Suo Motu Order on Jillela Sireesha

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
SUO MOTU CASE NO. D6/785/2025
Date: 26th August 2025

Quorum:

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

Jillela Sireesha
10-4/9, Srinivasa Gayatri Nagar,
Jillelaguda, Meerpet, KV Rangareddy,
Hyderabad-500097

...Promoter/Respondent

ORDER
The present suo motu proceedings have been initiated by the Telangana Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”), in exercise of powers
conferred under Section 35(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter “RE(R&D) Act, 2016”), based on a complaint dated 24.03.2025 received from the
Complainant herein, Sri M. Venugopal.
(2)

The said complaint pertains to allegations of illegal construction and non-compliance

with the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The Complainant, Sri M. Venugopal Reddy,
alleges that the Respondent has undertaken construction activities in Survey Nos. 430, 431,
325, 427P, and 429P of Kongara Khurd (A) Village, Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, without obtaining mandatory registration from the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory
Authority under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
(3)

The Complaint received by the authority against the respondent pertains to encroachment

by the respondent upon Government land falling under Survey No. 432, which is classified as
Bhoodan land, and has misrepresented its extent in survey records. It is further alleged that
despite HMDA having granted layout approval for open plots, the Respondent has converted
the same into a gated community with over 40 individual residential villas, thereby violating
the conditions of layout approval and misusing permissions granted for individual residential
units.
Page 1 of 5

---

The Authority issued a Show Cause Notice dated 24-04-2025 under Sections 3 & 4 of

the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, based on the prima facie material of engaging into transactions
without registering the concerned project before RERA, calling upon the respondent to explain
why action should not be initiated for sales in a project that is not registered with TG RERA.
(6)

In response to the show cause notice issued by this Authority, the Respondent, Smt.

Jillela Sirisha submitted her reply dated 25.04.2025, wherein denying to the allegations
considering to be baseless and misconceived, and further submitting that the subject land
situated in Survey Nos. 430, 431, 325, 427P, and 429P of Kongara Khurd (A) Village,
Maheswaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, have been duly approved for residential layout
purposes by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) through the
issuance of a final layout permit dated 19.03.2021, that such approval was granted after
following the due process prescribed under applicable planning regulations and guidelines.
(7)

Whereas with respect to the encroachment allegations, the respondent denied stating

that the land in question is private property, and no portion of Government land, including
Survey No. 432. All constructions within the layout are being undertaken independently by
respective individual plot owners, each of whom has obtained valid building permissions from
the competent municipal authority. There is no single developer or promoter involved in
executing a collective housing project. Consequently, as each construction pertains to
individual plots of less than 500 square meters and involves fewer than 8 units, the same is
exempt from RERA registration as per Section 3(2)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
(8)

The Respondent further submitted that the original intention was not to sell the plots

until the layout development was completed; however, due to unforeseen financial exigencies
during the COVID-19 pandemic, a few plots were sold to known individuals. The respondent
submitted that she has acted in good faith, in compliance with municipal laws, and without any
malafide intent to violate the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. In view of the foregoing,
Page 2 of 5

---

However, the respondent herein, during the course of the hearing held before this

Authority dated 12.05.2025, admitted that she has violated Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016, as not registering the project. The Respondent has also submitted that such omission was
not deliberate but arose from a bona fide misunderstanding of the legal provisions, particularly
in relation to the nature and scope of the development. The Respondent has further expressed
willingness to take immediate corrective measures to ensure compliance with the provisions of
the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Observations of the Authority:
(10)

This Authority views and clarifies that the complaint relating to unauthorized use or

encroachment of Government or Bhoodan lands falls outside the scope of the jurisdiction of
the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. Determination of title, classification of land as
Government or private, and questions of encroachment are within the scope of the competent
Planning and Development Authority. This Authority does not possess jurisdiction to
adjudicate upon such matters, nor can it undertake verification of title or legality of land use
beyond what is statutorily prescribed under the RE(R&D) framework.
(11)

The respondent takes defence on the fact that they are engaging in the construction of

the individual villas, which is why section(3) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, is not applicable to
the project. This authority relies on the draft layout plan obtained by the respondent. This brings
our attention to section 2(zn) of the RE(R&D) Act,2016. The Section 2(zn) of the RE(R&D)
Act,2016 reads as follows:
"real estate project" means ‘the development of a building or a building
consisting of apartments, or converting an existing building or a part thereof into
apartments, or the development of land into plots or apartment, as the case may
be, for the purpose of selling all or some of the said apartments or plots or
building, as the case may be, and includes the common areas, the development
works, all improvements and structures thereon, and all easement, rights and
appurtenances belonging thereto

Page 3 of 5

---

The aforementioned section evidently specifies that any development of land into plots

is to be considered as a real estate project. The said land measures 25792.77 square meters and
comprises 88 plots, which exceeds the statutory threshold. Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act,2016
read as:
—(1) No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or
invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as
the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area,
without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority established under this Act: Provided that projects that are ongoing
on the date of commencement of this Act and for which the completion
certificate has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the
Authority for registration of the said project within a period of three months
from the date of commencement of this Act:

(13)

Therefore, reading section 2 (zn) and section 3 makes it evident that the said project

very well falls under the ambit of section 3 and shall have been registered. The Authority
acknowledges the fact that the respondent admitted its violation and further expressed readiness
to rectify the lapse by taking steps to regularize the project in compliance with the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016. However, Authority opines that the individual construction of promoter/respondent
seems to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent the mandatory requirement under the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016. It is essential to emphasize the settled principle of law encapsulated in the maxim
"ignorantia juris non excusat", which means ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The
respondent cannot evade liability on the grounds of unawareness of the statutory requirements
under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Every promoter is presumed to know and comply with the
applicable legal provisions.
(15)

This authority views that the respondent is liable for penalty under Sections 59 and 60

of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Directions of the Authority:
(16)

In light of the foregoing observations and findings, and in exercise of the powers

conferred under Sections 35, 37 and 38 of the RE(R&D) Act, this Authority hereby issues the
following directions:

Page 4 of 5

---

The Respondent is hereby informed that failure to comply with the directions issued

herein shall attract further penal consequences under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.

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

Page 5 of 5

---