The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has directed Aparna Constructions & Estates to hand over possession of an apartment in its Aparna Sarovar Zicon project at Nallagandla, Hyderabad, to a homebuyer within 30 days.
The order is significant because the apartment is involved in a pending civil dispute concerning ownership and the validity of the documents through which the subsequent purchaser acquired the property.
While partly allowing the complaint filed by Shridevi Valluri, TG RERA directed the promoter to hand over the keys and possession of Apartment No. 403 in Block-J in a fully completed and habitable condition.
However, the Authority made it clear that its direction would remain subject to the final outcome of pending civil and insolvency proceedings connected with the property’s title.
The order was passed by TG RERA Members K. Srinivasa Rao and Laxmi Narayana Jannu on July 21.
Background of the Case
The dispute relates to the ownership and possession of an apartment in the Aparna Sarovar Zicon project.
According to the complaint, the apartment was initially purchased by Koshy Mathew and Shiney Mathew through a registered sale deed executed in December 2023.
The original purchasers subsequently granted an irrevocable General Power of Attorney (GPA) to Vijay Valluri.
The complainant, Shridevi Valluri, later acquired the apartment through a registered sale deed executed by Vijay Valluri.
Despite the subsequent sale, the complainant alleged that she was unable to obtain possession of the apartment from the developer.
She also claimed that the builder had not updated its records to reflect the change in ownership despite repeated requests.
The homebuyer therefore approached TG RERA seeking:
- Possession of the apartment
- Delivery of the apartment in a completed and habitable condition
- Updating of the promoter’s records
- ₹5 lakh compensation for mental agony and inconvenience
Builder Opposes the Homebuyer’s Claim
Aparna Constructions opposed the complaint and questioned the maintainability of the proceedings.
The developer argued that it had no contractual relationship with the complainant, as the apartment had originally been sold to the earlier purchasers.
The promoter also informed TG RERA that the original purchasers had initiated a civil suit challenging:
- The validity of the irrevocable GPA
- The subsequent sale deed
- The transfer of ownership to the complainant
The builder further contended that the transfer had allegedly taken place without obtaining the required No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the developer, as required under the terms of the original sale deed.
According to the developer, the dispute involved complex questions concerning title, ownership and validity of documents, which could not be decided by the RERA Authority.
TG RERA Recognises Subsequent Purchaser as an Allottee
After examining the records, TG RERA rejected the argument that the complainant could not invoke the provisions of RERA merely because she was a subsequent purchaser.
The Authority held that a subsequent purchaser can fall within the definition of an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act, 2016.
This observation is important for homebuyers who acquire apartments from earlier purchasers and subsequently face difficulties in obtaining possession from the developer.
The Authority effectively recognised that the rights of an allottee under RERA are not necessarily restricted only to the person who originally booked the apartment with the promoter.
Registered Sale Deed Presumed to be Valid
One of the key findings of TG RERA concerned the registered sale deed through which the complainant claimed ownership.
The Authority observed that a registered sale deed carries a presumption of validity unless it is subsequently set aside or declared invalid by a competent court.
In the present case, although the original purchasers had challenged the GPA and subsequent sale deed before a civil court, there was no interim or final order setting aside the documents.
Therefore, according to TG RERA, the mere existence of a pending civil dispute could not, by itself, justify indefinitely withholding possession from the subsequent purchaser.
Pending Litigation Does Not Automatically Cancel Possession Rights
The Authority’s reasoning can be understood in the following manner:
Registered sale deed → Presumed valid
Civil suit challenging the deed → Does not automatically invalidate it
No court order setting aside the deed → Promoter cannot rely solely on pending litigation to withhold possession
However, the possession direction remains subject to the final decision of the competent court.
TG RERA Clarifies Limits of Its Jurisdiction
At the same time, TG RERA made it clear that it does not have the authority to finally determine complicated questions of title.
Issues relating to:
- Validity of the GPA
- Fraud
- Ownership disputes
- Alleged invalidity of sale deeds
- Competing title claims
fall within the jurisdiction of the competent civil court.
The RERA Authority therefore limited its examination to the question of whether the promoter was required to hand over possession of the apartment under the RERA framework.
This distinction is important because RERA authorities can protect the statutory rights of homebuyers, but they cannot replace civil courts in adjudicating complex title disputes.
Possession to Be Handed Over Within 30 Days
TG RERA directed Aparna Constructions to hand over possession of the apartment within 30 days from receipt of the order.
The possession must include:
- Physical possession of the apartment
- Keys to the apartment
- A fully completed unit
- A habitable condition
The order is, however, subject to the outcome of the pending civil litigation and insolvency proceedings concerning the property.
The Authority also clarified that it does not have jurisdiction to direct correction of title or ownership records.
If the complainant requires changes to official title or ownership records, she may approach the appropriate competent authority or forum.
₹5 Lakh Compensation Claim Left Open
The homebuyer had also sought ₹5 lakh as compensation for mental agony and inconvenience.
TG RERA did not decide this claim on merits.
The Authority observed that claims for compensation relating to:
- Mental agony
- Financial hardship
- Other consequential losses
fall within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act.
Therefore, the complainant has been given liberty to pursue an appropriate application before the competent forum.
Builder Warned of Penalty for Non-Compliance
TG RERA has also warned that failure to comply with the possession direction within the stipulated 30-day period could result in penal action under Section 63 of the RERA Act.
This means that the promoter cannot simply ignore the order while relying on the pending civil dispute.
The developer must comply with the RERA direction, while the ultimate ownership dispute continues to be decided by the competent court.
Why This TG RERA Order Matters for Homebuyers
The order has several important implications for the real estate sector.
1. Subsequent Purchasers Can Claim RERA Protection
The ruling reinforces the position that a person who subsequently acquires a flat through a registered transaction may be recognised as an allottee for the purpose of seeking statutory remedies under RERA.
2. Registered Documents Carry Legal Weight
A registered sale deed cannot simply be ignored because someone has challenged it in court.
Unless a competent court sets aside the document, it continues to carry a presumption of validity.
3. Pending Litigation Is Not Automatically a Ground to Withhold Possession
A promoter may not be able to indefinitely deny possession merely by pointing to pending litigation, particularly when there is no court order preventing the delivery of possession.
However, the final rights of the parties remain subject to the decision of the competent court.
4. RERA Cannot Decide Title Disputes
The order also reinforces an important jurisdictional principle: RERA authorities are not civil courts.
While they can enforce obligations arising under RERA, they cannot conclusively decide complicated disputes concerning ownership, title, fraud or the validity of registered instruments.
5. Compensation Must Be Claimed Before the Appropriate Forum
Homebuyers seeking compensation for mental agony, financial losses and consequential damages may need to approach the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71, depending on the nature of their claim.
Conclusion
The TG RERA order involving Aparna Sarovar Zicon highlights the delicate balance between homebuyer protection under RERA and the jurisdiction of civil courts over property title disputes.
The Authority’s decision makes it clear that a subsequent purchaser who holds a registered sale deed cannot automatically be denied possession merely because the document is under challenge, particularly when no competent court has yet invalidated it.
At the same time, TG RERA has carefully limited the scope of its decision by making the possession direction subject to the outcome of pending civil and insolvency proceedings.
For homebuyers, the order reinforces the importance of maintaining proper documentation, obtaining registered sale deeds and approaching the appropriate legal forum when possession is withheld. For developers, it serves as a reminder that statutory obligations to deliver possession cannot necessarily be avoided merely by citing pending disputes, unless there is a valid legal order preventing such delivery.
