Telangana REAT Upholds “Aparna Sunstone” Registration, Limits RERA To Allottees Or “Aggrieved Persons”

On 8 June, the Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) held that persons claiming independent ownership rights over project land cannot challenge the registration of a project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, where they are neither allottees nor “aggrieved persons” under the Act, and that such disputes fall outside the jurisdiction of RERA.

Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy and Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy dismissed an appeal filed by N.L. Ravi Shankar and N. Chandrakala and upheld the Telangana RERA order returning their complaint as not maintainable. The Bench held:

“We are of the considered view that the appellants cannot be said to be 'aggrieved persons' to take recourse to Section 31(1) of the Act. Thus, from the above analysis, it is evident that the appellants having no concern whatsoever cannot be said to have any locus standi to knock the doors of the Act for redressal of their grievance.”

Ravi Shankar and Chandrakala claimed ownership over land at Gopanpally village in Ranga Reddy District and challenged the registration of Aparna Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd.'s “Aparna Sunstone” project before Telangana RERA. They alleged that the developer obtained registration on the basis of fraudulent documents and they sought cancellation of the project registration.

The Telangana RERA Registry returned the complaint by order dated 24 October 2025, holding that the dispute involved questions of title and ownership of land and therefore fell outside the scope of RERA. The appellants then filed an appeal under Section 44 of the RERA Act before the Tribunal.

Aparna Infra Housing contended that the appellants did not qualify as allottees or persons connected with the project and that their claims raised competing questions of title that only a civil court could decide.

The Tribunal held that the appellants attempted to use RERA proceedings to adjudicate a title dispute. It observed that RERA regulates the relationship between promoters and allottees and does not empower authorities to decide complex disputes involving ownership claims, allegations of forged documents, or competing title rights. It further held that civil and criminal courts alone possess jurisdiction to determine allegations of forgery or fabrication.

The Bench also observed that RERA cannot conduct a detailed trial into allegations of fabrication of documents and title disputes and reiterated that only civil or criminal courts can decide whether documents are forged or fabricated.

Accordingly, the REAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the Telangana RERA order, holding that the appellants were not “aggrieved persons” under the Act.

Appearances for appellants (N.L. Ravi Shankar and N. Chandrakala): Advocate K. Fakruddin.

Appearances for respondent (Aparna Infra Housing Pvt. Ltd.): Advocate M.V. Durgaprasad.