High Court · 2025

il','"',:'#Y?;i;$i.irs:lyuv Smt. Ch Raivatakshmi [{o,e!e (Sri) Ch. Marthanda Rao, aged about 67 ["r?'"';,[i?f 33J[U'rjiil:i'i'":-H'dil;#;''F[,or.rd]2."e",; j,#Tiirli [nl'i#{ls*:#":ilrffi fff ,l:issi,1T:ti,1,iiit;?:,J;it *F,?,ni,,i Srr (Late) B. Kamarakar Rao, ased a_bout 45 years, Ki ns Koti n"ucj, 6pi Effi ,i; V6"; RI; PiJ?iTlSl B rrava n, u vo"ijtJ i 3'ocjr3, IfEiSiiSX; R/o B Hills [nfi ",,nr:an]E5iffi [:;;il3!3'fi l"'33io"eTy:f,,f f, :?3s, j'li: Ffi "6,ii1i!'i,rY6:J"'3,!lTijjiff ["y;ii[,ifi i;p,i;,iJ.f #,,T,Xtlj,T; cotony, panjagurta. Hyoerabab rei;;;;;;. ;bb0Ei:,,, Sri B. Muralidhar Rao. S/o n:zla:6"f ruffftil:+[ j"UiigI?,i.,r?:,[:d%T,i,,i,liJf *I?irj (Petitioner No. 3 to 9 Rep by GpA Holder petitioner No.1) ...PETITIONERS 6 7 B o AND

1. The State of Telanoana ,,I"p gV its principal Secretary, MA and UD Department Secretari-at Buitdin!s, sL"r,__"t"li,i,-#vilrIoro, t"t,ng,na State

2. The Telancan;r state Real Estate Authcrity Rep' by its chairpersott r rt;" ii'uirjii"s:'G;;;; rj"i?' o+o'a c Guards Masab Tank OPP PTI Br-'ildin: -lYderabad 3'Prathimalrlr.lsILCtureLimited,(FormerlyP^rathimaEr;tatesL.tl.)'aCompany reoistered -nl,' tne'"c5'ni'L"tiibl n"i 165o'.Reoiex'nterl bv iis Authorised prSinirl a' J'rbil'e: Hills Plot No' 213 Road N. ' Signatory 'uin Hyderabad - 500096' Telerngana t; Reqi"#t5J'o?i"Lio"utl-o^at -Regulatorv 'rm'Nigir' '3fi [f '*rl!;:i]'[:,,r51l'*#?s,1fi i.1?,3?EHs,rutt#iljii'*ffi U;i:X[,9:;'')il;,3n"t'";',;d;miatti-v'anoat, ni'"si' nliiv-i iq1;i;i 5o0o1e' and rep b1' r.t' - avuia iiilitii'x['it"96 late sii n Hrt'dav r Ranjan' ased tl'o fil|i ia, Ciittin" Estaies Gooanaoalle Tltanda' Tellapur about 59 v€a') re. s"el[insl;p;]i liil;i nang; R('ddv Dis rict - 5000'le Road Gopanal' ' ..RI=SPONDENTS Petitionuttdr-.r-Article226oltheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstancesStaiejintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue ar : rp p rop riate,-yvrit' order or direction nlore par:icularly one in the nature of Wril c'i F rohibition A. Prohibiting tht lie':;frondent No 2 from proceeding furtler ''rrith Complaint No' 187 oI 2024 b1' der l;rring that the Respondent No 2 has' no jurisdiction to entertain, hear rlr cr,r;ide Complaint No. 187 ot 2024;lencling before it, filed under Section ! I o the Real Estate (Regulation and Deve opn ent) Act' 2016 (RERAAct)bytrt;rrlspondentNo.4againstthePetitionersasbeingpatently illegal, in contr:r\re'lon of Rule 2(J) of the Telangana Stale Real Estate (Regulation anri J -'r'ciopment) Rules' 2017 and - B. Consequentlv r: r ; riss the Complaint No Respondent No 2 as rot maintainable' 187 of 2024 rending before IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition rrl(ler iection 15'1 CPC praying that in the c rcurrstances stated intheaffidavittiledr.supportofthepetition,theHighC]oUrmaybepleasedto stay all further t,ror:r e:dtngs in Complaint No 187 ot 202'4 pt:ndi'rg on the file of Respondent No. 2. :ending drsposal of the writ petition' lA NO:3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15.1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to permit the Petitioners to file additional material papers. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI p.SRl RAGHU RAM, REp. FOR SRI KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR MCpL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI G.PRASEN Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Mis G.LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI SRINIVAS IYENGAR, REp. FOR SRI HIRENDERNATH The Court made the following: O,flDER .1 THE HON''II[.E SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY lutsI T P TION o.4 o98 ol 2f)25 9BDEB: .order This writ prl ltion is filed seeking a direction from tlis ('ourt or d rection nore to declare the tc, l;;ue an approprlate writ pending befc r(: .r :h€ nature of Writ of Prohibition (/\) p-ohil)iting particularly e116 the responden: '1c.2 from propeeding further wil'h (-om )laint No.187 of 2024 :y declaring that the respondent No"Z hi:s no jurisdiction to (]nt:rtain, hear or decide Complaint Nc''18 r of 2024 Section 31 of the Real [:state t filed unlBr ')eveloPment) Act,2016 (RERA Act) b'" the (Regulation ;rrrd respondent \o.4 igainst the petitloners as being paten:ly ilegal' ln contravent,iorr cf Rule 2(J) of the Telangana State Real ':state (Regulation anrl l)evelopment) Rules' 2017 ('RERI\ Rtrles') and (B)conseq u e ntj!' cismiss the Complaint No'187 of 2O2't prrnding '( spondent No'2 as not mainlainilble and before th€ (C) pass su(:h f,tt (rr order or orders'

2. The petiticrers are absolute owners of the lanC admeasuring gtl,rta:; n SUrVey NoS.159/Part and l62lPart, r]6p;.rnpally ^c.24.\L Village, Serilirrg; rnpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist-ict' Tel;rngana (schedule pro:trrtv). The petitioners applied for building perr nission from the Greartr: Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (sHMC) i'nd the same was grant:j vide Permit No'25BUHO/WZlCit'l7l)-OL( daled 2

08.06.2011 for development of gated community with 105 independent houses arong with 6 units for LIG and 6 units for EWS. The building permission was originally valid for a period of 3 years till 07.06.20L4, which was later extended for a period of six years as per Rule 19(d) of G.O.Ms.No.168 dated 07_04.2012 and amended Rule 19(d) vide G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 05.01.2016.

3. It is submitted that pursuant to the building permit, the petitioners developed the schedule property land into a layout with plotted area and several plots were sold under registered sale deeds. There is no dispute with respect to sale of plots by the petitioners. Some of the plot owners entered into independent construction contracts with the petitioner No.1 for construction or completion of u nder-construction villas. The said independent contracts were entered with individuals by the petitioner No.1 alone and therefore, cannot be brought within the purview of Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TSRERA).

4. It is submitted that the RERA Act was enacted by the Parliament, which came into effect from 01.05.2016. Section 3 of the RERA Act provides for registration of real estate projects. The proviso to Section 3 of the Act provides that the projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of the RERA Act and for which the completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter ,/ ':i J shall make an apt lcation to the said project rril'h rt a Period of (1 the RERA com mence me rlt AuthoritY for registration ol the three months from the date of Act. As Per the RERA Act, Telangana enacted the RERA Rules' whlch r'vere :i ( ) Ms.No.2O2 dated 31.07.2017 Rule 2(j) o' the The term 'onqoinll Pr'rject' o published vid€l Rules, 2017 clefirr :; 'ongoing project" the Governmenl is not defined u r cl' lt the RERA Act'' It is sttbrrr tt'''d that the petitioners' project 'Pristine Es.ates' 5. is exempt frotn r,:Jistration under RERA Act in view of the Rul'l 2(j) and thereby, 1,he lrrovisions of RERA Act will not apply to tlre p'oject permitted vide 1U2010, dated :;lf.4C Bdilding Permit Order No:2581/Hrf/M '/Cir- ( fl 06.2011. As the project was approved t'efore rrovislons of the RERA Act would rrot :ppl I and 01.01.2017, tl-e therefore, no corr [)laint can be entertained by the re:;ponden' N o.2 against the Petit ( 'rlers'

6.ItisstlbrriJedthattherespondentNo.4wasregisterelwith ill-motive b1' sorrrr: of the owners on 2l '7O '2022' The Resp( ndent No.4 is not 13or,l; snting the owners of entire community of F ristine Estates. The -es pondent No'4 - association was frlrmtld v' ithout intimation to al owners with ulterior motive' Tht: memb ers of respondent l,Jcr.r[ itre defaulters of payment of mainte:nance c'targes and deposits to tte owners and to avoid payments they fcrm::d into 4 to pay an amount of an association and they are liable Rs.72,72,62,808/- (Twelve Crores and Seventy Two Lakhs and Sixty Two Thousand Eight hundred and Eight Only) towards costs of external electrification and external main water line for the occupied 74 Villas. The respondent No.4 had been demanding its members to pay membership fee even to join the Association, which is against the conditions bf the Registered Deeds/Agreements entered between the owner and the buyer.

7. No.4 filed Complaint It is submitted that the respondent No.187 of 2024 before the respondent No.2 making certain allegations against the respondent No.3 and the petitioners. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioners, allegedly, advertised and sold villas in a gated community cafled ,pristine Estates, with promises of state-of-the-a rt facirities, but faired to deriver on those promises. The petitioners allegedly kept the water and electricity supply under a commercial rate instead of residential and threatened to cut off the essential services if maintenance fees were not paid. The petitioners and others attempted to form another association of villa owners and demanded backlog maintenance charges, despite the existing association arready handling the community,s upkeep. The project was not registered with the TSRERA, despite the building permissions explred on 07.06.20L4 (3 years from the date of original building permit) and -=7/ 5 continued to erdvt:1ise the project' Further' that the (llub"Hotse is lease agreement vide document f\lo 8't93/ 2021 under a register€( dated13.08.202..\vithcertaintermsandconditions,withalhird- party entity, It is strbr- ].ed that the petitioners. filed a counter tefore 8. TSRERA questiorl r g the jurisdiction of the responrient No 2 to entertain the contllaint filed by th'e respondent No'4' The RERA Act and RERA Rrrles tre applicable only to real estate p -ojer:ts t rhose building perrrlis;s (rrls are approved on or after 01'01'2017 by the Competent Au':hc rities. tn ciiher words, the RERA Rultrs u ill be inapplicable to prljects whose building permissions vrere approved prior to 01.C!120L7 or up to 31'12'2016 and hence' the con'plaint filed by the *lsp r ndent No.4 is not maintainable' I: is subrnitted that despit,: :sp e cific objection regarding jurisdictiorr o' the respondent \o.;l -,lised by the petitioners regarding juriscictic n' the respondent l,lc,':l l)roceeded with hearing of the corrpla nt i nd as such, the petit o-€rs were constrained to approach th s Court' The respcr rtent No.4 filed counter alfidavit, inter alia' 'itating 9. that the -es.plndent No.1 has passed G O'Ms'No 60 dated 04.O3.2025 alor cl with a Circular No'607/202511-GRERA dated O4.o3.2025,rrnr:tJing the RERA Rules, to be in line with the RERA' As per ametrcle: Rule 1(2) and 2(j) of the RERA Fl.ules, th e Real Estate Projects c r which the completion certificate ha-'; no been 6 issued as on the date of coming into force of the RERA Act and the project where development is going on and for which Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate from the Competent Authority has not been issued, are defined as ongoing project. The project of the petitioners 'Pristine Estates, has not been issued occupancy/completion certificate and therefore, the grievance of the petitioners is no longer valid. In view of the amendment, this writ petition has become has infructuous.

10. Mr. p. Sri Raghu Ra5n, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. K. Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly submitted that in view'of amendment to Rule 1(2) and Rul2(1)(j) of the RERA Rules, there is no ambiguity insofar as ongoing project is concerned, which means, a project for which occupancy certificate or completion certificate is not issued by the competent authority. Learned senior counsel further submitted that, admittedly, pristine Estates was not issued occupancy certificate. Thus, under the new Rules, pz'ma facie, the complaint filed against the developers of Pristine Estates is maintainable.

11. However, learned senior counsel submitted complaint of the respondent No.4 was registered on and the amendment to the provisions of Rule 21(j) was 04.O3.2025 The complaint is not maintainable on the date when it that the

13.09.2024 7 was filed. Thtts;, j-he IERA does not have jurisdiction to ontetair the complaint. What ir; relevant to be seen is the right vested with the of the complaint i'e' 13'09'2024 an(l as the parties on the 'i;le have been entertained against the Pri';tine complaint corl ld ^ct Estates, ,rs6 17651 r:il right cannot be divested' Alternatively' Iearned senior counsel 5;u c rritted that assuming as per the amend':d R ules' it rnay be left open to tl'e respor dent the complainl is '"aintainable' will be defenderi br the No.4 to file a 'r : sh comPlaint, which petitioners ln ar:r::: r la nce with law' Lu.n"o senior counsel appt-'aring for 12. Mr. Srin \i l; Iyengar, counsel for the resplnd(rnt No 4' Mr. Hirendranatl, learned submitted tf'at th: rssue in this /is is no more res inte'qra The same 'L rt in issue has ariselr for consideration before the Supreme Co NEWTECH PR'OIIIOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRIV'ATE LIPIITED v. STATE OF U'f TAR PRADESHl wherein it was held tha'' RErIA Act is retroactl're ': "d that projects' already comple:ed for which completion (rert 1i(:ates are no granted' come within the fold of the RERA Act

13. Learned r;:rior counsel for the petitioners' in reply sut mitted that the jurjgrrr :rt in NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELT)PERS PRIVATEI-Ii,]::-rED,scase(lsupra)isnotap]licabletothe ' lzozt; e scc t 8 present case because it arises under the Uftar pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016, wherein the definition of ongoing project is different as compared to RERA Rures.

74. The Supreme Court in NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERs PRIVATE LTMITED,s case (1 supra) framed " Question No. 7 : Whether the 2016 Act is retrospective or retroactive in its operation and what witt be its legal consequence if tested on the anvil of the constitution of India,, and held as under: "4O. The clear and ur retroacrive,, "r..li,T"o'n:::'il'H,;:f ;fi::J: interpretation rule, of statutory construction, only one result is possible, i.e.. the legislature consciously enacted a retroactive statute to buirdins. rear estare ;:::" j"jil',1'"i; "J,i,]lJl""j transparent manner so that the interest of consumers in the rear estate sector is protected by a[ means and sections 13, 18(1) and 19(4) are all beneficial provtsions for safeguarding the pecuniary interest of consu mers/allottees.

47. fhe distinction between retrospective and retroactive has been explained by this Court in Jay Mahakal Rolting Milts v. Union of India [(ZOO7) 12 SCC 198] "8. "Retrospective,, means looking backward, contemplating what is past, having reference to a statute or things exlsting before the statute in question. Retrospective law means a law which looks backward or contemplates the past; one, which is made to affect or facts occt trr|ng, or right occurring, 9 it ,: )rrles into force Retroactive statue means a befor€ statu€s u,hich creates a new obligation on trans;).:i:,rrl or considerations or destroys or imrlairs vesteli r 1(l 11s." t,lis Court tn Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v

48. Fu-:h€r, Assam t:FE i : 019) 19 Scc 5291' held as under: "67. letr( actlvity in the context of the statute corlsistsi of appli(;t on of new rule to an act or transactiorl which h.: been comple(ed before' the rule wari pron'tt 91,: trd

53. FIonr t1? scheme of the Act 2016' its appli:ation is retroa,,:i\i(:l I character and it can safely be observed that the prcje:cl: already completed or to which the complr:tion certifi(:ill: t;ts been granted are not under its fold and theref,lr(, vested or accrued rights, if any' in no melnne[ are affectel l\ the same time, it will apply after getting the ongoll']q t) c lects and future projects registered under SecUc n i ( prospectively follow the mandate o'th€ ACt

2016.',

15. The tlefirr tion of 'ongoing project' under Rule 2(1 (h) of the Uttar l>.arl:;h Real Estate (Regulation and De'/elo:)ment) Rules, 201(; ls, ( ):haustive as compared to the definition of '( ngoing project'u36p1-li'.rle Z(f)fi) of RERA Rules' However' frorn a "eading of both th€ pr(- "lsions, there is no ambiguity that 'ongoing rroject' means a l)rc j€,l:t where development is going on ancl fo which completion crlrf f cate has not been issued' Thus' in thr: op nion of 10 this Court, the judgment rn NEWTECH PROMOTERS AND DEVELOPERS PRMTE LIMITED,s case (1 supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. r

16. Rules 1(2) and 2(1)(j) of the RERA Rutes prior ro and after amendment are as under: No 1 Rule Pnor to Amendment After Amendment Rule 1(2) These Rules are applicable to all Real Estate proiects whose building permissions upp.or"J on or after 01.012017 by the Lompetent Authorities vi7 UDAs/DTCpA,unicipal Lorporations,/Mu nicipal,ties,/ Nagar panchayats/TblIC. These Rules are applicable to all Real Estate projects for comDletion certiflcate has not been rssued as on the date of coming into force ui stipulated in sub-section (1) or section 3 of the Real Estat; (Regulation & DeveloDmenrt Act,2016 by the ComDeteni Authorities viz., UDAs/DfCp/ Municipal Coroorations) Municipalitiesi/Naqar Panchayats /TSIIL. 2 Rule 2(7)(i) "Ongoing project,, means, a Project where development is gorng on and for which Occupancy Certificate or Lomptetion Certificate has not been issued but excludes such Projects for which buildino permissions *"." upprorej r 10 10 20 7L ht e oc m ete tn p thAU flo ties DU As DTCP M nU c ap o ti s M u n c a it e p s/ I N a a f TSI aP c a s eth case m b '_Ongoing project,' means a Project where development is gorng on and for which Uccupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate from the Competent Authority has not been issued as on the date of coming into force as per sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Develooment) Act,2016. 17 ' on a reading of the above amended Rures, it is crear that ongoing project means a project for which occupancy certificate or completion certificate has not been issued. It is not in dispute that Pristine Estates has not been issued occupancy certificate. 11 Thus, with effe:t f 'r n 04'03'2025' as per amendment I'o tf e at ove provisions, Pr s;tir\'l :states comes within the fold of the R ERA Act and RERA Rules,

18. Assumi'q t.-al the complaint lodged by the respondent \'lo 4 on13.09.202'4lsir():maintainable,Idonothaveanyhestati(,nto hold that, bv ol:e r ation of law' the complaint is now mairtaitrable with effect fr.'nr :z 03 '2025 as per the amendments to [{ule 1(2) and Rule 2(1 ii t o rhe REF{A Rules'

19. The conte rr1 ion of th€ petitioners 1.3; 1l-e maintainability of learned senior coulsel for the the complaint has 1o be decidedwith.ef€r€ncetoitsdateoffilingevenafterzimendm:ntof the Rules,63P11r-'1 be accePted Such contention is hyper-tec tnical real cause of justlce. EVen f the and would no1. s t b-serve the complaint wer€ :( ce returned on its date of filing or rejec:ed r lue to objection sr 'ru -i5;' l ction raised by the petitio.ners' bef cre t-ules were amended, n,lthirr I would prevent the respondent No'4 frc'm krdging a fresh conrplarr t Therefore, it would not be in the interest of complaint and only to be filed undr:r the justice to re:f lrr lhe amended ru Ie:;

20. For $re .r ) )ve reasons, this Court holds tha: there :re no merits in th: vrrit petition' Accordingly, the writ petilion is dismissed. rlow:veT, the petitioners are at liberty to raise all issues \ t \ \ t, -:.' 12 including jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 in entertaining the complaint of the respondent No.4, which shall be considered by the respondent No.2, by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. the respondent No.4 and others concerned parties. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/-P iiR}H5H[,XA A s SECTION OFFICER REDDY To, One Fair Copy to the Ho n'ble SR (For His fordshi 1 2

3. One CC to SRI KONDApA One CC to SRI G.pRAS EN One CC to SRI HIRENDER One CC to M/S- G.LAKSHM Two CC Telanga 6. 11 LR Copies

5. 4 stoGpFO R MCPL ADMN na at Hyder B.VUAYSEN rusal) I JUSilCE Ps Kind pe RrHy KIRAN KUMAR, Advoca [OpUCj , Advocate te [opUc.f NATH , Advocate , Advocate tOpUCl IOPUCI abad [OUT URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of ' i#:,rY:fliliT,'r:tarv, Union or rndia, Ministry or Law, Justice and company ' J1f,.,&"r:EflI;"fler.ansana Advocates Associa g Two ao aor.. Library' High court ---'"s rissoctation' BSR BS &nffi.-t-.- rr!-- HIGH COURT DATED:23106t2025 CC TODAY <;- ..1 '- /i i C) :tli l'i 1tl1) ( I ORDER WP.No.4098 of 2025 DISMISSING 'I'hIE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT CCI:$TS