Order Complaint No.90 OF 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.90 of 2024
14th Day of July 2025
Quorum:

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

Ch. Niyanthi Reddy
(R/o Plot No.70/A, MLA Colony,
Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500034
Temporarily residing at Germany,
Represented by GPA Holder,

…Complainant

Sri Ch. Baba Prasad Reddy)

Versus
1.M/s Speed Projects and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(Office at, No.8 & 9, Vasantha Cyber View Apartments,
Madhapur, Hyderabad & also at, Villa No.61, Legend Chimes,
Kokapet Village, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana
Represented through its Authorised Representative)

2.M/s Legend Estates Pvt. Ltd.
(Office at, No.6-3-1238, 6th floor,
Legend Apartments, Renuka Enclave, Raj Bhavan Road,
Somajiguda, Hyderabad
Represented through its Authorised Representative)

…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing on 04.02.2025
before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for Complainants, Sri Nikunj Dugar and Sri
Tarun Kumar Agarwal and the Counsel for the Respondent No.1, Ms. SarvaniDesiraju along
with Counsel for Respondent No.2, Sri Rusheek Reddy K.V. and after hearing the arguments,
this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RE(R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.

1

---

The Complainant claims to be the owner of land admeasuring Ac. 0.20 guntas in Survey

No. 162 and states that she, along with other landowners, had executed a Development
Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (DAGPA) in favour of Respondent No.1 in the
year 2007. It is submitted that Respondent No.1, acting as Developer, entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with Respondent No.2 without the consent of the landowners
and violated the terms of the DAGPA and subsequent supplementary agreements. The
Complainant alleges that Respondents unlawfully sold villas, alienated areas earmarked as open
spaces, and failed to obtain Occupancy Certificate. Further, the Complainant seeks completion
of construction, compensation, cancellation of the project registration, and regulatory penalties
against the Respondents.
4.

Respondent No.1 submitted that the Complaint has been filed by the Complainant’s

father without producing a valid General Power of Attorney. It is further contended that the
project received layout approval from HMDA in 2010 and revised permission in 2013, which
predates the applicability of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 as per Rule 1(2) of the Telangana Rules.
Respondent No.1 also submitted that the dispute arises out of contractual arrangements under
the DAGPA and the MoU between landowners and the developer, both of which contain
arbitration clauses, and that such disputes fall outside the jurisdiction of this Authority. It is also
pointed out that the Complainant had issued a legal notice to invoke arbitration but
simultaneously initiated multiple legal proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court and other
forums, amounting to forum shopping.
5.

Respondent No.2 similarly opposed the maintainability of the Complaint, submitting

that the Complainant, being a landowner and not an allottee or consumer, lacks locus under
Section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act. It was submitted that the Complainant is one of the promoters
under the development structure and cannot invoke RERA jurisdiction to resolve landownerdeveloper disputes. It was further submitted that the Complainant has already raised similar
grievances in pending writ petitions before the Hon’ble High Court and that the Complaint is
barred by limitation.
6.

At the outset, this Authority deems it appropriate to examine the preliminary objections

raised by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 regarding the maintainability of the present Complaint. It is
contended that the Complainant has not produced the General Power of Attorney (GPA)
pursuant to which the present proceedings are instituted. It is further argued that the dispute
emanates from the terms of the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney
(DAGPA) and Supplementary Agreements executed between the Landowners (through
Respondent No.1) and Respondent No.2, and that such contractual disputes lie outside the
2

---

The Respondents have also raised serious concerns regarding forum shopping by the

Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant has instituted multiple proceedings on
identical issues against Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, including W.P. No. 26701 of 2016
(pending), FIR No. 883 of 2020 (quashed by the Hon’ble High Court in CRLP. No. 6531 of
2020, SLP pending), and W.P. Nos. 7194 of 2021 and 30813 of 2022. Furthermore, the
Complainant has made several representations to governmental authorities such as HMDA and
Narsingi Municipality, and has also initiated arbitration proceedings under the DAGPA in the
year 2024. Despite availing multiple remedies, the Complainant again instituted W.P. Nos.
13982 and 14047 of 2024 against Respondent No. 1 in her individual capacity, all of which
pertain to the same cause of action.
8.

Upon a considered examination of the record and rival contentions, this Authority finds

a fundamental defect in the Complaint. The Complainant has failed to place on record a valid
and duly executed General Power of Attorney authorising the signatory to institute the present
proceedings. It is well settled that in the absence of appropriate authorisation, the proceedings
are rendered non-maintainable. This procedural infirmity strikes at the root of the Complaint.
9.

In light of the above, and without venturing into the merits of the claims, this Authority

is constrained to hold that the present Complaint is not maintainable, and is accordingly liable
to be dismissed.
10.

That said, this Authority has observed that the project in question is not registered under

the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. This constitutes a
prima facie violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act. A Show Cause Notice has
already been issued to the concerned Respondents in this regard.
11.

Therefore, while the present Complaint is dismissed on grounds of maintainability, this

Authority is of the considered view that the alleged violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the
RE(R&D)Act, 2016 by the promoter warrant independent inquiry. Accordingly, this Authority
hereby directs the Secretary, Telangana RERA, to initiate suo motu proceedings under Sections
3, 4, 59 and 60 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 read with the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017. Appropriate action must be taken for the failure to obtain
registration, nondisclosure of encumbrances, and consequent contraventions of statutory
obligations by the promoter.
12.

The Complainant is at liberty to file a fresh Complaint before this authority
3

---

In view of the above findings, the present Complaint is dismissed for want of

maintainability.
Sd/-

Sd/-

……………………………
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

……………………………………
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

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

4

---