RERA Registration Disputes Must First Be Raised Before Authority, Not REAT: Telengana REAT

The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has recently held that parties must first approach the Regulatory Authority over project registration disputes, as the Tribunal's jurisdiction is purely derivative and limited to examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the Authority's orders.

By a 2:1 majority, it dismissed an appeal by seven family members claiming ancestral property rights, seeking cancellation of the RERA registration granted to League Spaces LLP's Riverscape project in Hyderabad over alleged suppression of pending ownership and partition disputes.

The majority, comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar, observed:

“A party cannot invoke the appellate mechanism directly to adjudicate a fresh dispute or ask for cancellation of a certificate that the Authority has not yet reviewed. The Tribunal's powers are confined to examining the legality, propriety and correctness of orders passed under the Regulatory Authority. Further, the Tribunal's jurisdiction is purely derivative.”

The dispute concerns approximately 5 acres and 17 guntas of land at Bandlaguda Jagir, Ranga Reddy District.

In 2008, a partition suit concerning the property was instituted and decreed on November 18, 2014.

An appeal filed in 2015 remains pending. The family members also relied on a High Court injunction dated June 22, 2015, restraining alienation or alteration of the property's nature.

Meanwhile, Telangana RERA registered League Spaces LLP's Riverscape project on May 2, 2022.

The seven family members alleged that the developer concealed the existing property dispute while obtaining registration.

They also cited partition proceedings instituted in 2023 and a 2025 suit challenging sale deeds and a development agreement-cum-general power of attorney.

They further alleged that League Spaces had not submitted an approved layout or sanctioned plan while obtaining registration.

The family members directly approached the Appellate Tribunal under Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, seeking cancellation.

League Spaces opposed the appeal, arguing that no complaint had first been filed before Telangana RERA.

It denied suppressing litigation, maintained that ownership disputes belonged before civil courts and questioned the delayed challenge to its 2022 registration.

The majority held that the appeal was not maintainable because the family members had bypassed the statutory complaint procedure.

Clarifying that the Tribunal could review the Authority's decisions but could not directly entertain registration cancellation requests, the majority observed:

"The appeal shall be preferred only when any person aggrieved by any direction or decision or order made by the Authority under the Act, but not for cancellation of registration as granted by the Regulatory Authority. Section 31 of the Act clearly discloses that the complaint shall be filed before the Regulatory Authority and upon the order passed therein, an appeal shall be preferred under Section 43 of the Act.”

It explained that Sections 7 and 8 vest registration revocation powers in the Regulatory Authority.

Under Section 7, the Authority may revoke registration upon receiving a complaint, acting on its own initiative or receiving a competent authority's recommendation if statutory grounds are established.

The family members were therefore required to first complain under Section 31, identifying the alleged violations, and could appeal against an adverse decision within 60 days.

However, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy dissented, finding non-compliance with registration conditions, statutory disclosures and planning requirements.

He relied on a January 10, 2025 communication from the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), requiring compliance by February 10, 2025, while clarifying that it did not constitute development approval.

Finding that the developer had failed to pay mandatory charges and comply with registration conditions, he held that the registration had lapsed and directed Telangana RERA to examine the original records and statutory disclosures.

The majority dismissed the appeal, allowing the family members to pursue remedies before Telangana RERA. No costs were imposed, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.

For Appellants (Venkata Subbamma @ Gangaraju Saraswathi and six others): Advocate Mohd. Mumtaz Pasha.

For Respondent (League Spaces LLP): Advocate M. Srinivas Reddy.