The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has held that only persons who can establish a legal injury to a right conferred by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) can file complaints under the law. A person cannot approach the authority merely to raise concerns about alleged violations in a real estate project.
The majority comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar observed:
“Section 31 (1) of the Act uses the expression 'any aggrieved person'. The word 'person' is defined under Section 2(28), but in Section 31(1) the said word 'person' is further qualified by 'aggrieved'. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceedings unless he/she satisfies that he/she falls within the category of 'aggrieved person'. Only a person who has suffered legal injury can challenge the act/action/order in a Court of law. A 'legal right' means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. The phrase 'aggrieved person' used in Section 31(1) of the Act would mean a person who is regulated or governed by the said Act and there is an injury of the right conferred under the said Act. The phrase used in Section 31(1) is 'any aggrieved person' and not 'any person'.”
The ruling came in an appeal filed by advocate Dr. Lubna Sarwath challenging the registrations granted to Phoenix Global Spaces Pvt Ltd's commercial project TRITON and Sumadhura Constructions Pvt Ltd's residential project SUMADHURA PALAIS ROYAL.
had alleged that the projects involved overlapping land and raised concerns about construction on land allegedly forming part of Narsingi Lake-2 and appearing in the prohibited-properties list.
The majority noted that Sarwath was neither an allottee nor a purchaser in either project. It also found that she had not placed any material before the Regulatory Authority or the tribunal to establish that she had been deprived of a legal entitlement.
The majority observed,
“In the present case, the appellant/complainant, has not placed on record any material nor has filed any supporting documents on record before the Regulatory Authority or before this Tribunal to establish that she was denied or deprived of something to which she was legally entitled in order to categorise her as an 'aggrieved person' and as such, we are of the considered view she cannot be said to be an 'aggrieved person' to take recourse to Section 31(1) of the Act.”
It further held that Sarwath could, at most, lead evidence as a witness but could not claim the status of an adversarial litigant.
The tribunal distinguished an Odisha Real Estate Appellate Tribunal decision relied on by her. In that case, the complainant had a right, title and interest in the land forming part of the project for which registration had been granted. The majority found that Sarwath had no comparable ownership interest.
On the allegations concerning Narsingi Lake-2, the majority noted that the National Green Tribunal's Southern Zone had dismissed Sarwath's plea on August 10, 2023, holding that no case had been made out to establish the existence of the lake in Survey Nos. 272, 273 and 276 of Narsingi village. Sarwath subsequently filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which was pending.
The majority declined to reach a conclusive finding on the lake-related issue while the matter remained pending before the Supreme Court. It also held that questions concerning the existence of the lake, entries in the prohibited-properties list, building approvals and the administration of the Regulatory Authority arose under other laws and fell outside the scope of RERA.
Phoenix received RERA registration for TRITON on November 20, 2021, for a commercial building in Survey Nos. 272/P, 273/P and 274/P at Puppalguda. It subsequently granted development rights to Sumadhura under a development agreement-cum-general power of attorney dated June 28, 2023. Sumadhura received registration for SUMADHURA PALAIS ROYAL on April 29, 2024.
The majority noted that Sumadhura's project was on adjacent land and held that both companies had complied with the relevant provisions of RERA and its Rules. It therefore upheld the Regulatory Authority's order dated March 27, 2025, and dismissed the appeal.
Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy dissented from the majority. He disagreed with its conclusion on Sarwath's standing and acknowledged her role as a practising advocate who had approached the authorities to bring alleged illegalities to light.
He observed:
“But the Appellant/Complainant being a member of the bar Council of India and a practising advocate, is having a responsibility to bring out the illegalities to an end. The Appellant/Complainant could be stated to have been aggrieved by the alleged illegalities perpetuated by the Respondent No.1 and 2 in the development of the real estate projects and hence approached the forums under the Act so as to safeguard the interests of the general public.”
He further held that even if Sarwath did not qualify as an aggrieved person, the information she had placed before the Regulatory Authority should have prompted it to initiate an inquiry on its own under Section 35 of RERA.
“At the cost of repetition, I place on record that the Appellant, even if found to be not an aggrieved person as provided under Section 31 of the Act, the material placed by the Appellant before the Regulatory Authority was sufficient to exercise suo moto powers as provided under Section 35 of the Act and ought to have conducted an enquiry for the determination as to the alleged flagrant violations and contraventions made by the Respondent No. 1 and 2, but such action was not taken.”
The dissent further observed that the Regulatory Authority's inaction in examining the reported violations would “shake the confidence of the general public”. It proposed further verification and inspection of the projects, along with restrictions on their activities pending compliance.
The majority dismissed the appeal and upheld the project registrations.
For Respondent (Phoenix Global Spaces Private Limited): Advocate P. Somashekar Reddy.
For Respondent (Sumadhura Constructions Private Limited): Advocate K. Sukumar.