Telangana RERA Orders Suo Moto Probe Against Sohini Builders Over Inclusion Of Private Plots In Registered Project

The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority on April 6, 2026 ordered suo motu proceedings against Sohini Builders LLP over allegations that it included privately owned plots in a registered project without consent, even as it dismissed complaints filed by two plot owners as not maintainable.

At the heart of the ruling was the nature of the relationship. The Authority found that the complainants were not “allottees” under the Act and had no direct transactional link with the promoter, which is essential to invoke the complaint mechanism.

Even so, the Authority did not let the allegations pass without scrutiny. It directed initiation of suo motu proceedings against Sohini Builders LLP, observing that the material placed on record indicated potential violations that warranted examination in the public interest.

A bench comprising Chairperson Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), and Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu held that the complainants were independent plot owners who had never entered into any agreement or transaction with Sohini Builders LLP.

The Authority clarified that dismissal of the complaints would not affect its regulatory powers, stating:

“However, this conclusion does not denude the Authority of its regulatory jurisdiction. The material placed on record and the nature of allegations brought forth by the Complainants disclose issues of potential non-compliance with the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act and the TG RE(R&D) Rules,2017 framed thereunder, which warrant independent examination in the larger public interest and in furtherance of the objectives of the RE(R&D) Act.”

The complainants are owners of separate residential plots in Beverly Hills Colony at Khajaguda Village within the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC). One complainant purchased Plot No. 61 measuring 577.77 square yards through a registered sale deed dated October 31, 2017, while the other purchased Plot No. 37 measuring 300 square yards through a registered sale deed dated August 28, 2002. They stated that the layout was regularised by GHMC on May 31, 2011 and that they have remained in possession of their plots since purchase.

According to the complaints, persons acting on behalf of the builder interfered with their possession by dumping boulders on internal roads, blocking access to their plots and coercing them to enter into development agreements.

The complainants also alleged that Sohini Builders LLP fenced the layout, prevented plot owners from accessing their properties and claimed to have obtained building permission and RERA registration covering their plots without their consent.

They alleged that the registration had been secured by suppressing key disclosures and by projecting ownership over the entire layout, including plots that did not belong to the developer.

The Authority also recorded that two separate complaints had been filed. Given the overlap in facts and the reliefs sought, both were taken up together and decided through a common order.

When the issue of maintainability came up, Sohini Builders LLP maintained that the complainants were not allottees and had never entered into any dealings with it.

The complainants, on the other hand, argued that the inclusion of their plots in the project without consent was enough to bring them within the fold of “aggrieved persons” under the law.

The Authority did not accept that position. It pointed out that a complaint under Section 31, read with Form 'M', rests on the existence of a direct transactional relationship with the promoter, typically arising from the allotment, booking, or purchase of a unit in the project.

Here, the complainants stood on a different footing. They were independent title holders asserting that the developer had no rights over their land and had nonetheless folded their plots into a registered project.

The Authority noted that this was, at its core, a challenge to the validity of the project registration rather than a grievance arising out of an allotment.

On that basis, the complaints were held to be not maintainable under Form 'M,' since the complainants were neither allottees nor parties to any transaction with the promoter.

At the same time, the Authority made it clear that the record did point to possible non-compliance with the Act and the Rules, leaving those issues open for further examination.

In view of this, the Authority directed the Secretary of Telangana RERA to initiate suo motu proceedings under Section 35 of the Act against Sohini Builders LLP and place the matter before it for further consideration.

The complaints were dismissed with no order as to costs.