Suo-motu order on M/s My Home Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
SUO-MOTU CASE NO. D6/860/2025/TG RERA
Date: 16th October, 2025.
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon'ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon'ble Member
Sri Laxminarayana Jannu, Hon'ble Member

M/s My Home Constructions Pvt Ltd,
Rep. by its Authorized signatory, Sri B Sharath,
5th Floor, My Home Jupally Complex,6-3-865, Ameerpet Road, Green Lands,
Hyderabad500016.
……. PROMOTER/RESPONDENT
My Home RAKA.

……. PROJECT NAME
***

The matter was placed for hearing before this Authority on 22.08.2025 wherein
Promoter Respondent was represented by its Authorized Signatory, Sri. B Sharath. Upon
hearing the submissions and upon consideration of the material available on record, this
Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

The present Suo Motu proceedings have been initiated by the Telangana Real Estate

Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Authority") in exercise of the powers
conferred under Section 35(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as "the RE(R&D) Act, 2016"). These proceedings are based on
material placed before the Authority, including a petition dated 28.01.2025 and 15.09.2025
submitted by Sri P. Rama Gopal Rao, General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder of Smt
Anandjeethkaur W/o Late Thandra Shivakumar Goud.
3.

The aforementioned petition dated 28.01.2025 brings to this Authority's attention

serious allegations concerning the real estate project titled My Home RAKA. It is alleged
that the project obtained TG RERA registration by submitting fraudulent documents and
suppressing material facts, including the existence of prior and ongoing litigation related
to the project land. The petition cites:
•

Order No. B4/986/73 dated 19.03.1980 issued by the Tahsildar, Rajender Nagar;
Page 1 of 13

---

Order No. P4/12913/1980 dated 09.12.1980 issued by the Joint Collector, Ranga
Reddy District;

4.

•

Judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in CRP No. 6788/1980 dated 21.10.1981,

•

O.S. No. 123/2021; and

•

O.S.No. 71/2023,
It is also alleged that the builder acquired land in Survey No. 98 of Madeenaguda

Village from individuals who had lost legal title prior to 1981 and unlawfully occupied the
said land. In light of these claims, the petitioner has requested the Authority to initiate
criminal prosecution against the builder for furnishing false information and suppressing
facts, and has sought cancellation of the project’s registration under TG RERA.
5.

Pursuant to the aforementioned representation and accompanying court cases, this

Authority, in exercising of powers conferred under Section 35(1) of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016 issued Show Cause Notice dated:05.08.2025 to the Promoter-Respondent directing
them to appear for hearing on 22.08.2025 before this Authority along with documentary
evidence in response to the allegations set forth in the petition.
6.

Accordingly, the matter heard on 22.08.2025. On the said date, the Respondent filed

a detailed reply challenging the maintainability of the petition, asserting that the Petitioner
lacks locus standi as he is neither the owner, tenant, occupier, nor purchaser of any portion
of the project land. The Respondent submitted that the project land was lawfully acquired
through registered sale deeds and that all requisite documents were duly submitted to this
Authority at the time of registration on 20.12.2021. As on that date, no litigation or adverse
orders were pending against the project, and hence, allegations of suppression or fraudulent
registration were denied.
7.

It was further submitted that O.S. No. 71 of 2023, seeking cancellation of sale deeds

executed by the landowners in favour of the Respondent, was filed only on 15.02.2023.
and no interim relief has been granted therein. The Respondent also submitted that the
Petitioner has filed similar complaints against other developers, resulting in criminal
complaints and charge sheets against him. The purchasers of flats in the project are aware
of alleged cases filed by petitioner and appropriate assurances have been extended to them.
Page 2 of 13

---

It was further submitted that one Mr. Thandra Pandurangam Goud, S/o Thandra

Muthaiah, along with others, had filed a petition for Ownership Certificate under Section
38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950,
claiming that his father was a Protected Tenant in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 7-30gts
situated in Survey No. 98 of Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District. The said petition was dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) vide
order dated 24.07.1999 in Case No. G/3783/93, on the ground that no Protected Tenants
were recorded in respect of the said land. Against the said order no appeals were preferred
and thus the above order attained finality and binding on them.
9.

It was also submitted that one Mr. Thandra Shiva Kumar Goud and others

subsequently filed a petition before the Tahsildar seeking restoration of possession of the
said land, claiming to be the legal heirs of the alleged Protected Tenant. The said petition
was dismissed vide orders dated 18.06.2019 in Case Nos. B/1871 to B/1873 of 2015,
holding that the petition was not maintainable under law. No appeal was preferred against
the said dismissal, and hence, the said order also attained finality.
10.

The Respondent further submitted that although the legal heirs of Late Thandra

Muthaiah had no subsisting legal claim over the said land, in order to bring an end to the
prolonged litigation, the landowners (Dr. Reddy’s Group) and the Developer, My Home
Constructions Pvt. Ltd., entered into negotiations with the Protected Tenant claimants.
Pursuant to a mutual understanding, the legal heirs of Late Thandra Muthaiah, including
Mr. Thandra Shiva Kumar Goud, filed petitions and sworn statements under the provisions
of the Tenancy Act, 1950, formally surrendering their alleged Protected Tenancy rights
before the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Serilingampally, on 24.06.2017.
11.

It was further submitted that Mr. Thandra Shiva Kumar Goud passed away during

the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Petitioner allegedly took undue advantage of the
situation by misleading the deceased’s family members and obtained a General Power of
Attorney (GPA). Acting on behalf of Mrs. Anandjeet Kaur and her children, the Petitioner
filed a representation before the GHMC in 2021, seeking cancellation of the building
permission granted to MHCPL for the “My Home RAKA” project. Upon examination,
GHMC rejected the representation through its order dated 29.10.2022 in Proceeding No.
Page 3 of 13

---

It was further submitted by the Respondent that neither they nor their predecessors-

in-title were parties to the legal proceedings cited by the petitioner. The proceedings
bearing No. B4/986/73 were instituted by Tandra Satyanarayana, Tandra Pandurangam,
Tandra Anandam, Tandra Sharada, and Tandra Amrutha Bai against Smt. Habeebunnisa
Begum, Smt. Rajeswari, and Sri K. Satyanarayana before the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Rajendranagar, seeking restoration of possession over land in Survey No. 98 of
Madinaguda Village. An appeal against the MRO’s order was filed by Smt. Rajeswari
before the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District (Appeal No. B4/12931/1980), followed
by a revision petition (CRP No. 6788 of 1980) before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh. The revision was dismissed. The Respondent contends that these proceedings are
unrelated to their title or ownership of the project land.
13.

The Respondent submitted that Smt. Rajeswari was never a predecessor-in-title to

the subject land. It was clarified that the original pattadar, Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum, sold
the land to D. Sukhram in 1963, who in turn sold it to Shri V.S. Gopal Rao and others in
1966 well before the year 1980. The Respondent emphasized that neither D. Sukhram nor
the subsequent purchasers were made parties to the said proceedings, allegedly due to
malafide intent by the Protected Tenant claimants, who suppressed material facts and
concealed the existence of prior transactions. It was further alleged that such conduct
amounted to fraud, rendering the orders obtained in those proceedings against third parties
non-binding and inapplicable to the Respondent’s predecessor-in-title.
14.

The Respondent also submitted that the suit bearing O.S. No. 123 of 2021 was filed

for partition among the legal heirs of the alleged Protected Tenants and they are unaware
of filing of such suit until they received a notice after court proceedings dated 07.07.2023.
However, as on date, the said claimants neither possess the land nor have been declared as
Page 4 of 13

---

It was further submitted that the Respondent company has completed construction

of the project on 02.04.2025 and has obtained the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for
Occupancy Certificate from the Fire Department and the Consent for Operation (CFO)
from the Telangana State Pollution Control Board (TGPCB). An application for issuance
of Occupancy Certificate was filed with the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
(GHMC) on 07.04.2025, and the inspection of the project is completed within the stipulated
timelines and the concerned officers recommended for issue of occupancy certificate.
Further, the Respondent developer also filed Form-1 Completed Certificate.
16.

By submitting the aforesaid reply, the Respondent has prayed to close the

complaint, contending that the allegations made by the Complainant are false, frivolous,
and vexatious. The Respondent has further requested this Hon’ble Authority to pass
appropriate orders restraining the Complainant from initiating any further frivolous
proceedings or actions intended to malign the reputation of the Respondent Company and
its development project and misusing the process of this Hon’ble Authority for ulterior
motives or wrongful gain.
17.

This Court is in receipt of further submissions dated 15.09.2025 from the petitioner,

stating that land measuring Ac.7.30 gts in Sy.No. 98 of Madinaguda Village,
Sherilingampalli Mandal, was originally held by Smt. Habeebunnissa Begum as pattadar.
of this, Ac. 4.26 guntas was held by Thandra Muttiah S/o Balaraj as a Protected Tenant.
Upon his demise in 1963, his legal heirs Thandra Satyanarayana, Pandurangam, Anandam,
Sharada, and Amrutha Baibecame entitled to equal shares.
18.

It is further submitted that Smt. Habeebunnissa Begum and Smt. Rajeswari

fraudulently procured a surrender of Protected Tenancy rights from Smt. Thandra
Page 5 of 13

---

It was also stated that Smt. Thandra Pandurangam, son of Late Thandra Muttaiah,

held a 1/5th undivided share in land measuring Ac. 4.26 guntas. Upon his death on
31.05.2006, his legal heirsThandra Shivakumar Goud, Thandra Vijaya Laxmi, and Smt. P.
Prasanna Rani succeeded to his share. Thandra Shivakumar Goud, entitled to a 1/3rd share
of the 1/5th portion of ac4.26gts, filed O.S. No. 123/2021 for partition and separate
possession before the Hon’ble XV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at
Kukatpally, later transferred to the VI Additional District Judge, where it remains pending.
20.

It is further submitted that during the pendency of the suit, Thandra Shivakumar

Goud passed away on 29.04.2021, leaving behind his wife and two daughters as his legal
heirs, entitled to his 1/3rd undivided share. In view of the inability of one of the legal heirs
of Late Thandra Muttaiah to personally pursue the matter, the Petitioner herein was
appointed as General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder to represent them and take necessary
legal steps to safeguard their rights and secure their entitlement.
21.

It was also submitted that the Petitioner, acting as GPA holder, filed a complaint

before the Commissioner, GHMC, seeking cancellation of building permission granted to
the “My Home RAKA” project vide Permit No. 1/C21/10154/2021 in file
No.I/c21/08841/2021

dated 10.11.2021, in respect of land measuring Ac. 7.30 gts,
Page 6 of 13

---

It is further submitted that, as the developers continued construction and collected

substantial amounts from homebuyers without disclosing the pending legal disputes, the
Petitioners and other stakeholders issued public caution notices to alert prospective buyers.
In response, they were served with legal notices by the concerned parties. Aggrieved by
the Petitioner’s continued efforts to reclaim the allegedly encroached land, a complaint
dated 02.07.2024 was filed against him before the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.
23.

In view of the above, the Petitioner has prayed before this Authority to revoke the

RERA registration under Section 7(1) of the RE(R&D) Act,2016. Pending such revocation,
he has sought interim relief under Section 36 to restrain the Respondents from further
advertisement, booking, or sale of flats/plots, and to freeze the designated project accounts
under Section 7(4)(c)(d). He has also requested imposition of penalties under Section 60
and initiation of further proceedings under Section 8 of the RE(R&D) Act,2016.
Observations of this Authority: 24.

The Authority has carefully perused the representation dated:28.01.2025 and

Dated:15.09.2025 submitted by Sri.P Ram Gopal Rao acting as GPA Holder for Smt
Anandjeethkaur W/o Late Thandra Shiva Kumar Goud, Thandra Akshaya and Tanu Sree
Daughters of Late Thandra Shiva Kumar Goud, along with details, submissions from the
Page 7 of 13

---

The representation alleges irregularities in the Respondent’s project titled “My

Home RAKA,” registered under TG RERA with registration number P02400003777.
These irregularities include the submission of fraudulent documents and suppression of
material facts concerning pending litigation over the project land measuring
9,915.71square meters situated at Madinaguda village, Ranga Reddy District. Specifically,
the petitioner refers to historical revenue orders: (i) Order No. B4/986/73 dated 19.03.1980
passed by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar; (ii) Case No. P4/12931/80 dated 09.12.1980
passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District; (iii) Order in C.R.P. No. 6788/1980
dated 21.10.1981 passed by the Hon’ble High Court; as well as ongoing civil suits O.S.
No. 123/2021 and O.S. No. 71/2023.It is further contended that the promoter acquired land
from parties who had lost their title prior to the1981 and unlawfully occupied it, thereby
warranting criminal proceedings and revocation of project under Section 7 of the RE(R&D)
Act,2016.
26.

In the interest of safeguarding the rights of allottees and upholding the principle of

enshrinement as articulated in the preamble of the RE(R&D) Act,2016 which aims to
establish a regulatory framework for the promotion and regulation of the real estate sector,
ensuring efficient and transparent transactions in the sale of plots and apartment buildings,
and above all, protecting the interests of consumers by fostering accountability and
preventing malpractices this Authority has deemed it appropriate to take Suo motu
cognizance of the matter under Section 35(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The allegations
if substantially undermine the foundation of the said Act including mandatory disclosure
of pending litigation while applying for registration before this Authority which is to
empower the allotees with complete information of project.
27.

The core allegations raised by the petitioner revolve around suppression of facts

under Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 which governs the application process for
registration of real estate projects. Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act,2016 mandates that:

Page 8 of 13

---

Upon verification of records, including the TG RERA portal and submissions made

by the parties, this Authority notes that the project titled “My Home RAKA” was registered
with this Authority on 20.12.2021 under registration number P02400003777, valid from
20.12.2021 to 09.11.2025. At the time of application, the promoter submitted all requisite
documents, including Building Permit No. 1/C21/10154/2021 dated 10.11.2021 issued by
the Commissioner, GHMC, and an affidavit under Section 4(2)(c) of the RE(R&D)
Act,2016. The petitioner alleges suppression of material facts, specifically the existence of
civil suits O.S. No. 123/2021 and O.S. No. 71/2023. However, the Respondent has denied
any deliberate concealment, stating that O.S. No. 123/2021 pertains to a partition suit filed
among legal heirs of alleged Protected Tenants over land measuring Ac. 4.26gts in Sy. No.
98 of Madinaguda village, Serilingampally Mandal, which they were unaware of such suit
until receipt of notice following court proceedings dated 07.07.2023.
29.

This Authority, upon independent scrutiny of the case status via the e-Courts portal

of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and Ranga Reddy District Court, observes that
although O.S. No. 123/2021 bears a 2021 filing year, it was not listed for hearing nor were
Page 9 of 13

---

The petitioner, Sri P. Gopal Rao, has referred to certain historical orders, namely:

i) Case No. B4/986/73 dated 19.03.1980 passed by the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar; (ii) Case
No. P4/12931/80 dated 09.12.1980 passed by the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy
District;(iii) Order in C.R.P. No. 6788/1980 dated 21.10.1981 of the Hon’ble High Court.
However, these orders pertain to disputes among the legal heirs of Sri Thandra Muthaiah,
the alleged original protected tenant, which were subsequently resolved by the Revenue
Authorities prior to the registration of the project. Hence, these do not constitute
suppression of facts.
31.

Turning to the request for revocation of the project u/S (7) of the RE(R&D)

Act,2016. This Authority must apply the provisions of Section 7 judiciously, such action
must be guided by the preamble of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, which emphasized the
importance of consumer protection and sectoral transparency, without unduly disrupted the
legitimate project. Section 7 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 empowers the Authority to revoke
registration upon satisfaction that:
(a) the promoter has defaulted in compliance with the Act or
rules/regulations made thereunder;
(b) the promoter has violated terms or conditions of approval granted by
the competent authority;
(c) the promoter has engaged in unfair practices or irregularities.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause, the term unfair practice
means a practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale or

Page 10 of 13

---

falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard
or grade;

(ii)

represents that the promoter has approval or affiliation which
such promoter does not have;

(iii)

(iii) makes a false or misleading representation concerning the
services; (B) the promoter permits the publication of any
advertisement or prospectus whether in any newspaper or
otherwise of services that are not intended to be offered; (d) the
promoter indulges in any fraudulent practices.

32.

In the present case, none of the aforementioned violations envisaged under Section

7 of the the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, have been established. The promoter has complied with
all essential statutory prerequisites at the time of registration, including submission of title
documents, sanctioned building plans, NOC from the competent authority, and the affidavit
mandated under Section 4(2)(c) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The records further indicate
that the Respondent has completed construction of the project and applied for issuance of
the Occupancy Certificate before the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)
on 07.04.2025 and the inspection of the project is completed within the stipulated timelines
and the concerned officers recommended for issue of occupancy certificate. Further, the
Respondent developer also filed Form-1 Completed Certificate.
33.

In these circumstances, this Authority finds no material irregularity, fraudulent

representation, or continuing default that would justify invocation of the drastic power of
revocation under Section 7 of RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The said provision is an exceptional
Page 11 of 13

---

Furthermore, at this advanced stage, when the project stands substantially

completed and the registration is set to expire on 09.11.2025, any order of revocation would
not only be disproportionate but would also jeopardize the vested interests of numerous
allottees who have invested in good faith relying on the statutory registration granted by
this Authority. Such an extreme step would risk unsettling the rights of consumers and may
impede completion or handover processes, thereby frustrating the very object of the
RE(R&D) Act,2016.
35.

The preamble to the RE(R&D) Act,2016, underscores a dual mandate to protect the

interests of consumers while ensuring the orderly growth and completion of real estate
projects. Therefore, while the Authority must remain vigilant against any act of suppression
or deception, it must also exercise restraint where the facts do not disclose continuing noncompliance or fraudulent intent. The objective of the statute is to secure transparency and
homebuyers protection through regulation and protect interest laid under the provisions of
RE(R&D) Act, 2016 not to destabilize bona fide projects through overbroad penal action,
particularly where numerous allottees are already vested in the project, unless such action
is necessitated by binding judicial or competent authority orders.
36.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that invocation of Section 7 of the RE(R&D)

Act,2016 for revocation of registration is neither warranted nor proportionate in the present
case.
37.

No sufficient grounds for revocation exist. However, in furtherance of transparency

and accountability as envisaged under the RE(R&D) Act,2016 this Authority hereby directs
the Respondent, under Section 34(f) of the said Act, to forthwith update the concerned
project details on the TG RERA web portal, including particulars of O.S. No. 123/2021
and O.S. No. 71/2023, and to ensure that the Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) are duly
filed and up-to-date.

Page 12 of 13

---

Furthermore, the Respondent is sternly cautioned that any adverse outcome in the

aforesaid litigations which directly or indirectly affects the project land or the rights of
allottees shall render them liable under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The
Respondent shall extend all necessary assistance and provide indemnity to the allottees to
safeguard their interests, particularly in relation to title security and possession.
39.

In view of the foregoing analysis and in the absence of any substantial violation

warranting revocation at this stage, the Suo motu proceedings are hereby closed.

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 13 of 13

---