Homebuyers Cannot Shift Liability For Natural Growth On Vacant Plot After 7 Years: Telangana RERA

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on 22 June held that homebuyers who accept vacant possession under a registered sale deed without objection cannot later hold developers liable for clearing natural rocks or wild trees after several years of inaction, as maintenance of an individual plot after handover lies with the plot owner and not the developer.

A Bench comprising Members Laxmi Narayana Jannu and K. Srinivasa Rao partly disposed of a complaint against Suchirindia Infratech Private Limited, Suchirindia Projects Private Limited, Suchirindia Constructions Private Limited and Vasavi Nirmaan. The Authority observed:

“This Authority is further of the view that wild growth such as trees and shrubs on an open plot that has been left vacant for several years is a natural and foreseeable occurrence for which the developer cannot be held responsible, particularly after the lapse of seven years from the date of purchase. The maintenance and upkeep of an individual plot after its purchase and handover is the responsibility of the individual plot owner. The Complainant cannot, after allowing seven years to pass without taking any steps to develop the plot or maintain it, seek to hold the developer liable for the natural growth that has occurred on the vacant land in the intervening period.”

The dispute arose from the purchase of Plot No. 365, measuring 200 square yards, in the Suchirindia–Vasavi “Aryavartha Nagari” project at Deveryamzal Village, Shamirpet Mandal.

Gopishetty Sreenivas purchased the plot through a registered sale deed dated 16 October 2018 and approached the Authority in 2025 alleging that the developers failed to remove rocks and trees from the site and failed to provide electricity supply. He filed the complaint under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.

He contended that he relied on the approved layout plan and assurances of a fully developed plot, and submitted that Clause 9 of the sale deed recording “vacant possession” only acknowledged transfer of possession and did not certify that the plot remained free from physical obstructions.

The developers submitted that the buyer inspected the plot before purchase and accepted its condition without objection. They also stated that any wild growth occurred naturally after the land remained vacant. They relied on the project's Final Layout Approval issued by the HMDA.

The Authority found no evidence that the developers made any specific assurance to deliver the plot free of natural rock formations. It also noted that the complainant accepted possession without reservation under the sale deed. It further observed:

“If the plot was indeed in an unusable condition on account of rocks obstructing construction, it is difficult to comprehend why the Complainant raised no objection whatsoever at the time of the transaction and allowed nearly seven years to lapse before approaching this Authority with the said grievance.”

The Bench recorded that the project received Final Layout Approval from the HMDA on 6 August 2024, which signified completion in accordance with sanctioned plans and statutory requirements. However, it distinguished the issue of electricity. It held that statutory completion of the layout did not by itself absolve the developers if they had not installed or commissioned the electrical transformer required to energise the layout. It observed:

“...while the layout stands statutorily completed, if the main electrical transformer required to energize the layout or the subject plot had not yet been physically installed or commissioned on the site, the Respondents could not be entirely absolved of this specific, critical developmental obligation.”

The Bench rejected the buyer's claim for removal of rocks and trees. However, it directed the developers to verify the status of the electrical infrastructure and install the requisite electrical transformer within 45 days, if pending, failing which it warned of action under Section 63 of the Act.

Accordingly, the Authority disposed of the complaint without costs.

Appearances for complainant : Gopishetty Sreenivas appeared in person.

Appearances for respondents : Advocates D. Madhava Rao and M. K. Joy Raj.