:
2.

The 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
appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
Facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant in the Complaint has submitted that in the year 1921,

after construction of Osman Sagar Drinking Water Reservoir, Gandipet Raw
Water Conduit was laid across the Narsingi Lake-2 outflow channel, so that the
lake is not destroyed and continues to feed the ayacut area south of the lake.
Subsequently, on 06.06.2005, the Revenue Registration Department issued G.O.
Ms. No. 1092, dated 06.06.2005, imposing a prohibition on the registration of
government lands situated in Poppalguda village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, under Section 22A, on the grounds that such registration would
be contrary to public policy. Survey Nos. 271, 272, and 273 are among the 91
survey numbers included in the said notification.
4.

The Complainant further submitted that vide G.O.Ms. No. 33, dated

24.01.2013, issued by the Municipal Administration & Urban Development
(MAUD) Department, it was stipulated that no construction shall be permitted
within the Water Body Zone, and no building or development activity shall be
allowed in the bed of any water body, including rivers, nalas, and the Full Tank
Level (FTL) of lakes, ponds, cheruvus, kunta/shikam lands. Further that the
identification of a water body, whether perennial or non-perennial, shall be
determined based on Survey of India toposheets, revenue records, or other
competent authorities.
5.

Complainant submitted that pursuant to the approval of the Metropolitan

Development Plan-2031 for the Hyderabad Metropolitan Region under the
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) Master Plan, G.O. Ms.
2 of 44

No. 33 at Para 1.1.8 reiterates that the Water Body Zone encompasses all water
bodies, including rivers, streams, lakes, tanks, and kunta lands, as delineated in
revenue village maps, topographical sheets of the Survey of India, and records
maintained by the State Irrigation Department, Revenue Department, or other
competent authorities. The boundaries of such water bodies correspond to the
Full Tank Level (FTL) or High Flood Level (HFL), including both perennial and
non-perennial parts wherever such distinction exists. Additionally, as per the list
of lakes and water bodies identified within the HMDA jurisdiction, a total of 2,857
lakes were documented inside and outside the Outer Ring Road (ORR), including
Narsingi Lake2, which was identified at coordinates 17°24'02.1"N 78°21'23.9"E
and listed at Serial No. 248.
6.

Complainant submitted that W.P. No. 36396 of 2017 was pending before

the High Court concerning the Occupancy Rights Certificate pertaining to Survey
Nos. 271, 272, and 273 of Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District. The last recorded order in the case was available on the official website
as of 27.02.2018.
7.

The Complainant submitted that on 06.06.2019, in Civil Revision Petition

No. 1241 of 2019 before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad,
an order was issued concerning a petition filed under Section 2B of the Telangana
Area Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. The petition sought to set aside the order dated
18.05.2019 in Case No. F1/14927/2018, passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga
Reddy District, as well as the earlier order dated 07.02.2009 in No. L/4233/2008
issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Chevella Division, in relation to
land in Survey Nos. 271, 272, and 273, admeasuring Ac. 8.11 Gts, situated in
Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
8.

That subsequently, on 05.09.2019, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.

240 (MAUD Pig-III), including the IT Park/SEZ developed by Phoenix Group
within Survey Nos. 271, 272, 273, 273/1, and 274 in Puppalguda under the
jurisdiction of the Industrial Area Local Authority (IALA). Further, on 26.10.2019,
G.O. Ms. No. 260 (MAUD Plg-I) was issued, reclassifying the land in Survey Nos.
271, 272, 272/1, 273, 273/1, and 274 of Puppalguda Village, Rajendranagar
3 of 44

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring 26.35 acres, from its previous
designation of "Partly Water Body Use and Partly Recreational (Green Buffer
Zone)" to "Multipurpose Use Zone."
9.

The Complainant submitted that the reclassification was made despite

stringent directives from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in contravention of
established rules. The said land was originally designated under the notified
Master Plan of the Hyderabad Outer Ring Road Growth Corridor, as approved by
G.O. Ms. No. 470, M.A., dated 09.07.2008. The justification for the
reclassification was based on the remarks of the District Collector and the
Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, asserting that the said survey
numbers constituted patta lands and that, as per revenue records, no water body
existed within these survey numbers. However, G.O. Ms. No. 260 is not available
in the public domain but has been referenced in the report filed by the Ranga
Reddy District Collector in O.A. No. 189/2020 vide Letter No. LP/1305/2020,
dated 28.01.2021.
10.

Further that, on 08.02.2020, a case was filed, and on 19.05.2020, O.A. No.

72/2020 was registered before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern
Zone, Chennai, seeking the protection of Narsingi Lake 2 (HMDA Lake ID 2939)
situated in Puppalguda, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District. The petition was filed
to address issues related to the removal of encroachments and the restoration of
the lake’s hydrology.
11.

The Complainant also submitted that on 06.08.2020, vide Order No.

SEIAA/TS/OL/RRD-576/2020-330,

the

State

Environmental

Impact

Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Telangana, granted Environmental Clearance to
M/s. Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt. Ltd. for a commercial office complex
construction project in Survey Nos. 272/1 and 273/1 of Puppalguda Village,
Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The project, with a capital cost of Rs.
1100 Crores, encompasses a plot area of approximately 42,491.65 square meters
and a built-up area of 6,15,358.45 square meters.

4 of 44

12.

The Complainant submitted that on 10.01.2021, a Caution Notice was

issued concerning the land admeasuring 29 acres situated in Survey Nos. 262 to
274 of Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal (formerly Rajendranagar Mandal),
Ranga Reddy District. The notice was issued in connection with the rights,
interests, claims, and disputes associated with the said land, wherein M/s. MALI
Florex Limited asserted its concerns.
13.

It was stated that certain landowners, namely K. Muthyam Reddy, K.

Nagireddy, and K. Ratanga Pani Reddy, along with others, had allegedly
entrusted for development an extent of Ac. 10-20 Guntas forming part of the
Schedule Property, in violation of existing rights and interests. It was further
alleged that M/s. Phoenix Global Spaces Private Limited, despite being aware of
the said claims, had suppressed material facts and executed 239 conveyance
deeds, transferring undivided shares of land to various third parties in small
extents. These transactions were alleged to be in contravention of the provisions
of the Act, 2016. Additionally, the company had purportedly entered into
development agreements with the said purchasers, further perpetuating the
alleged illegality. The notice dated 10.01.2021 highlighted that multiple cases
and suits were pending concerning the subject Property and, therefore, cautioned
the general public against engaging in any transactions relating to the property
to avoid falling victim to such alleged irregularities.
14.

The Complainant submitted that on 28.01.2021, vide Letter No.

LP/1305/2020, the Government of Telangana, Revenue Department, through
Amoy Kumar, I.A.S., District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, addressed Smt. H.
Yasmeen Ali, Counsel for Telangana before the National Green Tribunal (NGT),
Chennai. The letter pertained to the Joint Committee Reports on Narsingi Lake 2
in connection with Case No. O.A. 189/2020, filed by the then-MP, Shri Anumula
Revanth Reddy, and Case No. O.A. 72/2020, filed by Dr. Lubna Sarwath, before
the NGT, Chennai.
15.

Further, on 02.03.2021, a reply was filed by the Collector, Ranga Reddy

District, in O.A. No. 72/2020, enclosing a location sketch of Narsingi Lake 2,
which was superimposed on the village revenue maps along with the geo5 of 44

coordinates of the lake boundary. On 06.10.2021, the Telangana State Industrial
Infrastructure Corporation (TGIIC) issued BPO No. IIC/0229/2021 in favour of
M/s. Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt. Ltd. for development in Survey Nos. 272/P and
273/P, covering a site area of 42,492.1 square meters, with a net area of
39,297.79 square meters. That subsequently, on 20.11.2021, this Authority
issued registration No. P02400003565 for the project named "TRITON," located
in Survey Nos. 272/P, 273/P, and 274/P at Puppalguda, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy
District, 500075. The project, undertaken by M/s. Phoenix Global Spaces Private
Limited, covered a site area of 42,492.15 square meters, with a net area of
39,297.79 square meters.
16.

The Complainant submitted that on 18.04.2022, the State Environmental

Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Telangana, issued an Environmental
Clearance (Amendment) Order bearing No. SEIAA/TS/OL/RRD-914/2021. The
order pertained to a project covering a total area of 42,494 square meters, with a
net area of 39,299.74 square meters and a built-up area (BUA) of 7,67,556.72
square meters. The project was designated as a Commercial Office cum
Residential Complex, with an estimated capital cost of ₹1,370 Crores.
17.

The Complainant submitted that on 27.02.2023, a Consent for

Establishment (Amendment) Order was issued. On 28.06.2023, M/s. Phoenix
Global Spaces Private Limited executed a Development Agreement-cumIrrevocable General Power of Attorney in favor of M/s. Sumadhura Constructions
Private Limited concerning the scheduled property in Survey Nos. 272P and
273P. The agreement granted absolute powers to the latter to obtain all necessary
permissions from government authorities, statutory bodies, and other relevant
agencies.
18.

Further, the Complainant submitted that on 28.07.2023, the State

Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Telangana, issued an
Environmental Clearance to M/s. Phoenix Global Spaces Private Limited for a
Residential cum IT/ITES Complex in Survey Nos. 272/1 and 273/1, Puppalguda
Village, Gandipet Mandal, Rangareddy District. The amendment to the
Environmental Clearance specified a revised built-up area (BUA) of 6,24,330.92
square meters, with the total project area remaining at 42,494 square meters and
6 of 44

the net area at 39,299.74 square meters. The estimated project cost was
reaffirmed at ₹1,370 Crores.
19.

The Complainant also submitted that on 10.08.2023, Original Application

No. 72/2020, filed before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Chennai, seeking
eviction of encroachments and restoration of Narsingi Lake 2 (HMDA Lake ID
2939), was disposed of.
20.

The Complainant submitted that on 16.03.2024, an appeal was filed before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India against the order of the National Green
Tribunal (NGT) in Civil Appeal Diary No. 12490/2024, wherein M/s Phoenix
Global Spaces Pvt. Ltd., had already entered a caveat, thereby being in full
knowledge of the proceedings. That subsequently, on 06.04.2024, the Telangana
State

Industrial

Infrastructure

Corporation

(TGIIC)

issued

Order

No.

BPO/72/2023, granting permissions in favor of Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt. Ltd.
for Survey Nos. 272P and 273P, with a total site area of 42,492.15 square meters
and a net area of 39,297.89 square meters. That thereafter, on 29.04.2024, this
Authority registered Project No. P02400008107 under the name "SUMADHURA
PALAIS ROYAL", pertaining to the same survey numbers and site area.
21.

That the matter was listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court for hearing

on 09.08.2024, 23.09.2024, 18.10.2024, and 18.11.2024. And meanwhile, on
07.10.2024, the Deputy Chief Minister publicly affirmed that Narsingi Lake 2
(HMDA Lake ID 2939), situated at Latitude: 17°24'3.019" N, Longitude:
78°21'17.736" E, stood entirely encroached, as evidenced by Survey of India (SOI)
toposheets and satellite imagery. Notwithstanding the orders of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, this Authority and TGIIC unauthorizedly permitted projects that
facilitated encroachments upon the lake area, amounting to contempt of court.
22.

In lieu thereof, the Complainant pointed out the following alleged

illegalities on part of Respondent Nos.1 & 2:
a. There has been a wilful suppression of ongoing litigation in multiple
courts, including the concealment of caution notices published in
7 of 44

newspapers, within Form B and the Application Form submitted to
regulatory authorities.
b. The property in question has been listed under prohibited properties, with
Narsingi Lake 2 (HMDA Lake ID 2939) and Bhulkapur Nala facing
destruction due to unauthorized encroachments. The conversion of water
bodies into a Multipurpose Use Zone for construction is expressly
prohibited, constituting a violation of existing statutory regulations.
c. The Hon’ble Deputy Chief Minister, relying on TGRAC satellite imagery,
has publicly affirmed that Narsingi Lake 2 stands 100% encroached,
necessitating Suo moto cognizance by the Telangana Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) under Sections 7 and 8 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. As the regulatory authority,
TGRERA was duty-bound to initiate appropriate proceedings and direct
the competent authority to immediately halt all construction activities on
the site.
d. TGRERA registrations have been granted on the basis of falsified
documents, involving suppression of material information, overlooking of
irregularities, and unauthorized approvals, thereby rendering such
registrations legally unsustainable.
e. A grave irregularity has occurred wherein TGRERA has issued two
separate project registrations for the same site area (Survey Nos. 272/P,
273/P, 274/P at Puppalguda, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy), measuring
42,492.15 square meters (net area: 39,297.79 square meters). These
include TGRERA Registration No. P02400003565 dated 20.11.2021 and
TGRERA Registration No. P02400008107 dated 29.04.2024, which is
legally impermissible.
f. Another serious irregularity is evident in the conflict between TGRERA
Project Registration No. P02400003565 dated 20.11.2021 for Project
"TRITON" (Survey Nos. 272/P, 273/P, 274/P at Puppalguda, Gandipet,
Ranga

Reddy)

and the

Telangana

State Industrial Infrastructure

Corporation (TGIIC) Order No. IIC/0229/2021 dated 06.10.2021, issued
to Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt. Ltd. for Survey Nos. 272P and 273P, thereby
demonstrating blatant procedural irregularities and conflicting approvals
by government agencies.
8 of 44

23.

The Complainant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Hinch Lal Tiwari vs Kamala Devi And Ors, [(2001) 6 SCC 496], wherein the
Hon’ble Court held as under:
“The Government, including the Revenue Authorities i.e. Respondents 11 to
13, having noticed that a pond is falling in disuse, should have bestowed
their attention to develop the same which would, on one hand, have
prevented ecological disaster and on the other provided better environment
for the benefit of the public at large. Such vigil is the best protection against
knavish attempts to seek allotment in non-abadi sites.
….
Further it will also help in maintaining ecological balance and protecting the
environment in regard to which this Court has repeatedly expressed its
concern. Such measures must begin at the grass-root level if they were to
become the nation's pride.”
24.

The Complainant further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022 in Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of
Structures, in its order dated 13.11.2024, has held as under:
"At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be applicable if there
is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as a road, street,
footpath, abutting railway line, or any river body or water body, and also to
cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law."

25.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.14604 of 2024 & Civil

Appeal No.14605 of 2024 titled “Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and Another Vs. U.P.
Avas Evam Vikas Parishad & Ors.” vide Judgement dated 17.12.2024 held as
follows:
Para No. 20:

9 of 44

“That apart, the State Governments often seek to enrich themselves through
the process of regularisation by condoning/ratifying the violations and
illegalities. The State is unmindful that this gain is insignificant compared to
the long-term damage it causes to the orderly urban development and
irreversible adverse impact on the environment.
….
Unauthorised constructions, apart from posing a threat to the life of the
occupants and the citizens living nearby, also have an effect on resources
like electricity, ground water and access to roads, which are primarily
designed to be made available in orderly development and authorized
activities. Master plan or the zonal development cannot be just individual
centric but also must be devised keeping in mind the larger interest of the
public and the environment.”
Para No. 21:
“(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade must be given by
any authorities including local bodies of States/Union Territories in any
unauthorized building irrespective of it being residential or commercial
building.
(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal plan and usage.
Any modification to such zonal plan and usage must be taken by strictly
following the rules in place and in consideration of the larger public interest
and the impact on the environment.”
Para No. 19(v):
“The aforesaid view was reiterated in Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court
Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others [(2021) 10 SCC 1] by
holding that illegal constructions have to be dealt with strictly to ensure
compliance with rule of law. The relevant paragraphs read as under:
"159. The rampant increase in unauthorised constructions
across urban areas, particularly in metropolitan cities where
soaring values of land place a premium on dubious dealings
has been noticed in several decisions of this Court. This state
10 of 44

of affairs has often come to pass in no small a measure
because of the collusion between developers and planning
authorities.
160. From commencement to completion, the process of
construction by developers is regulated within the framework
of law. The regulatory framework encompasses all stages of
construction, including allocation of land, sanctioning of the
plan for construction, regulation of the structural integrity of the
structures under construction, obtaining clearances from the
different departments (fire, garden, sewage etc.,) and the
issuance of occupation and completion certificates. While the
availability of housing stock, especially in metropolitan cities,
is necessary to accommodate the constant influx of people, it
has to be balanced with two crucial considerations - the
protection of the environment and the well-being and safety of
those who occupy these constructions. The regulation of the
entire process is intended to ensure that constructions which
will have a severe negative environmental impact are not
sanctioned. Hence, when these regulations are brazenly
violated by developers, more often than not with the
connivance of regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core
of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in an increased
harm to the environment and a dilution of safety standards.
Hence, illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to
ensure compliance with the rule of law.
161. The judgments of this Court spanning the last four
decades emphasise the duty of planning bodies, while
sanctioning building plans and enforcing building regulations
and bye-laws to conform to the norms by which they are
governed. A breach of the planning authority of its obligation to
ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at
the instance of residents whose rights are infringed by the
violation of law. Their quality of life is directly affected by the
failure of the planning authority to enforce compliance.
11 of 44

Unfortunately, the diverse and unseen group of flat buyers
suffers the impact of the unholy nexus between builders and
planners. Their quality of life is affected the most. Yet,
confronted with the economic might of developers and the might
of legal authority wielded by planning bodies, the few who
raise their voices have to pursue a long and expensive battle
for rights with little certainty of outcomes. As this case
demonstrates, they are denied access to information and are
victims of misinformation. Hence, the law must step in to
protect their legitimate concerns.”
Relief(s) sought by the Complainant:
26.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

“Revoke the registration/permissions of TGRERA Registered - 'Project
registration number: P02400003565 dated 20.11.2021 Project: TRITON,
Survey No.: 272/P,273/P,274/P, Plot No. Of Site:, at Puppalguda,
Gandipet, Ranga Reddy, 500075;

ii.

Revoke Project Registration No. P02400008107 dated 29/04/2024
SUMADHURA PALAIS ROYAL Survey Nos 272P AND 273P at
Puppalguda, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy, 500089

iii.

Investigate serious TGRERA irregularity as TGRERA P02400003565
dated 20.11.2021 Project: TRITON, for Survey No.: 272/P, 273/P, 274/P,
at Puppalguda, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy, whereas, TGIIC issues BPO No.
No. IIC/0229/2021 dt 06 October, 2021 to PHOENIX GLOBALSPACES
PVTLTD for Sy no. 272P, 273P -

iv.

Investigate serious TGRERA irregularity that Project registrations have
been issued twice to two different companies for same site area Survey
No.: 272/P, 273/P, 274/P, at Puppalguda, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy for
same site area admeasuring 42.492.15 sqms Net area 39,297.79 sqms

v.

Investigate serious TGRERA irregularity as TGRERA Application in
Project

Registration

No.

P02400008107,

indicates

Promoter

as

Sumadhura Constructions in one column and Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt
Ltd in another column.
vi.

Investigate serious irregularity of DGPA dt 28.06.2023 in favor of
Sumadhura

Constructions

Pvt

Ltd,

as

TGRERA

issues

Project
12 of 44

Registration to Sumadhura on 29.04.2024 based on TGIIC Building
Permit Order issued to Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt Ltd. on 6.4.2024.
vii.

Investigate serious irregularity TGRERA, as Form B and other forms
submitted to TGRERA even as case was being heard on the site area at
NGT Chennai, filed in February 2020 and after case filed at Hon’ble
Supreme Court on 16.03.2024, and the case at Apex Court is ongoing.
Two High Court cases are pending since 2017.

viii.

Investigate serious irregularity, as the survey numbers are mentioned in
Prohibited Property List on registrations website as on date.

ix.

Existence of water body Narsingi lake 2 Hmda lake id 2939, is
documented from 1921 to 2024. Since 1921 when Raw water conduit
was laid from Osman Sagar reservoir to Asif nagar filter beds by then
Nizam for State of Hyderabad, and, till 2024 when Hon’ble Deputy Chief
Minister Government of Telangana declared the said lake as 100%
encroached through Planning Department TGRAC documents.

x.

Apparently,
SEIAA/SEAC,

serious

irregularity

Collector

RR,

by

I&CAD

TGRERA,

TGIIC,

TGPCB,

RR,

all

concerned

and

authorities/officials who given ultra-vires reports and permissions in a
water body, prohibited by S-22 as well as by GO Ms 33 as nonconversional and non-constructional, hence investigation mandatory.
xi.

As the project cost involved is around Rs.2000 crores an immediate
criminal probe be ordered so that public money and natural resource may
be protected.”

Counter on behalf of Respondent No.1:
27.

Respondent No.1 filed a preliminary counter and submitted that the same

was being filed to the question of maintainability of the present Complaint on
various grounds. A copy of the said preliminary counter dated 14.02.2025 has
been duly served on the Complainant vide e-mail dated 15.02.2025 and a memo
of service has also been filed by Respondent No.1 before this Authority to this
effect.
28.

Respondent No.1 submitted that the Complainant has no locus standi and

that the Complainant does not qualify as an ‘aggrieved person’ under the
13 of 44

provisions of the Act, 2016. That no cause of action arises or no legal injury is
suffered by the Complainant in order to claim the status of an "Aggrieved Person".
29.

Respondent No.1 submitted that Section 31(1) of the Act, 2016 read with

Rule 34 of the Rules, 2017 explicitly provides that a Complaint may be filed by
an 'aggrieved person' in cases of violation or contravention of the provisions of
the Act, Rules, or Regulations against a promoter, allottee, or a real estate agent.
It was submitted that the phrase "aggrieved person" has to be construed in the
context and purpose of the Act, 2016 and would encompass a person whose
rights as an allottee, promoter or real estate agent or person governed by the Act
is infringed. That 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. In support of
above detailed contention `by Respondent No 1 has relied upon the judgement of
the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in he matter of Dr. Yogesh Keshav Bele vs.
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors. (SA No. 432 of 2023)
30.

Respondent No.1 contended that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the

above said matter of Dr. Yogesh Keshav Bele vs. Maharashtra Real Estate
Regulatory Authority & Ors. (SA No. 432 of 2023) in Para-Nos. 13 and 15 extracted
hereunder, held thus: “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 being in force. A person who is not at all
connected or interested in the project but seeks to redress his private
14 of 44

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.
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
"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.
15 of 44

15. In the instant case, admittedly the Appellant is not an "allottee" in the
project being developed by the Respondent No. 3. The allegation made by
the Appellant are with respect to violation of various laws by the developer
in the development of the project. The grievance appears to be made in the
nature of private or public interest and not what is governed and regulated
by the RERA Act.”)
31.

Further, Respondent No.1 also relied upon the judgment of this Authority

in the case of A. Chandrasekhara Reddy v. M/s. Ashrita Group (Complaint No.654
of 2022) vide its Order dated 02.03.2024, wherein it was held that a Complainant
who is neither an allottee, nor an agent, nor a promoter, nor a landowner in the
Project-Subject Matter of the Complaint, lacks locus standi.
32.

The second plea taken by Respondent No.1 is the Non - Existence of

Waterbody in SY. No. 271, 272 and 273 of Puppalguda which has already been
determined by Competent Forum, i.e., National Green Tribunal, South Zone.
33.

Respondent No.1 submitted that the Complainant filed an Application

before the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, South Zone (hereinafter referred to
as "NGT") vide Original Application No. 72 of 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "OA
No. 72 of 2020") against the State of Telangana & Others, against the land under
Development by the Respondent No.1, alleging that 'Narsingi Lake 2' is a lake
situated in Sy. No. 272, 273 and 274 of Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, which was purportedly encroached along with destruction
of Bhulkapur Nala and sought a relief of restoration of said "Narsingi Lake - 2"
and Bhulkapur Nala amongst various other directions.
34.

The Respondent No.1 filed a detailed Reply in the said OA No. 72 of 2020

bringing on record various documents since 1950 onwards, such as Sethwar,
Khasra Pahanis, official correspondences, etc., as to how the said lands were
always private "Patta" lands and that there never existed a water body in the said
land. It was further submitted that the Ld. NGT had also constituted a Joint
Inspection Committee comprising of District Collector, Rangareddy, a Senior
16 of 44

Official from the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
(MoEF&CC), Regional Office, Chennai and a Senior Officer from the Lake
Protection Committee.
35.

It was submitted that the Joint Inspection Committee submitted their

findings to the Ld. NGT, which are summarized as under:
a. No Water Body Existence: Upon examination of satellite images from 1990
onwards, no lake or water body was found in the specified location (Survey
Nos. 271, 272, and 273 of Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal,
Rangareddy District).
b. Revenue Records: The pre-independence revenue records were not
available, but the Sethwar (considered a pre-eminent official record) and
subsequent Pahanis and village maps from 1942 classified the land in
Survey Nos. 272, 273, and 274 as patta land, which was under cultivation
and assessed as dry land for revenue purposes.
c. Physical Inspection: During physical inspection, no water body was found
in the said location. The land was identified as patta land, and there was
no evidence of a lake or water body.
d. Bhulkapur Nala: The Bhulkapur Nala was found flowing from west to east
on the north side of the site, and it was intact without any encroachments
or dumping of debris.
e. Master Plan Anomalies: The HMDA Master Plan listed Narsingi Lake 2 with
Lake ID 2939, but it was noted that this lake was not recorded in the
revenue records and did not exist on the field as reported by the Collector.
f. Government Orders: The Government of Telangana had issued orders
(G.O. Ms. No. 260 dated 26.10.2019) confirming the change of land use
from partly water body and recreational use to multipurpose use for the
lands in Survey Nos. 271 to 274.
g. No Evidence of Lake: The Joint Committee concluded that there was no
water body in the said survey numbers at any point in time, corroborated
by satellite images, Google maps, and irrigation and revenue records.
h. Nodal Officers: The State Government had appointed Additional Collectors
as nodal officers to identify lakes based on revenue and irrigation records
and to resolve discrepancies, with the exercise still in progress.
17 of 44

i. Overall, the Joint Committee found no evidence to support the existence
of Narsingi Lake-2 in the specified survey numbers.
36.

It was further submitted that the Ld. NGT also directed the Joint

Committee to verify the satellite images furnished by the National Remote
Sensing Centre, Hyderabad (NRSC) from 1990 every 05 years, monsoon and nonmonsoon periods with the given longitude and latitude corresponding to Sy. Nos.
271 to 274 Puppalguda Village. The Committee reported that, upon examination
of the satellite images no lake or water body is located on the said location under
question.
37.

Respondent No.1 submitted that the Ld. NGT found that there was no

evidence to support the existence of Narsingi Lake-2 in Survey Nos. 271, 272,
273, and 274 of Puppalguda Village. The Joint Committee's report, satellite
images, and revenue records all indicated that there was no lake or water body
in the specified location. The HMDA Master Plan's listing of Narsingi Lake-2 with
Lake ID 2939 was noted to be incorrect, as it was not recorded in the revenue
records and did not exist on the field. It was submitted that since the Ld. NGT
concluded that there was no water body or lake in the specified survey numbers,
the question of demarcation of the inflow or outflow channel, FTL boundary, and
buffer zone did not arise. The project proponent was found to be constructing the
project after obtaining necessary clearances and was not encroaching on any
water body or buffer zone.
38.

Respondent No.1 highlighted the findings of the Ld. NGT as under:
“[...]
41. From the above, it is evident that the contention of the applicant that
there existed a lake by name Narsingi Lake 2 is not substantiated by the
revenue and other Government records. Moreover, a verification of the
satellite imageries by the District Collector as well as the Joint Committee in
conjunction with field inspection reveals that in the said survey numbers,
there is no lake by name Narsingi Lake 2. The fact that there is no mention
of the water body in the said survey numbers is evident in the note of
notification of the HMDA relied upon by the applicant. Therefore, we hold
18 of 44

that in Sy. Nos. 271, 272, 273 & 274, as reported by the Revenue Authorities
and the Joint Committee, there is no water body or lake and Issue No.1 is
held accordingly.
42. In as much as the claim of the presence of water body in Sy. No.271 to
274, where the 8th respondent is undertaking his project, is not
substantiated by the revenue records, the question of construction of their
project in the water body does not arise. Moreover, the project proponent has
assured that he will abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the
Irrigation Department while granting the NOC for the construction of the
project and will not put up any structures in the buffer zone as stipulated in
the NOC. In as much as the project proponent is constructing the impugned
project after obtaining necessary clearance from various authorities, it
cannot be said that it is being constructed in a water body or in a buffer
zone.
43. It is also to be noted that the construction of the said project in the said
survey numbers, for which, the EC has also been obtained is being
undertaken after obtaining necessary approvals from various Government
Agencies, including the Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Department. Neither the said land use conversion orders of the Government
issued in the year 2019 has been challenged by the applicant nor that can
be entertained by this Tribunal for want of jurisdiction.
44. In view of the detailed discussions made above, we hold that no case
could be made out that there existed a lake viz., Narsingi Lake 2 in Sy.
Nos.272, 273 & 276 of Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, State of Telangana. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant to
restore the Narsingi Lake 2 in Sy. Nos.272, 273 & 276 is not legally feasible.
[...]
46. In view of the above discussion, the Original Application is dismissed.”

19 of 44

39.

Respondent No.1 submitted that thereafter, the Complainant preferred a

Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Diary No. 12490 of 2024
against the dismissal of the OA No. 72 of 2020, in which pleadings have been
completed. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not interfered
with the findings of Ld. NGT until date and the said findings of NGT vide its
Judgment dated 10.08.2023 are still in force and that until the said findings are
frustrated or reversed, there exists no water body in SY. No. 271,272 and 273 of
Puppalguda Village and that no other authority can determine contrary to the
findings of the Ld. NGT unless otherwise permitted under law.
40.

Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 submitted that the said issue has

attained finality, subject to the determination by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
rather no other body / authority can re-determine these issues of alleged
existence of water bodies, as it is seized of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
It was submitted that the Complainant is estopped by law from making repeated
submissions of her allegations after such detailed findings by the Ld. NGT,
especially when she has exercised her right to Appeal and the Appeal is pending
before the Apex Court.
41.

It was, therefore, submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable

on the issue of Locus as well as factual issues as have been decided by a
competent Tribunal.
42.

Respondent No.1 also submitted that as on date, the Project Proponent is

in compliance with all the necessary updates as required under the Act, 2016 in
all aspects, including updating litigation information and prayed to dismiss the
complaint with exemplary costs.
Counter on behalf of Respondent No.2:
43.

Respondent No.2 filed a memo adopting the same contentions as raised by

the Respondent No.1 and the said Memo has been taken on record. A copy of the
said adoption memo dated 13.02.2025 has been duly served on the Complainant
vide e-mail dated 15.02.2025.

20 of 44

Counter on behalf of Respondent No.3:
44.

Respondent No.3 filed a detailed reply submitting that as per the Shetwar

of the Puppalguda village, Gandipet Mandal the Sy.No.271 to an extent
Ac.2.03gts, Sy.N.272 to an extent Ac.6.39gts and Sy.No.273 to an extent
Ac.17.28gts the Khatedar’s name is shown as Abdul Hysa Khadri. That in
subsequent pahanies various sale transactions had been made to various
individuals and recorded their name in revenue record.
45.

Thereafter, as seen from the Faisal Patti for the year of 1975-76 of

Puppalguda village, it is revealed that the Sy.No.271 (2.03), 272 (6.39) and 273
(9.17) etc,. lands were granted 38-E certificate in favor of Sri. Alimoddin, vide file
bearing No. LRW/155/1975 and same was implemented in revenue records. In
subsequent pahanies his LRs are recorded. Further, as seen from the IGRS
website various transactions had taken place during the year 2005 to 2023 and
mutation proceedings were also issued in favor of purchasers.
46.

Respondent No.3 further submitted that Sri. V Ramchandar Rao applied

for Occupancy Right Certificate before the then RDO Chevella Division for the
land in Sy.No. 271 (2.03), 272 (6.39) and 273 (9.17) etc of Puppalguda village
basing on the sale deed Nos: 15617/2005, Dt:17.10.2005, & 15206/2005,
Dt:08.10.2005 and same had been granted vide file bearing No. L/4223/2008,
Dated:21.08.2009. That further, aggrieved by the above orders, Sri. Mohd.
Gayasuddin S/o, Chinimiya and (03) others filed Civil Revision Petition before
the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRP No.1241
of 2019 with a prayer to suspend the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Chevella Division, R.R. District in file No. L/4223/2008 Dt: 07.02.2009
whereby ORC were granted in favor of the Respondents No. 1(V. Ramchandar)
and 2 (V.K Vishwanatham) in respect of land of Ac..8.11 Gts in Sy.No.271, 272
& 273 of Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, R.R. District. The Hon’ble High
Court disposed of the case on 16.12.2024.
47.

Respondent No.3 further submitted that as seen from the Dharani portal

M/s. Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt Ltd name has been recorded against the
Sy.No.272 to an extent Ac.6.39gts and Sy.No. 273 to an extent Ac.9.19gts of
21 of 44

Puppalguda village, Gandipet Mandal and remaining extents are recorded on
various individual names. As per the physical possession of the lands in
Sy.No.272 & 273 of Puppalguda village of Gandipet Mandal, M/s Phoenix Global
Spaces Pvt Ltd has been taking construction activity.
48.

Further, it was submitted that the Complainant has filed O.A No. 72 of

2020 (SZ) before the Ld. NGT Southern Zone, Chennai. In pursuance of the said
case, the Ld. NGT constituted a Joint Inspection Committee, vide its Order dated
21 May, 2020, comprising of three persons, i.e. District Collector, Ranga Reddy,
A senior official from Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change
(MoEF&CC), Regional office, Chennai and a Senior Officer from Lake Protection
Committee, to inspect the area in question ie., Sy.No.271to274, Puppalguda (V)
falling at Longitude 17°24'5.54" N and Latitude 78°21′22.85" E and submit a
status as well as action taken report.
49.

The said report was filed before the NGT on 21st February 2022, observing

to the following effect:
i.

The Joint Committee comprising of the Special Deputy Collector, Land
Protection, Collectorate Rangareddy (representing the District Collector,
Rangareddy District), Scientist C, Member, Ministry of Environment
Forests, and Climate change (MoEF&CC), Executive Engineer, Lakes
Division,

Hyderabad

Metropolitan

Development

Authority

(HMDA),

Director Planning - I, HMDA, have inspected the area on 07.10.2020 at
9.00 AM.
ii.

The Joint Committee has inspected the area under question at Longitude
17°24'5.54"N and Latitude 78°21′22.85"E, where the alleged dumping of
construction waste is taking place. This location corresponded with Survey
nos. 272, 273 and 274 of Puppalguda village.

iii.

The Joint Inspection Committee was provided with the following
documents, as were made available to it by the relevant authorities,
a. Letter of the Executive Engineer, North Tanks Division, addressed
to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District dated 24.05.2008
vide Lr.No.DB/EE/NTD/911, wherein the Executive Engineer
stated that he got conducted a physical inspection in the site at
22 of 44

Sy.No.271 to 274, Puppalguda (V) on 08.05.2008 and it was
reported that there were no water bodies existing in the said survey
nos.
b. The letter of

the Joint Collector, Rangareddy

(D) Lr.No.

E1/2792/2008 dated 17.07.2008 clarifying to the Vice Chairman,
Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), later called
HMDA that, upon the enquiry got done through his office, the Sy.
Nos. 271 to 274 admeasuring Ac.26- 35Gts. of Puppalguda (V) are
Patta Lands and that there are no water bodies existing in the said
survey nos. as per the existing revenue records and also
recommended for change of land use from recreational zone to
multiple use Zone.
c. The Gazette Extraordinary No.54, MA&UD Dept. (I) dated
04.02.2010, wherein objections were invited from the general
public on the revised draft variation to the master plan of the
HMDA for change of land use of the land from partly water body
use and partly recreational (green buffer zone) use to multipurpose
use in Puppalguda Village and also the said aspect of nonexistence of water bodies was referred in the said Gazette
Notification issued by the Principal Secretary, MA&UD.
d. Report

dated

06.08.2013

bearing

Lr.No

.EE/NTD/DB/DEE3/HD/2013/1281/1126 submitted by the
Executive Engineer, North Tanks Division to the Metropolitan
Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
(HMDA),

referring

to

multiple

correspondences

of

various

departments and also as per the physical inspections got carried
on by his office, it was reported that there were no water bodies
existing in Sy. Nos.271 to 274 admeasuring an extent of Ac.26-35
Gts. situated at Puppalguda (V) and that the said lands are Patta
lands.
e. The G.O.Ms.No.240 dated 05.09.2019, MA&UD (Pig.Ill) Dept., the
Government of Telangana MA&UD Dept. published in the Extraordinary issue of the Telangana Gazette dated 06.09.2019 had
notified the lands in Sy.Nos.271, 272, 272/1, 273, 273/1 and 274
23 of 44

admeasuring Ac.26-35 Gts., in Puppalguda (V) to include in
adjoining Industrial Area Local Authority [The said land for
developing IT Parks/SEZS IALA and Puppalguda IALA Industrial
townships].
f. The Government of Telangana, through G.O.Ms. No.260 (MA&UD
(Pig.I) Dept.) dated 26.10.2019, approved a change in land use for
the land in Survey Nos. 271 to 274, measuring Ac. 26-35 Gts. in
Puppalguda (V). The modification was made from partly water
body and recreational (green buffer zone) to multipurpose use,
based on the remarks of the Joint Collector and the Executive
Engineer (Irrigation) regarding Survey Nos. 272, 272/1, 273,
273/1, and 274. It was confirmed that these survey numbers are
Patta Lands, and as per Revenue records, no water body exists in
these Patta Land survey numbers. The revised land use zone
notification was published in the Extra-ordinary issue of the
Telangana Gazette on 27.10.2019.
g. The Metropolitan Commissioner, HMDA, through a letter dated
06.01.2020 bearing Lr.No. 5324/MP1/Plg./H/2008, addressed to
the Principal Secretary, MA&UD, informed about the publication
of a public notice in two daily newspapers in accordance with the
provisions of the HMDA Act, 2008. The letter also communicated
compliance with the same.
h. In the village map of Puppalguda village furnished by the Officials
of the office of the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, there
is no depiction or mention of lake or water body in the area in
question.
i. List of Lakes/water bodies identified in the HMDA area available
in HMDA website where in Narsingi Lake-2 is listed without survey
number details, falling in Narsingi Village of Rajendranagar
Mandal, Rangareddy District, Latitude 17.40058 Longitude
78.35664 is mentioned at SI.No.248 given a lake ID 2939 with a
foot note saying "This lake is not recorded in the Revenue Records
and also not existing on the field (as reported by the Collector)".

24 of 44

j. Various notifications issued periodically by Lake Protection
Committee, HMDA notifying the lakes after survey and fixing of
FTL boundaries along with maps showing FTL co-ordinates.
iv.

Further, having examined the afore-mentioned documents and also upon
the physical survey and also in its correspondence with the government,
the Joint Committee observed that:
a. The Joint Inspection Committee has gone through all the
documents and all the records and documents indicates that the
lands in Sy.Nos.271, 272 272/1, 273, 273/1 and 274 in
Puppalguda (V), Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District
are private patta lands and there was no lake or water body
existing in the said lands as per Revenue, Irrigation and HMDA,
except for the HMDA Master plan.
b. Neither Puppalguda nor the adjoining Narsingi village maps or
revenue records mention the existence of Narsingi lake-2. The
Lake

Protection Committee

and

other State Government

authorities could not explain as to how the name Narsingi Lake2 has come up in the Lake List prepared by HMDA or the basis
for its inclusion in the list.
c. It was also mentioned that the list is only preliminary, prepared
for the purpose of undertaking survey by the consultant and fix
FTL boundaries and only those lakes where survey and fixation
of FTL boundaries is complete, have been notified vide different
notifications notified in District Gazette, over a period of time,
which are posted on-line for all public to see and be aware of.
d. It was mentioned that even though the name of Narsingi lake-2
was included in the preliminary list of lakes to be surveyed and
fix FTL boundaries, upon physical verification no water body
found at the defined site.
e. Upon physical inspection of the said area there was no lake or
water body found in the said area and no dumping of demolition
waste. Historically these lands were under paddy cultivation,
which might have been stopped due to urbanization of
surrounding areas.
25 of 44

f. That a canal by name Bhulkapur Nala is seen flowing from west
to east on north side of the site. The Nala is found intact without
any encroachments or dumping of debris. The Committee felt
that the buffer zone along the nala should be demarcated and
maintained as per G.O Ms No. 168 dated 07.04.2012.
g. In compliance of the directions of the Ld. NGT, the Committee
has requested all concerned departments of the state government
to provide information about the schemes, if any launched by the
state of Telangana for the purpose of protecting the water bodies
in the state, including removal of encroachment, fixation of FTL
and buffer zone, including this lake and making the water bodies
free of pollution and encroachment, to which the State
Government had responded that they are already seized of the
matter as they are dealing with numerous such cases where
serious anomalies noticed between physical condition of lands,
revenue, irrigation records and HMDA master plan showing
water bodies and list of lakes for protection prepared by them
previously. It was further informed that the Master Plan 2031
contained lot of factual errors, therefore the State Government is
contemplating review of the lakes list by conducting fresh survey
and rectify the List of Lakes to be protected and the HMDA master
plan accordingly. As soon as the orders are issued the Joint
Inspection Committee will be informed and file their response
before the Tribunal in- terms of the Hon’ble Tribunal's orders at
para 12 of the order dated 21.05.2020.
h. It is informed by the State Authorities that the Government of
Telangana in its G.O Ms. No. 74 dated 24.04.2021, noting that
discrepancies exists between various records issued orders
appointing Nodal Officers stating that "due to the discrepancies in
the certification of FTL of maps of lakes / water bodies/ tanks by
the Irrigation Department and certification of correctness of survey
numbers of corresponding lakes/ water bodies/ tanks by the
revenue department the issue of final notification by the HMDA is
getting delayed. Government accordingly appointed Additional
26 of 44

Collectors (local bodies) of Hyderabad, Rangareddy, Medchal
Malkajgiri, Yadadri Bhongiri, Medak, Sangareddy and Siddipet
districts as Nodal Officers and entrusted the responsibility of field
work of the Lake Protection Committee showing the lakes to the
consultants physically, resolving the discrepancies/errors in FTL
maps of Irrigation department and revenue statements and
cadastral

maps

of

revenue

department,

coordinating

and

attending meetings convened by HMDA at all stages till final
notification. They must work with the HMDA and appointed
consultant on all related works closely to complete the final
notification process for all the identified lakes at the earliest."
i. It was further submitted that, as on the date of filing the report,
the work was under progress across the State for resolving the
discrepancies/errors in FTL maps of Irrigation department and
revenue statements and cadastral maps of revenue department
and complete the final notification process for all the identified
lakes after proper survey.
j. The Joint Inspection Committee, on the basis of afore-mentioned
facts/records and physical inspection concluded that the said
report stating that the Joint Inspection Committee finds no water
body or any activity of dumping of demolition waste in the area
in question and that the said area does not appear to have been
a waterbody at any point of time earlier. In view of there being no
water body and no dumping activity, its corresponding violation
not found, hence there were no remedies suggested/implemented
in the instant issue.
50.

Respondent No.3 submitted that the very first step in the process to

include lake in a lake list, is to give a lake ID to the lakes identified from the
GIS/Satellite data. The lake ID is to be corrected based on the feedback received
in the instant case, lake ID 2939 and the name Narsingi lake-2 was given to a
particular location on the GIS map. Respondent No.3 further submitted that it's
a

well-known

fact

that,

in

Telangana

State,

lake

names

end

with

Cheruvu/Kunta/Talab but not an English word like Lake, much less Lake-2.
27 of 44

Further, while naming the unidentified locations, temporary names like Narsingi
Lake-1,2,3 etc with lake IDs were given. The location of the said Narsingi lake-2
falls in Poppalaguda village and not in Narsingi, the neighboring village. Further,
it was submitted that after the preliminary survey, the consultants have reported
back stating that "the lake is not recorded in the Revenue Records and also not
existing on the field as reported by the Collector". This goes to show that the said
Narsingi lake-2 with lake ID 2939 exists neither physically on the field nor in the
Irrigation and Revenue Records and therefore, it has not even been notified
preliminarily.
51.

Respondent No.3 submitted that after numerous such cases being noticed,

the State Government reversing the earlier process followed by HMDA, issued a
G.O vide G.O.Ms.No. 74 dated 24-04-2021 appointing Additional Collectors of
Districts as Nodal Officers to identify lakes based on the Revenue & Irrigation
records/ and after field survey, superimpose the same on GIS maps to resolve or
reconcile the discrepancies. Such exercise was in progress.
52.

Further, Respondent No.3 submitted that the Hon’ble NGT has disposed

of the case No. OA No.72 of 2020 (SZ) and aggrieved by the NGT orders,
Complainant filed Civil Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide
Diary No. 12490 of 2024 and the same is pending for adjudication.
Counter on behalf of Respondent No.4:
53.

Respondent No.4 filed a reply submitting that the allegation stating that

M/s Phoenix Global Spaces (P) Ltd., situated in Sy. No's 271, 272, 272/1, 273,
273/1 & 274, Puppalguda (V), Gandipet (M), RR District which is under the TGIIC
– IALA “has encroached and disturbed water bodies, i.e., Narsingi Lake -2 bearing
HMDA Lake Id 2939 and Bhulkapur Nala, to reclaim the water body into
multipurpose zone for the purpose of construction activity in prohibited area, thus
in contravention of existing rules" and also suppressed information in the TG
RERA Form "B" and the TG RERA application form that the site is under litigation
and the case was running in the National Green Tribunal, Chennai vide case
No.72/2020 that currently appeal is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
vide Diary No.12490/2024.
28 of 44

54.

In this regard, Respondent No.4 submitted that as per the IA Order No.

39/2020 & Final order No. 72/2020 and as per the pending case in the Hon’ble
Supreme court vide docket No.2490/2024, TGIIC is not a party/Respondent in
the said OA. Also, there are no such orders passed by the NGT restraining TGIIC
to issue Building Permit Orders.
55.

It was further submitted that the Executive Engineer, I & CAD Dept,

Irrigation

Division

No.1

vide

Lr.No.EE/Irrg.DivnNo.1/HYD/DB/DEE-

T/AEE/D3/2021-22/1131, dt:17.08.2021 has given attested location sketch
showing the extent of land affected in the Sy No 272 & 273 duly showing the 9M
Nala buffer zone on Northern side and a buffer zone of 30M abutting to Heritage
Pipeline in the said survey numbers.
56.

Further, the Complainant has also made certain allegations against MD,

TGIIC that two BPOs are issued on the same site area and on area under litigation
and on falsified GPA Agreements/Landowners documents. In this regard,
Respondent No.4 submitted that, based on the documents submitted by M/s.
Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt Ltd., it was noticed that the land owners of this 10.50
Acres Sri Kothakapu Nagireddy and 11 other family members have made a
development agreement with M/s. Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt Ltd., vide Doc
No.6581/2019, Dt: 02.03.2019 for development of IT/ITES office building.
Government of Telangana MA & UD vide G.O.Ms.No. 240, Dt: 05.09.2019 has
included Sy.No's 271, 272, 272/1, 273, 273/1 & 274 Puppalaguda in TGIIC IALA for development of IT Parks/SEZs/IT/ITES office Spaces and subsequently,
Gazette notification was released by the Principal Secretary to Government on
Dt: 06.09.2019. Vide G.O.Ms.No. 260 MA & UD, Dt:26.10.2019 the usage of
above Sy.No's 271, 272, 272/1, 273, 273/1 & 274 to an extent of Acres 26 - 35
Gts was changed from Partly water body use and partly recreational (Green Buffer
Zone) use to Multipurpose use.
57.

It was submitted that while taking into consideration of all the above

documents, submitted by M/s. Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt Ltd., the MSB (Multi
storied building committee) was held on Dt: 27.08.2021 and the application was
29 of 44

scrutinized by the committee and approval was issued. Upon approval of the
application in the Multi storied building Committee, a fee intimation letter was
issued to M/s Phoenix Global Spaces on Dt: 06.09.2021 for the payment. On
payment and submission of all the documents, the technical approval was issued
on 01.10.2021.
58.

It was also submitted that based on the Technical Approval dated

01.10.2021 and all the mandatory documents, clearances and NOC's issued by
the various line departments viz Fire Dept, Airport Authority of India, State level
Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and major clearance issued
by the EE, I&CAD stating that there is no presence of Narsingi Lake in Sy.No's.
272 & 273, the Building Permit Order Vide permit No. IIC/0229/2021, Dt:
06.10.2021 was issued by the Zonal Manager & Executive Officer, TGIIC
Cyberabad.
Points for consideration:
59.

After deliberating upon the contentions of the parties and the documents

filed by them, the following issues sprout for consideration:
I.

Whether the Complainant is an ‘aggrieved person’ under the
provisions of the Act, 2016 so as to maintain the present Complaint
against the Respondents?

II.

Whether the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have violated Rule 14(1)(a)(iii) of
the Rules, 2017 by suppressing/not uploading of information of
/status of pendency of litigation?

III.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? If
yes, to what extent?

Observations of the Authority:
60.

As can be gathered from the case records the matter was listed on

23.01.2025, 13.02.2025 and 18.02.2024 and that through notices issued and
were served on the Complainant. She (Complainant) has failed to enter
appearance, and hence, the matter has been proceeded accordingly.
Point I
30 of 44

61.

The Respondent No. 1 in its counter and the Respondent No. 2 by adopting

counter of Respondent No.1, and as also in their arguments have vehemently
contended that the Complainant has filed the present Complaint in the nature of
public interest litigation, that no legal injury was caused to her by their actions
and hence contented that the Complainant cannot be termed as an aggrieved
person for filing of the present Complaint under section 31(1) of the Act, 2016
and pursue any remedies under the act and hence prayed to dismiss the
Complaint. In this connection, it is to be noticed that the scrutiny officer of this
authority has also raised objection with regard to maintainability of the present
Complaint filed by the Complainant apart from other objections.
62.

In the circumstances it has to be examined as to whether the present

Complaint filed by the Complainant under section 31(1) of the Act, 2016 is
maintainable or not.
63.

Section 31(1) of the act reads as follows: “31. Filing of complaints with the Authority or the adjudicating officer:
(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.
(2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under subsection (1) shall be such as may [Prescribed].

64.

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.

31 of 44

65.

Therefore, now it has to be seen as to whether the Complainant herein can

be said to be an aggrieved person for filing of the present Complaint on hand
under section 31(1) of Act,2016 and pursue her remedies under the said act.
Admittedly on a careful reading of the Complaint, it will be clear that there is
nothing in it to indicate that she (Complainant) is an “allottee/purchaser” in any
of the projects of the Respondent No. 1 or Respondent No. 2, by purchasing or
booking any flat or property. When that is so it has to be looked into as to whether
the Complainant who is not an “allottee”, “purchaser”, or “interested” in the
project can be said to be an aggrieved person under Section 31(1) of the Act,
2016.
66.

The word person has been defined under section 2(28), but in section 31

(1) the word person is further qualified by aggrieved person. The phrase
“aggrieved person” by all means used in section 31(1) of the act would mean a
person who is regulated or governed by the act and that there is an injury of the
right conferred under the said act. Further the phrase used in the said Section
31(1) is any “aggrieved person” and “not any person”.
67.

Thus, 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". The meaning of the words "a person aggrieved" is sometimes given a
restricted meaning in certain statutes which provide remedies for the protection
of legal rights. The restricted meaning requires denial or deprivation of legal
rights. As can be seen in the present case the complainant, has not placed on
record any material nor has filed any supporting documents on record before this
authority to establish that she was denied or deprived of something to which she
was legally entitled in order to categorise her as an aggrieved person, as such this
Authority is constrained to hold that she (Complainant) is not an aggrieved under
the provisions of the Act, 2016.
68.

Furthermore, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, with regard to maintainability

of the present Complaint, have relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble
High Court of Bombay in the matter of

Dr. Yogesh Keshav Bele versus

Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority and Ors (SA No. 432 of 2023),
32 of 44

where in the Hon’ble High Court in Para Nos.2 and 11 to 15 extracted here under
was pleased to observed and hold thus: “Para No.2 The Appellant is an individual having land adjoining to the plot
developed by Respondent No.3 known as ‘Blue Heaven’. The Appellant is not
an allottee in the said project of Respondent No.3 xxxx ”
“Para No.11 In this context, it is necessary to examine the scheme of the RERA
Act to ascertain whether a person who is not an “allottee” or “interested in the
project” can be said to be an “aggrieved person” under Section 31 of the RERA
Act for lodging the complaint of the violations. xxxx”
“Para No.12 The preamble of the RERA Act provides for establishment of the
Regulatory Authority to protect the interest of consumers in the real estate
sector and to establish an adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute
redressal of matters connected with the sale of plot, apartment, buildings or
sale of real estate project. Section 2(d) defines “allottee” in relation to a real
estate project to mean a person to whom a plot, apartment or buildings has
been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by the promoter and includes the
person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or
otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or
buildings as the case may be is given on rent. xxxx”
“Para No.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 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.xxxx”
“Para No.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 “aggrieved person”. Only
a person who has suffered legal injury can challenge the act/action/order in
33 of 44

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.xxxx”
“Para No.15 In the instant case, admittedly the Appellant is not an “allottee”
in the project being developed by the Respondent No. 3. The allegation made
by the Appellant are with respect to violation of various laws by the developer
in the development of the project. The grievance appears to be made in the
nature of private or public interest and not what is governed and regulated by
the RERA Act.”
“Para No.16 Therefore, in my view, the Appellant cannot be said to be a
“person aggrieved” to make a complaint under Section 31(1) of the Act and
take recourse to the provisions of RERA Act for redressal of his grievances.”
69.

This decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, in the considered view

of the authority, is directly applicable to the facts and the circumstances of the
present case on hand.
70.

In light of the ruling given by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay as also in

view of the forgoing detailed discussion it has to be held that the Complainant
cannot be termed as an aggrieved person under the provisions of the Act 2016,
Furthermore, neither did she claim to be an allottee, agent, promoter or such
other person, in order to establish her grievance. Therefore, the conclusion that
can be drawn is that the present complaint filed by the Complainant under
Section 31(1) Act, 2016 is not maintainable and, as such, is liable to be dismissed
for want of locus of the Complainant.
71.

Hence, Point I is answered accordingly against the Complainant.

Point II

34 of 44

72.

The Complainant has alleged that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have

suppressed the aspects of pendency of litigation and that by doing so they have
obtained certificates of Registration, however Respondent No.1 in its counter
affidavit dated 13.02.2025 and Respondent No.2, by adopting the same, have
categorically contended that the litigation status of the pending matters have
been duly uploaded by them on the web page of respective projects.
73.

Keeping in view the rival contentions, it has to be seen as to whether there

was any suppression of the status of litigation by Respondents No.1 & 2 while
obtaining registration certificates from this Authority in respect of their projects.
74.

Admittedly a careful scrutiny of the Complaint will reveal that there is no

whisper indicating that the Respondents No. 1 & 2 were parties to the litigation
vide W.P No. 36396 of 2017 which was stated to be pending before the Hon’ble
High Court concerning the Occupancy Rights Certificate in respect of Survey
Nos. 271, 272, and 273 of Puppalguda Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District and as also in Civil Revision Petition No. 1241 of 2019 on the file of the
Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.
75.

A careful perusal of the judgment in the said O.A No. 72/2020 passed by

the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal (SZ), Chennai, it will be evident that
Respondent No.1 Phoenix Spaces Private Limited in the present Complaint was
impleaded as Respondent No. 8 in the said O.A as per the orders passed in I.A.
No. 12/2022(SZ) on 16.02.2022. When that is so, the inference that can be drawn
is that the Respondent No.1 should have come to know about the said O.A on or
after 16.02.2022, much about 2 months and odd days of issuance of Registration
No. P02400003565 dt. 20.11.2021, and not prior to that date. That means, in all
probability, as on the date of registration of its project, Respondent No. 1 should
have not been aware of the pendency of litigation vide the above said O.A filed by
the Complainant before the above said Hon’ble tribunal. When that is so, the
presumption that can be drawn is that there was no suppression of pendency of
litigation covered by the above said O.A by the Respondent No. 1 herein while
obtaining the above said Registration No. P02400003565 dt. 20.11.2021.

35 of 44

76.

Coming to registration bearing No. P02400008107 dated 29.04.2024, the

Respondents No 1 & 2 have categorically contended that the litigation status has
been duly uploaded by them on the web page of respective projects. To find out
the truth or otherwise in the contentions of the Respondents, the office of this
authority on verification of web page of respective projects of the Respondents
have noticed that both registrations detailed hereinabove have duly uploaded the
status of litigation pending before the Hon’ble supreme court vide dairy No.
12490/2024 filed by the Complainant. Therefore, in these circumstances, it
cannot be said that the Respondents have suppressed litigation pending before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and it can be held that the Respondent Nos.1 & 2
have not committed any violation of rule 14(1)(a)(iii) of the rules,2017.
77.

Point II is answered accordingly.

Point III
78.

This Authority is of the considered view that it is desirable to discuss reliefs

(i) to (x) as detailed in Para No.26, together to avoid repetition in discussing the
material available on record before us. As can be gathered, the Complainant
herein appears to have been seeking these reliefs basing on her main contentions
as detailed herein above in Para No. 22.
79.

The Hon’ble Tribunal while admitting the matter (O.A) on 21.05.2020, had

directed the joint committee, which was constituted in a similar case viz., O.A
No. 39 of 2020(SZ) to look into the issue involved in the said case filed by the
Complainant herein who was applicant therein and directed them to submit a
status as well as action taken report. Thereafter the Hon’ble Tribunal after
framing two questions, had elaborately discussed and analysed all the aspects,
from all the angles, including the report submitted by the joint committee and
pronounced judgment holding that there existed no Narsingi Lake 2 in Sy.
Nos.272, 273 & 276 of Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, State of Telangana and so also holding that the prayer of the
Complainant herein and as applicant therein to restore the Narsingi Lake 2 in
Sy. Nos.272, 273 & 276 was legally not feasible and in the result has dismissed
the said O.A. No. 72 of 2020(SZ) with the following extracted observations and
findings:
36 of 44

“24. G.O. Ms. No. 240 dated 05.09.2019 MA and UD Department, the
Government of Telengana had notified the lands in Sy. No. 271 to 274 to be
included in adjoining industrial area, local authority for developing IT parks,
SEZ/ITES office spaces. G. No. 260 dated 26.10.2019 MA and UD
Department had notified the change of land use of the lands in SF. Nos. 271
to 274 from partly water body and partly recreational to multipurpose use
zone. The village map of the Poppalguda village furnished by the office of the
District Collector, Rangareddy District, there is no mention about the lake or
water body in the area in question. The list of lakes identified by HMDA
refers to Narsingi Lake-2 without the survey numbers details following in
Narsingi Village and given a lake ID No. 2939 with the foot note saying this
lake is not recorded in the revenue records and is not existing on the field as
reported by the Collector. The Joint Committee had gone through all the
above referred documents and found that they are private patta lands and
there is no lake or water body in the said lands as per the Revenue, Irrigation
and HMDA except for the HMDA Master plan.”
“25. Even the Joint Committee which upon physical inspection has found
that there was no lake or water body found in the said area and there is no
dumping of demolition waste. Historically these lands were under paddy
cultivation which might have been stopped due to urbanization of
surrounding areas. The Bulkapur Nala is seen flowing from west to east on
north side of the site and the nala is found intact without any encroachments
or dumping of debris. The Committee has only recommended that the buffer
zone along the nala shall be demarcated and maintained as per G.O Ms. No.
168 dated 07.04.2012.”
“26.The Joint Committee has filed its 2nd report dated 18.08.2022 where it
was directed to verify the satellite imageries of the relevant area for a period
of time including the time at which the master plan was prepared by the
HMDA, It was also directed to verify the pre-independence revenue records
relating to this area to ascertain the classification of the land. The Joint
Committee had verified the satellite images furnished by the National
37 of 44

Remote Sensing Centre, Hyderabad (NRSC) from 1990 every 05 years,
monsoon and non-monsoon periods with the given longitude and latitude
corresponding to SF. Nos. 271 to 274 Puppalguda Village. Upon examination
of the satellite images no lake or water body is located on the said location
under question. Regarding the pre-independence revenue records, it is
informed that there are no records available in the State of Telengana. But
the Sethwar which is considered as the prominent office record for survey
and settlement of lands in the State is available. Besides, Sethwar, the
Pahanis and village maps are the other important records relied upon for all
the revenue purposes. The original Sethwar and subsequent Pahanis and
the Village maps prepared in the year 1942, in respect of the location in
question shows that the land in SF. Nos. 271 to 274 of the Poppalaguda
Village are classified as patta lands which was under cultivation and
assessed as dry land for the revenue purpose.”
“28.Thus, the report of the Joint Committee has categorically found that
there is no water body in the SF. Nos. 271 to 274 of Poppalguda Village at
any point of time and that the State machineries have taken by the task of
identifying the lakes based on the revenue and irrigation records once the
said exercise is completed lake protection committee will take care.”
“35. The applicant makes allegations based on the Google Map Images, Topo
Map, and the Master Plan of HMDA. However, the fact that the Master Plan
of HMDA is being revised by correcting the various anomalies by
appointment of Nodal Officers, which goes to show that the Master Plan is
to be revised. Since a Government Order (G.O.Ms. No. 260 dated 26-102019) is already issued by the State Government confirming the change in
Land Use to Multipurpose Use after carrying out extensive verifications
thorough various departments, the said reference to water body in the
master plan (which is admittedly an error and without following established
procedure) is of no relevance as the changed land use is being certified by
the same authority, does not warrant any interference and the Applicant
cannot be permitted to take advantage of isolated incidence of error by filing
such Applications. In respect of the listing of the purported lake with Lake
ID 2939, the same is self explanatory as non existent and also in view of the
38 of 44

process already mentioned by the Joint Committee in its Report, especially
when there is no notification by the Lakes Committee to that effect.”
“36. The specific case of the applicant is that the inlet channels to the lake
have also been obliterated by the project proponent. The applicant also relied
on the National Remote Sensing Centre geo-platform, the list of lakes notified
by the HMDA, HUDA master plan, HMDA master plan 2031, Bhuvan's
survey of India Topo maps, digital survey using Google Earth and Field
survey etc., to show that the SF. Nos. 271, 272 and 276 are part of the
Narsingi Lake-2. It was further contended that the Environmental Clearance
granted to the 8th respondent was also issued without considering the
proposed construction on the water body. To be noted is that the said
Environmental Clearance is not put to challenge till now.”
“38. As observed supra, the Gazette notification and the draft variation of
the master plan of HMDA allowed for change of land use of the land from
partly water body use and partly recreational use to Multipurpose use in
respect of lands in Sy. No.271 to 274 of Puppalaguda Village by the G.O.
Ms. No.260 dated 20.10.2019. The contention of the applicant cannot be
considered and none of the G.Os are put to challenge by the applicant.”
“39. From the reports of the official respondents and also that of the Joint
Committee, it is evident that the State itself has taken up the task of
identifying the lakes and the protection of the same by appointing nodal
officers due to the discrepancies in the certification of FTL of lakes/water
bodies/tanks by the Irrigation Department and certification of correction of
survey numbers of the corresponding lakes/water bodies/tanks by the
Revenue Department and issued final notification till such time the process
is completed and the Narsingi Lake-2 as claimed by the applicant is
demarcated and notified, direction cannot be issued by this Tribunal. As
already mentioned. supra, the applicant has not challenged any of the G.O
issued for change of land use from water body zone and this Tribunal cannot
repeal the notification in the absence of any specific challenge to the same.”

39 of 44

“41. From the above, it is evident that the contention of the applicant that
there existed a lake by name Narsingi Lake 2 is not substantiated by the
revenue and other Government records. Moreover, a verification of the
satellite imageries by the District Collector as well as the Joint Committee in
conjunction with field inspection reveals that in the said survey numbers,
there is no lake by name Narsingi Lake 2. The fact that there is no mention
of the water body in the said survey numbers is evident in the note of
notification of the HMDA relied upon by the applicant. Therefore, we hold
that in Sy. Nos. 271, 272, 273 & 274, as reported by the Revenue Authorities
and the Joint Committee, there is no water body or lake and Issue No.1 is
held accordingly.”
“42. In as much as the claim of the presence of water body in Sy. No.271 to
274, where the 8th respondent is undertaking his project, is not
substantiated by the revenue records, the question of construction of their
project in the water body does not arise. Moreover, the project proponent has
assured that he will abide by the terms and conditions imposed by the
Irrigation Department while granting the NOC for the construction of the
project and will not put up any structures in the buffer zone as stipulated in
the NOC. In as much as the project proponent is constructing the impugned
project after obtaining necessary clearance from various authorities, it
cannot be said that it is being constructed in a water body or in a buffer
zone.”
“43. It is also to be noted that the construction of the said project in the said
survey numbers, for which, the EC has also been obtained is being
undertaken after obtaining necessary approvals from various Government
Agencies, including the Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Department. Neither the said land use conversion orders of the Government
issued in the year 2019 has been challenged by the applicant nor that can
be entertained by this Tribunal for want of Jurisdiction.”
“44.In view of the detailed discussions made above, we hold that no case
44. could be made out that there existed a lake viz., Narsingi Lake 2 in Sy.
40 of 44

Nos.272, 273 & 276 of Narsingi Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, State of Telangana. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant to
restore the Narsingi Lake 2 in Sy. Nos.272, 273 & 276 is not legally
feasible.”

“45. However, in view of the G.O Ms. No. 74 Municipal Administration and
Urban Development Department dated 24.04.2021 wherein Additional
Collectors have been appointed for Rangareddy, Medchal-Malkagiri,
Yadadri-Bhongiri, Medak, Sangareddy Districts as Nodal Officers and
entrusted with the responsibility of field work of the lake protection
committee showing the lakes to the consultants physically resolving the
discrepancies/errors in FTL maps of Irrigation Department and revenue
statement and cadastral maps of Revenue Department, it is open to the
applicant to approach the appropriate nodal officers and express her
grievance. This liberty is given because the said work is not yet complete.
However, any work in pursuance to the G.O. would be prospective.”
80.

A plain reading of the above-quoted findings of the Ld. NGT with respect

to the allegation posed by the Complainant herein, it is evident and apparent that
no such lake land exists in the government or revenue records on which the
Projects are being constructed. A detailed reading of the contentions filed by the
Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 would go to show that the findings of the
Joint Committee Report established by the Ld. NGT would go to show that there
was no encroachment of any lake by Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
81.

However, it is pertinent to note that the Respondents have submitted that

the current issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide
Civil Appeal bearing Diary No.12490/2024. The Complainant has also in her
present Complainant has stated that she has filed the above said appeal and that
it is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, when the matter has been
taken cognizance by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and is sub-judice and has not
reached any finality, this Authority is of the considered view that it cannot
conclusively hold anything with respect to the said aspects.
41 of 44

82.

Furthermore, the important aspect that has to be taken note of is that vide

G.O.Ms. No. 260 dated 26-10-2019, the state government of Telangana confirmed
the change in land use to multipurpose use after carrying out extensive
verifications through various departments. This G.O., as can be gathered from
the contents of the Complaint on hand, was not challenged before any authority
by the Complainant herein or anyone else. Similar is the case with regard to the
G.O Ms. No. 240 (MAUD Pig-III) dated 05-09-2019 also. That means these 2 G.Os
are still in force till to date and according to Respondents No.1 & 2 they are in
compliance with all the necessary requirements and are updating all the required
data as stipulated under the Act, 2016 in all aspects. On verification from the
webpage of the respective project, by office of this authority it would be evident
that the projects are live projects with allottees. If really there was Narsingi lake2 water body in existence in the Sy. Nos 271,272,273 and 274, and that the land
in these Survey Numbers was encroached upon, then in all probability some or
the other allottees of the Respondent Nos 1 & 2 would have certainly approached
this authority in the matter for appropriate reliefs. But however, as per the office
record of this authority no allottee of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have approached
this authority till date with any sort of grievance. From these all circumstances
the conclusion that can be drawn is that the lake Narsingi Lake -2 did not exist
in Sy. Nos. 272,273 & 276 of Narsingi Village and when that is so the question of
encroachment of the land covered by such alleged lake may also does not arise.
83.

Further as pointed out earlier, the current issue is pending adjunction

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the absence of findings from the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, considering, for a moment, even though material at hand
establishes evidence to the contrary, that the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have
fraudulently obtained the building permissions as mentioned in Registration Nos.
P02400008107 & P02400003565 respectively, and therefore their registrations
are liable to be revoked in accordance with Section 7(1)(d) is too premature in the
opinion of this Authority.
84.

Nevertheless, in the event of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that there

has been any encroachment by Respondent Nos.1 & 2 of the lake land, the said
42 of 44

Respondents are liable to compensate all the allottees in both the projects bearing
Regn Nos. P02400008107 & P02400003565 in accordance with Section 18(2)
which stipulates that “the promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any
loss caused to him due to defective title of the land, on which the project is being
developed or has been developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and
the claim for compensation under this sub section shall not be barred by
limitation provided under any law for the time being in force.”
85.

With respect to the allegation of the Complainant that two different

registrations have been granted to two different companies, it is observed that
Regn.No.P02400003565

dated

20.11.2021,

has

been

granted

to

M/s

Phoenix Global Spaces Private Limited i.e., the Respondent No.1 herein for
construction of commercial building with 32 floors in Sy. No.272/P, 273/P &
274/P at Puppalguda, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District. This building permit was
obtained and duly granted by Respondent No.4 in the extent of 42492.15 sq mtrs.
i.e., Acres 10.2. Registration was granted to this project on the basis of the
documents filed by the Respondent No.1.
86.

Subsequently, vide DGPA bearing No.8150/2023, the Respondent No.1

gave rights to the Respondent No.2 to construct a residential multi-storey
building in the adjacent land bearing same survey numbers having extent of
42492.15 sq mtrs. Accordingly, Regn. No.P02400008107 dated 29.04.2024 was
issued in favor of Respondent No.2 subject to all the verified documents duly
uploaded by the Respondent No.2 also marking Respondent No.1 as the promoter
as he is the landowner in the Project. Registration has been granted by this
Authority in phases in accordance with Section 3(2) of the Act, 2016 and as the
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have duly complied with the relevant provisions of the Act,
2016 & the Rules, 2017, this Authority has granted registration to the
Respondents for commercial building & the residential complex in the same
survey numbers.
87.

It is evident from the material available on record that the Respondent No.3

did not submit that the property situated in Sy. No.272/P, 273/P & 274/P at
Puppalguda, Gandipet, Ranga Reddy District is under prohibition list. This
43 of 44

Authority has verified the encumbrance certificate on the subject land, and
noticed that subject property is not under the prohibition list. Therefore, no
investigation is required on the said aspect.
88.

As the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this

Authority cannot proceed further unless the Hon’ble Supreme Court disposes of
the matter finally.
89.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the facts as discussed herein

above in the forgoing paras the reliefs (i) to (x) are decided accordingly holding
that the revocation of the registrations as prayed for in the reliefs (i) and (ii)
cannot be granted, and that the investigations as prayed for in reliefs (iii) to (viii)
are also not required to be taken up.
90.

With respect to relief (xi), this Authority is not entrusted with any such

powers to initiate criminal action against the Respondents. Hence, this relief (xi)
as prayed for cannot be granted.
91.

Therefore, the Point III under discussion is answered accordingly.

92.

In lieu of the above discussions, the present complaint stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.

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

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

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

44 of 44