BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY

[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]

COMPLAINT NO.1825 OF 2023

24th Day of April, 2024

Corum: Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member

Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

1. Sri Kadukuntla Swaraj

Versus

Smt. Chalikanti Aadilakshmi …Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing

on 19.03.2024 before this Authority in the presence of the Counsel for

Complainant Sri Shyam Prasad and upon hearing the arguments, this

Authority passes the following ORDER:

2. The present Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and 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”) requesting appropriate

action against the Respondent.

1
Brief facts of the case:

3. The Complainant submitted that on 9th March 2019, the Complainant

No.1 was looking for buying land and happened to meet with Respondent who

claimed as one of the joint agreement holders of the property admeasuring

Acres 6.08 Guntas (25,089.92 Sq Mtrs) identified by Survey numbers 212, 213,

214 and 215/P situated at Subhanpoor, Maheshwaram, Ranga Reddy.

Respondent and another person named Sri Boini Mahender Yadav (who

represented Bollu Ravi Yadav, title holder of property) claiming as joint

agreement holders of the said property, offered to sell the same to Complainant

No.1 for a consideration of Rs.7,87,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Eighty-

Seven Lakhs and Forty Thousand Only) to which both parties agreed.

4. That on 11th March 2019, Complainant No.1 paid Rs.1,10,00,000/-

(Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Only) as part of consideration which was

acknowledged jointly by Respondent and Sri Boini Mahender Yadav. On 24th

March 2020, nationwide lockdown announced and hence Complainant could

not pursue the matter any further. On 12th July 2021, Complainant No.1

entered into a sale agreement (erroneously titled as sale deed) in which

Complainant No.1 opted to buy 25% of property and remaining 75% was

distributed among Complainant No.2 and Respondent in the ratio of 25% and

50% respectively.

5. That both Complainants and Respondent pooled money with the

intention of buying land directly from one of the original title holder Sri Bollu

Ravi Yadav in which Complainants together to hold to an extent of land

admeasuring acres 3.04 guntas in Survey No.214, part of 213 and part of 215.

That at the rate of original consideration, total amount to be paid by

2
Complainants for the land admeasuring Acres 3.04 guntas is Rs.3,93,70,000/-

(Rupees Three Crores Ninety Three Lakhs and Seventy Thousand Only), in

which the Complainants together paid a sum of Rs.2,27,20,000/- (Rupees Two

Crores Twenty-Seven Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only) including the payment

of Rs.1,10,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Ten Lakhs Only) made by Complainant

No.1 on 11th March 2019 and Respondent paid a sum of Rs.1,17,20,000/-

(Rupees One Crore Seventeen Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only).

6. That Complainants were ready to pay their part of balance of

Rs.1,66,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Six Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only)

to Sri Bollu Ravi Yadav towards buying the subject matter property. Further,

before initiating the final payment, Respondent along with Complainants

requested vendors Sri Bollu Ravi Yadav and Sri Bollu Raju to complete their

obligation of determining the property boundaries and measuring the area

which they had not fulfilled until date. That therefore, the obligation of

completing the balance payment is pending and the agreement is not void and

still force till date.

7. That the Respondent had kept both Complainants under the pretext of

getting vendors obligation fulfilled and under such cover, she executed her plan

of action to deceive both Complainants by means of following acts which these

Complainants learnt recently when Complainant No.1 visited the subject matter

property. That on 28th January 2022, while the sale agreement between

Complainants, Respondent and Title holder is in force, Respondent convinced

the title holder on unknown merits to transfer the said property jointly on to

her name and another Sri Boini Mahender Yadav (who represented original title

3
holders, Sri Bollu Ravi Yadav) claiming as joint agreement holders of the said

property which title holder agreed and the wish got materialised vide sale deed

number 2025/2022 of SRO Maheshwaram. Further, on 14th February 2022,

Respondent along with Sri Boini Mahender Yadav made an application to

HMDA seeking approval of open plotted layout which acknowledged by HMDA

vide application number 052410/SMD/LT/U6/HMDA/14022022.

8. That thereafter, on 25th April 2022, office of gram panchayat at

Subhanpur issued a proceeding in the name Respondent and others confirming

the possession of land gifted to them and the Respondent also applied for RERA

license with fraudulent documents/partial documents and obtained RERA

registration bearing No.P02400004849 on 23rd August 2022.

9. In light of the said circumstances, the Complainant prayed as follows:

a. Pass an order declaring any third party rights created if any on the

plots spread over the said property as null and void-ab-initio, and to

direct the Respondent to return the payments made if any to the

respective buyers;

b. Pass orders to direct appropriate authority to enquire and investigate

into all the fraudulent, unfair and deceptive practices committed by

the Respondent in cheating the prospective buyers and punish them

as per law;

c. Pass orders for Revocation of the registration granted to respondent

cum promoter under section 5 of RERA Act under the grounds of the

said act clause (a) of sub-section (1), clause (b) of sub- section (1) and

clause (d) of sub-section (1) under Section 7;

4
 d. Pass order directing Respondent to pay penalty to the maximum

possible extent which is upto Rs.39,37,000/- under Section 61;

e. In accordance with section 61 of the act, Complainant prays the

authority to penalise the respondent to the maximum possible extent

which is 5% of the estimated cost of real estate project value which

translates into penalty of Rs.39,37,000/-.

Observations and Directions of the Authority:

10. This Authority has perused the material on record and heard the

contentions raised by the Counsel for Complainants. On the date of hearing,

the Authority questioned the Counsel as to what the locus of the Complainant

is to file the present Complaint. In response to the same, the Counsel submitted

that he is filing this Complaint in the capacity of the “public” in order to protect

the interests of the allottees, which argument, this Authority is not convinced

with.

11. The material on record shows that the Complainants are “investors” in a

property who sought to purchase portion of the land from the Respondent. The

Respondent, allegedly, did not perform the said alleged Agreement of Sale

executed in favour of the Complainants and proceeded to obtain competent

authority permission and subsequently registered the property with this

Authority. Undoubtedly, after perusing relevant documents submitted by the

Respondent, was the registration granted to the Project in accordance with the

provisions of the Act, 2016 and the Rules thereunder.

12. In such a scenario, it is clear that the Complainants have failed to bring

any material/contention on record to show any violation of their rights

5
protected under the Act in respect of the duties to be performed by the

promoter i.e., the Respondent, more specifically enumerated under Section

11(4) of the Act, 2016. Therefore, the locus of the Complainants in filing the

present complaint praying for revocation of registration amongst other reliefs is

questionable. The reliefs prayed for by the Complainants are not maintainable

as the Complainants cannot be termed as “aggrieved” persons under Section 31

read with Section 2(zg) of the Act, 2016 for the aforementioned reasons.

13. Therefore, it is held that the Complainants do not have any locus to file

the present case for not being “aggrieved” under the provisions of the Act, 2016

and therefore the Complainants are not entitled to any reliefs as prayed for.

Consequently, the present Complaint is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/-

…………………………… ……………………………………
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member, Hon'ble Member,
TS RERA TS RERA