Smt.Suman Wadhawan @ Suman Malhotra vs Venkata Praneeth Developers Private Ltd

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(RERA) 887

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J, P.PRADEEP KUMAR REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, CHITRA RAMCHANDRAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Smt.Suman Wadhawan @ Suman Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
Venkata Praneeth Developers Private Ltd – Respondent
Complaint No.1146 of 2023

Important Points

RERA Tribunals and Regulatory Authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving land title or serious allegations of fraud, as such matters must be resolved by competent Civil Courts, and the parties must qualify as 'aggrieved persons' or 'allottees' under the Act to seek relief.

Subject

Real Estate - RERA

Act Referred

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: S.2(d), S.7, S.18(2), S.31(1), S.34(1), S.44(4)
Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017: R.34(2)

Headnote

(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 2(d), 7, 18(2), 31(1), 34(1), 34(2), and 44(4) - Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 - Rule 34(2) - Jurisdiction of Regulatory Authority and Appellate Tribunal - Dispute over land title and allegations of fraud - Whether the complainant is an ‘aggrieved person’ or ‘allottee’ - Held, the phrase ‘aggrieved person’ used in Section 31(1) means a person who is regulated or governed by the said Act and there is an injury of right conferred under the said Act (Para 25) - Disputes revolving around title of the land or serious charges of fraud are beyond the purview of the Regulatory Authority or RERA Tribunals and must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court (Paras 31, 33, and 35) - If the Civil Court finds the title to the land defective, Section 18(2) of the RERA Act provides for compensation to affected homebuyers/allottees (Para 32).

Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed joint ownership of property and asserted an allotment of 19 flats and a proportionate undivided share of land based on a Settlement Agreement and a registered Gift Settlement Deed. She alleged that the respondents fraudulently entered into a Development Agreement with a developer without her knowledge or consent and sought the revocation of the developer's RERA registration. However, the validity of the Gift Settlement Deed is currently under adjudication in civil suit O.S. No. 2010 of 2022, and another suit (O.S. No. 194 of 2023) concerning the cancellation of ratification deeds is also pending.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal found that the crux of the matter revolves around a title dispute and allegations of fraud, both of which are beyond the jurisdictional scope of the Regulatory Authority and the RERA Tribunal. As the appellant's title and status as an allottee are subject to ongoing civil litigation, she does not currently satisfy the criteria of being an 'allottee' or an 'aggrieved person' under the Act.

Issues: Whether the appellant qualified as an 'allottee' or an 'aggrieved person' under Section 31(1) of the Act; whether she had the locus standi to maintain the appeal; and whether the order of the Regulatory Authority was sustainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that while RERA Tribunals have exclusive jurisdiction over sector-specific disputes like project delays and developer obligations, they lack the jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of land title or investigate serious allegations of fraud, which are exclusively the domain of competent Civil Courts.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER:: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Santhosh Reddy)

This appeal arises from out of the Order, dated 29.04.2024, passed by the Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Regulatory Authority’), in Complaint No.1146 of 2023, whereby the Regulatory Authority dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant as not maintainable.

2. The case of the appellant/complainant, in brief, is that she along with her sisters are the joint owners of the property admeasuring Ac.5.05 Guntas, situated at Survey No. 97 and 98, Annojiguda Village, Pocharam Municipality, Ghatkesar Mandal, Telangana (for short ‘scheduled property’). It is stated that without consent of the Complainant, sham documents were fraudulently executed and registered by her father, brother being respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 herein purporting to alienate the Scheduled Property under various transactions and upon knowing the same, the Complainant filed a suit being O.S. No. 220 of 2021 before the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, seeking partition of the Scheduled Property and to cancel all the registered documents executed in respect of the Scheduled Property. It is further stated that the Complainant also made newspaper publications in Eenadu and Times of India on 26.06.2021 and 27.06.2021 respectively, cautioning the general public about the pending litigation before the District Judge, Ranga Reddy. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in favour of whom a Joint Development agreement was executed with respect to the Scheduled Property, had approached the Complainant for a compromise by assuring her that she would be given her legitimate share in respect of the Scheduled Property by gifting an undivided share in the proposed apartments by way of a registered Gift Settlement Deed in her favour. In view of the said compromise, respondent No.2, at the instance of respondent No. 3, entered into a Settlement Agreement, dated 03.08.2021, with the Complainant, recording the settlement terms as contained therein. It is further stated that respondent No. 2 further sworn to an Affidavit-cum-Declaration that the said suit will be settled amicably and by virtue of the same, respondent No. 2 would execute a Gift Deed of 643.86 Sq. Yards undivided share of land (out of respondent No.2 undivided share of land in terms the Registered Joint Development Agreement vide Document No. 2770 of 2021) and further respondent No. 3 undertook that it shall proportionately allocate 19 Flats in Block-A admeasuring 24,968 Sq.fts along with 19 car parking (out of the share of respondent No.2 as allocated in term of Supplemental Agreement read with Registered Development Agreement vide Document No. 2770 of 2021), which is proposed to be constructed in terms of the Registered Development Agreement. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 executed the Registered Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the Complainant to an extent of 643.86 Sq. Yds of undivided share of land from the Scheduled Property vide Document No. 7387 of 2021, dated 04.09.2021. It is further stated that in view of the said compromise, O.S.No.220 of 2021 was withdrawn against all the defendants therein, except respondent No. 2 and thereafter it was referred to Lok Adalat, wherein the compromise between the Complainant and respondent No. 2 was recorded. In view thereof, the Lok Adalat has passed an award as per the terms of the compromise. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 2 & 3, without knowledge and consent of the complainant, unilaterally entered into a fresh Development Agreement-Cum-Irrevocable Power of Attorney vide Document No. 7296 of 2021 with respondent No.1/developer with a view to usurp the Complainant's legitimate share in the Scheduled Property. Therefore, the said transaction, which is vitiated by fraud, is illegal, void ab initio & non-est in the eye of law, thereby making the development activity carried out by respondent No. 1 on the Scheduled property required to be stopp