Disposed

M/s. Jubilee Hills Landmark Projects Private Limited v. Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Telangana HC12 Dec 2024WP/289/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since the appeal filed by the petitioners against the impugned order is pending adjudication before the constituted appellate authority under the RERA Act, the writ petition seeking quashing was disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; parties relegated to the appellate forum for adjuicating their grievances; miscellaneous petitions closed.

M/s. Jubilee Hills Landmark Projects Private Limited Vs… — Corruption | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[32e6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.^BHASKARREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 289 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Jubilee Hills Landmark Pro.iects^{Private Limited, A private limited} company incorporated under^{The'CompaniesAct, 1956 B-2-293|B2|NCC'} Road rub.t, Jubilee Hills, Check Post,^{Hyderabad500 033 Rep. by its} Authorised Signatory, Mr. K Manohara^Rao

¶9

M/s. Mantri Developers Private^Limited, A^{private limitedcomp?ly} incorporated under The Companies Act,^{1956 C-5, Rich Hgmes,No.} .5/1 ' Richmond Road, Bangalore -560 025 Rep.^{by its Authorised Signatory Mr.K} Manohara Rao

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory^{Authority, DTCP Buildings,Ground} Floor,-6409, AC Guards, Masablank Opp.^{PT1 Building Hyderabad- 500} 004 Represented by its Secretary / ED-Cum-Registrar

¶13

2 Mr. Gaddam Sridhar Reddy, S/o. G.^{Vinayak Reddy Aged about 51 years} Brigade at No. 7, Unit G-107 Road^No.7 .^{Baniara Hills Hyderabad- 500034}

¶14

3 Mrs. Gaddam Radhika Reddy, W/o. G. Sridhar^{ReddyAgedabout44 years} Brigade at No. 7, Unit G-¹⁰⁷ Road^{No. 7} ,^{Baniara Hills, Hyderabad- 500034}

¶15

4 Mr. N. Venkata Subhash, S/o. N. Venkata^{Kishan Rao Agedabout50 years} No. 3-2241225, Flat No.201, Sridevi^{Estates, Street No.16,Himayathnagar,} Hyderabad-50009.

¶16

Mrs. Dr. N. V. Naveena, Wo. N.V.^{SubhashAged about 34 yearsNo.3-} 2241225, Flat No.201 , Sridevi^{Estates,Street No.16,Himayathnagar,} Hyderabad - 50009.

¶17

Dr. R. Sunil Reddy, S/o.^{R.Balaram ReddyAgedabout47 years,Plo^t N.o..7,} Dhanalakshmi Colirny, Bapuji^{Nagar, New Bowenpally, Hyderabad -500 011}

¶18

Mr. Naveen Kumar Anne,^{S/o. Venkat SatyanarayanaAnne Aged about} -34 vears Plot^{No.T,DhanalakshmiColony, Bapuji Nagar, NewBowenpally,} Hyderabad-50001^1.

¶19

¶20

B. Mrs. Divya Anne, W/o. Naveen Kumar Anne Aged about 32 years Plot No. 7, Dhanalakshmi Colony. Bapuji Nagar, New Bowenpally, Hyderabad - 5000'1 1.

¶21

Mr. Anne Venkat Satyanarayana, S/o. Anne Veera Raghavaiah, Aged about 66 years Plot No.7, Dhanalakshmi Colony, Bapuji Nagar, New Bowenpally, Hyderabad - 50001'1

¶22

10.Mrs. Anne Sujatha, Wo. Mr. Anne Venkat Satyanarayana Aged about 60 years Plot No.7, Dhanalakshmi Colony, Bapuj i Nagar. New Bowenpally, Hyderabad - 500 0'1 1.

¶23

11.Mr. Setty Rala Gopal, S/o. Narasimhulu Setty, Aged about 62 years 15711|P, Gunrock Enclave, Phase-ll, Secunderabad-500Q09..

¶24

'l2.Mrs. Setty Mallika Rani, Wo, Setty Raja Gopal Aged about 55 years 15711|P, Gunrock Enclave, Phase-ll, Secunderabad -500 009.

¶25

lndian Bank, Stressed Asset Management Branch, No. 10, 1 st Floor, lndian Bank Buildings K. G. Road, Bengaluru - 560 009 Represented by its Authorized Officer

¶26

..RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, quashing the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 1 dated 2910812023 in Complaint No. 67 812022.

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the lmpugned Order daled 2910812023 passed in Complaint No. 67812022, in the ends of^justice and equity.

¶30

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶31

Between:

¶32

Mr. Gaddam Sridhar Reddy, S/o. G. Vinayak Reddy Aged about 51 years Brigade at No. 7, Unit G-107 Road No. T,Banjara Hills Hyderabad - 500034

¶33

Mrs. Gaddam Radhika Reddy, Wo. G. Sridhar Reddy Aged about 44 years Brigade at No. 7, Unit G-107 Road No. 7 , Bar1a@ Hills, Hyderabad - 500034

¶34

Mr. N. Venkata Subhash, S/o. N. Venkata Kishan Rao Aged about 50 years No.3-2241225, Flat No.201 , Sridevi Estates, Street No.16, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-50009.

¶35

Mrs. Dr. N. V. Naveena,^W/o. N.V. Subhash Aged about 34^{years No.3-} 2241225, Flat No.201, Sridevi Estates, Street No.'16, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad^- 50009.

¶36

Dr. R. Sunil Reddy, S/o. R.Balaram^{Reddy Agedabout 47 yqarq'} flo-t l{9.7' Dhanalakshmi Col6ny, Bapuji Nagar,^{New Bowenpally,Hyderabad-500011}

¶37

Mr. Naveen Kumar Anne, S/o. Venkat^{SatyanarayanaAnne Aged about34} years Plot No.T,Dhanalakshmi Colony, Bapuji Nagar,^{New Bowenpally,} Hyderabad-5000'l 1.

¶38

Mrs. Divya Anne, W/o. Naveen Kumar^{Anne Aged about32 years P!o-t-!g. 7'} Dhanalakshmi Colony. Bapuji Nagar,^{New Bowenpally, Hyderabad - 5000'1'1.}

¶39

t/r. Anne Venkat Satyan aayana,^{S/o. Anne Veera Raghavaiah, Agedabo-ut} 66 years Plot No.7, Dhanalbkshmi^{Colony, Bapuji Nagar, New Bowenpally'} Hyderabad - 5000'1¹

¶40

years Mrs. Anne Ptot Sujatha, No-.7, Dhanalakshmi Wo. Mr. Anne Colony, Bapuj^{Venkat Satyanarayana.} i^{Nagar, New Aged Bowenpally,about} -60 Hyderabad - 500 011.

¶41

10.Mr. Setty Raja Gopal, S/o. Narasimhulu^{Setty,Aged about62 years 15711lP,} Gunrock EnClave, Phase-l l, Secunderabad-500009.

¶42

'l 1. Mrs. Setty Mallika Rani, W/o, Setty Raja Gopal Aged about 55 years 15711lP, Gunrock Enclave, Phase-ll, Secunderabad^{-500 009.}

¶43

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT^{No.2to1 2}

¶44

AND

¶45

1 IV/s. Jubilee Hills Landmark Proiects Private^{Limited, A private limited} comoanv incorporated under The-Companies^{Act, 1956 8-2-2S3|B2|NCC,} Roai trtb.t, Jubilee Hills, Check Post, Hyderabad^{500 033 Rep. by its} Authorised Signatory, [\Ir. K Manohara^Rao

¶46

2 M/s. Mantri Developers Private^{Limited, Aprivate limitedcompany} incorporated under The Companies^{Act, 1956 C-5, Rich Homes,No. 5/1,} Richmond Road, Bangalore -560 025 Rep. by^{its Authorised Signatory Mr.K} Manohara Rao

¶47

...RESPONDENTS No.1,2/PETITIONERS

¶48

AND

¶49

Telangana State Real Estate^{RegulatoryAuthority,-DTCP Buildings,Ground} Floor,-6409, AC Guards, Masab-Tank^{Opp. PTI BuildingHyderabad- 500} 004 Represented by its Secretary /^{ED-Cum-Registrar}

¶50

lndian Bank, Stressed Asset Management^{Branch, No. 10,1 st Floor, lndian} Bank Buildings K. G. Road, Bengaluru^{- 560 009 Representedby its} Authorized Officer

¶51

...RESPONDENTS No.3,4/RESPONDENTS^1&13

¶52

Petition under section^15'1 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to}

¶53

I i

¶54

vacate the interim order dated 05.0'l .2024 in WP.No.2B9 of 2024 and dismiss the WP.No.2B9 of 2024 with exemplary costs, in the interest of^justice.

¶55

Counsel for the Petitioners : Ms.SHIREEN SETHNA BARIA

¶56

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 : SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDA/ARAM

¶57

Counsel for the Respondent No.2to'|2 : SRI ROHIT POGULA

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent No.13 : SMT.V.DYUMANI^'

¶59

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HON'BLtr SRI JUSTICD C.V.BHASXAR REDDY

¶64

WRIT PETITION NO. 249 0F 2024

¶65

ORDER:

¶66

Tl-ris writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the follou,ing relief:

¶67

"to issire a Writ of Certiorari, or anY other appropriate Writ, Order or Dilection, quashing tlte impllgned order pzrssed by respon.lent No-l dated 29.08.2023 in Cor.nplaint No.6Tal20,22.

¶68

Heard learned counsel for both sides

¶69

It is fairly submitted by the Iearned counsel fbr both sides that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the appellate authority has not been constituted under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regutation and Development) Acr,2Ot6 (lbr short,.the RERA Act"). It is further stated that pending adjudication of the w,rit petition, the appellate authority has been constitutecl and the appeal submitted by the petitioners has been entertained ancl the same is pending lor adjudit.at ion.

¶70

Since it is submitted that the appeal filed by thc petitioners has been entertained and the same is pending for adjudication on t he file of appellate authority, this Court, '",ithout expressing any opinion with regard to riierits of the matter, deems it appropriate to

C\BR,J \tP 249 2021

I I I

a :

dispose of thc rvrit petition by relegaling the parties to agitate their

¶78

grievances bcfore the appcllate forum, in accordance r,r'ith law.

¶79

Accordingl.y, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶80

As a sequel, the m iscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶81

shall stand closed. No order as lo costs.

¶82

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTA,NT RE ISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The secretary / ED-cum-Registrar. Terangana State Rear Estate Reouratorv Authority, DTbp Buitdinss, c"rouno rrooi, il06, At C;;;i.: il;;;?;;i"', Opp. PT1 Buitding Hyde-rabad - 5OO0O4.

¶87

One CC to SRt SHTREEN SETHNA BAR|A, Advocate. [OpUC]

¶88

One CC to SRt SAt PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, Advocate. tOpUCl

¶89

One CC to SRt ROHIT POGULA, Advocate. tOpUCl

¶90

Two CD Copies.

BSK

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212024

{. i.L.A
A.r
s
=c
kt
,.):).

¶100

ORDER

¶101

WP.No.289 of 2024

¶102

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶103

7 ,'< 3o,1zz,/<{

¶104

M/s. Jubilee Hills Landmark Projects Private Limited v. Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Jubilee Hills Landmark Projects Private Limited v. Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punreddy Narender Reddy Vs The State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Kuntasenu Kamlamma, Vs The State of Telangana

Vaddapalli Madhusudhan and Another Vs the State of Telangana and 9 Others

C. Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri.K.Krishna Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

Md. Mazhar Vs The State of Telangana