1. Appeal seeking cancellation of a real estate project registration certificate due to alleged suppression of pending civil litigation and lack of valid project approval. (Para 1 , 2 , 14 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 1131
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: HYDERABAD
A. Santhosh Reddy, Chairperson, P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy, Judicial Member, Vemula Sreekar, Administrative Member
Venkata Subbamma @ Gangaraju Saraswathi, D/o Late Ch.Venkata Appa Rao - Appellants
Versus
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Represented by its Secretary/Authorised Officer – Respondent
T.A.No. 68 of 2025
Decided On : 29-10-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Mohd. Mumtaz Pasha
For the Respondent : Mr.M.Srinivas Reddy
Important Points
An appeal for project registration cancellation is maintainable only after filing a complaint with the Regulatory Authority. Furthermore, failure to comply with statutory registration conditions and maintain valid technical approvals from planning authorities renders the registration certificate lapsed.
Subject
Real Estate Law - RERA
Act Referred
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: S.43, S.44, S.7, S.31, S.43(5), S.8, S.5, S.4(2), S.4(2)(f), S.11, S.4(2)(c), S.18, S.64, S.44(4), S.58
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017: R.30, R.30(1)(a)
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017: R.30, R.30(1)(a)
Headnote
(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 4(2), 5, 7, 11, 31, 43, 44 - Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 - Rule 30 - Maintainability of appeal - Project registration - Lapsing of registration certificate - Non-compliance with statutory conditions - The Appellate Tribunal is a creature of statute with derivative jurisdiction and not original jurisdiction; hence, a party aggrieved by a registration cannot file an appeal directly for cancellation without first exhausting the remedy of filing a complaint under Section 31 before the Regulatory Authority. (Paras 6, 8, 10)
(B) Project Registration - Mandatory conditions - Non-compliance - Registration under Section 5 is subject to the fulfillment of conditions stipulated in the Registration Certificate. Failure to adhere to statutory mandates, such as providing clear location details and demarcation under Section 4(2)(f), combined with a failure to maintain technical approvals from competent planning authorities due to non-payment of fees, renders the registration certificate non-operative and lapsed. (Paras 15, 19, 22, 25, 28)
Facts of the case:
Appellants sought the cancellation of a project registration certificate granted to a promoter over agricultural land, alleging that the promoter obtained registration by fraud and suppressed pending civil litigation concerning the partition and ownership of the property. The promoter contended that the dispute was purely civil and that the appellants were not allottees or registered consumer associations, making the appeal maintainable neither in law nor on facts.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal observed that the appellants did not file a prior complaint with the Regulatory Authority, which is a prerequisite for preferring an appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the promoter had failed to fulfill specific conditions in the Registration Certificate and had not complied with disclosure obligations under Section 4(2)(f) regarding the project's location and boundaries. It was further noted that the project's technical layout approval had lapsed due to the promoter's failure to deposit mandatory charges with the planning authority.
Issues: Whether an appeal seeking cancellation of a registration certificate is maintainable without first filing a complaint before the Regulatory Authority; and whether the failure to comply with registration conditions and obtain necessary technical approvals results in the lapsation of the registration certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Tribunal lacks original jurisdiction to adjudicate fresh disputes for the cancellation of certificates; such relief must first be sought from the Regulatory Authority under Section 31. Moreover, project registration is contingent upon both statutory disclosures and the validity of technical approvals from planning authorities; default in either renders the registration defective or lapsed.
Result: Appeal disposed of with directions to the Regulatory Authority to examine the original registration application and for the promoter to produce necessary layout plans and establish compliance with statutory requirements.
(B) Project Registration - Mandatory conditions - Non-compliance - Registration under Section 5 is subject to the fulfillment of conditions stipulated in the Registration Certificate. Failure to adhere to statutory mandates, such as providing clear location details and demarcation under Section 4(2)(f), combined with a failure to maintain technical approvals from competent planning authorities due to non-payment of fees, renders the registration certificate non-operative and lapsed. (Paras 15, 19, 22, 25, 28)
Facts of the case:
Appellants sought the cancellation of a project registration certificate granted to a promoter over agricultural land, alleging that the promoter obtained registration by fraud and suppressed pending civil litigation concerning the partition and ownership of the property. The promoter contended that the dispute was purely civil and that the appellants were not allottees or registered consumer associations, making the appeal maintainable neither in law nor on facts.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal observed that the appellants did not file a prior complaint with the Regulatory Authority, which is a prerequisite for preferring an appeal. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the promoter had failed to fulfill specific conditions in the Registration Certificate and had not complied with disclosure obligations under Section 4(2)(f) regarding the project's location and boundaries. It was further noted that the project's technical layout approval had lapsed due to the promoter's failure to deposit mandatory charges with the planning authority.
Issues: Whether an appeal seeking cancellation of a registration certificate is maintainable without first filing a complaint before the Regulatory Authority; and whether the failure to comply with registration conditions and obtain necessary technical approvals results in the lapsation of the registration certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The Appellate Tribunal lacks original jurisdiction to adjudicate fresh disputes for the cancellation of certificates; such relief must first be sought from the Regulatory Authority under Section 31. Moreover, project registration is contingent upon both statutory disclosures and the validity of technical approvals from planning authorities; default in either renders the registration defective or lapsed.
Result: Appeal disposed of with directions to the Regulatory Authority to examine the original registration application and for the promoter to produce necessary layout plans and establish compliance with statutory requirements.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
- property law
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend project registration was obtained via fraud and suppression; respondents argue the appeal is not maintainable without exhausting internal regulatory remedies and civil dispute jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. The Tribunal observed that the statutory scheme requires aggrieved parties to first approach the regulatory authority for relief before invoking appellate jurisdiction under the Act. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 , 21 , 23 , 27 )
4. The Real Estate Appellate Tribunal possesses only appellate jurisdiction and cannot be approached directly for project cancellation without the applicant exhausting the primary complaint mechanism before the regulatory authority. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 )
5. Appeal dismissed with liberty granted to appellants to pursue remedies before the regulatory authority, with directions to verify compliance with statutory disclosures and conditions. (Para 11 , 12 , 32 , 33 )
6. Can an aggrieved party file an appeal directly before the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for cancellation of a project registration?
No, an aggrieved person must first file a complaint with the regulatory authority under Section 31 of the Act. The Appellate Tribunal only exercises appellate jurisdiction and cannot entertain a request for cancellation of registration as an original petition. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 )
7. What is the consequence of a promoter failing to comply with project registration conditions as mandated by the Act?
Failure to comply with mandatory disclosure obligations under Section 4 and statutory conditions of registration renders the certificate liable for revocation by the regulatory authority. The Tribunal may direct such authority to examine compliance and initiate necessary regulatory action. (Para 21 , 24 , 31 , 32 )
8. Does the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal have the power to direct a forensic audit of project promoters?
Yes, under Rule 30 of the Telangana RERA Rules, 2017, the Appellate Tribunal has additional powers to require the production of documents or information, enabling it to direct the regulatory authority to conduct an audit to verify project compliance and promoter conduct. (Para 17 , 18 , 32 )
ORDER :
A. Santhosh Reddy, J.
This appeal is preferred by the appellants seeking to cancel the Registration Certificate of the Project ‘Riverscape’ granted by the 1st respondent/Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulatory Authority’), in favour of the 2nd respondent/League Spaces LLP, vide Registration No.PO2400004424, dated 02.05.2022, in respect of agricultural lands admeasuring Ac.5.17 Guntas in Sy.No.17 (old) (17/EE), Bandlaguda Jagir village, Rajendranagar, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District., on the ground that the 2nd respondent/developer had obtained registration of the project by playing fraud and suppressing the civil litigation in O.S.No.1253 of 2008 filed by the 8th respondent/plaintiff herein against respondent Nos.3, 7 and 9/defendants herein and two others, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, which was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, by judgment dated 18.11.2014, and against which an appeal being A.S.No.363 of 2015 was filed and the same is pending adjudication. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent had suppressed the existence of civil suit being O.S.No.202 of 2023 filed by the appellants against him and respondent Nos.3 to 13 herein and others for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property, pending on the file of the I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. It is further alleged that the 2nd respondent had also suppressed the existence of civil suit being O.S.No.1562 of 2025 filed by the appellants against respondent Nos.2 to 5 and 13 to 18 herein for declaration of sale deeds and Development agreement-cum-GPA as null and void and also for perpetual injunction and the same is pending adjudication before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appeal is maintainable under Sections 43 and 44 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for brevity ‘the Act’). The 2nd respondent/promoter had suppressed the pending civil litigation in respect of the proposed project and also not submitted the approved sanctioned plan or layout obtained from the competent authority at the time of obtaining Registration Certificate from the learned Regulatory Authority. He further submitted that the learned Regulatory Authority, without verifying the records and the documents disclosing that the subject properties are joint family properties and also the civil litigation for partition of the said properties are pending between the parties, erroneously granted registration certificate of the project in favour of the 2nd respondent/promoter. Therefore, he prayed for cancellation of the registration certificate of the project issued in favour of the 2nd respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent/promoter submitted that the present appeal filed by the appellants is not maintainable either in law or on facts as they have not filed any complaint before the Regulatory Authority seeking the relief of cancellation of registration certificate granted in favour of the 2nd respondent. Further, the appellants cannot file an appeal directly before this Tribunal without exhausting the remedy of complaint before the Regulatory Authority. Revocation or cancellation can only be allowed if there is any prima facie violation of the terms as mentioned under Section 7 of the Act. He further submitted that there is no suppression regarding pending of civil disputes and that there is no civil case which is pending as on the date of granting Registration Certificate on 02.05.2022. Further, the matters such as partition and ownership are subject matter of civil Court and cannot be adjudicated by this Tribunal as the subject matter is wholly beyond the purview of this Tribunal. He further submitted that even though the Registration Certificate was granted in the year 2022 and the project is being
