2. This writ appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters
Single Judge in W.P.No.18220 of 2025. By the said order, the learned
and to submit an application for registration in terms thereof. It was
after due deduction of the expenses already incurred therefrom.
3. The dispute primarily concerns the governance, administration,
namely Sri B. Srinivas Rao and Smt. B. Usha Rani, along with other
4. On 08.06.2011, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
community. As per the sanctioned layout and building plan, the
social housing components. The validity of the said building
5. During the period between 2012 and 2014, the promoters
entered into independent construction agreements with them.
including Villa No.67 owned by respondent No.5 herein. However, the
6. On 21.10.2022, the District Co-operative Officer (DCO), Ranga
Reddy District (respondent No. 4 herein), registered the appellant
society under the provisions of the TMACS Act. The said registration
the Assistant Registrar.
7. The formation of the said society was ostensibly undertaken
the formation of an association of allottees. The appellant society
95 villas presently in existence. Significantly, the allottees of the 12
8. Aggrieved by the registration of the appellant society, the
said registration. It was contended inter alia that the registration was
9. The appellant society filed its counter-affidavit opposing the
lacked locus standi to challenge the same. It was specifically urged
society themselves. Reliance was also placed on the order dated
W.P.No.18220 of 2025 and not declared as the final authority. The
10. Respondent Nos.6 to 14 herein, who are allottees of LIG/EWS
vehemently opposing the appellant society. The following aspects were
petition by order dated 26.02.2026. The Court recorded a categorical
and official authorities) failed to rebut the material factual
inconsistencies pointed out in the verification report. On this ground
set aside. The learned Single Judge further held, placing reliance on
the decision of this Court in M/s. Saket Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v.
12. Consequently, the registration of the appellant society was set
aside. The promoters were directed to draft appropriate bye-laws and
by it in a suspense account for eventual transfer or refund.
13. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant society has preferred
14. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant society assailed the
iii) That respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (promoters) lack the locus standi
neither allottees nor residents within the project. It was further
association of allottees within a reasonable period. According to
for the purpose of safeguarding their collective rights.
allottees to constitute an association on their own. It was
down in M/s. Saket Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra 1) inasmuch
consequence of setting aside the registration. Learned Senior
which the society was constituted. It was further submitted that
grievances are primarily directed against the promoters.
their non-inclusion or alleged exclusion of LIG/EWS allottees.
15. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported
a) the verification is stated to have been conducted on
15.10.2022, whereas the report is dated 19.10.2022;
b) the checklist appended to the report records "total flats -
100" and "22 flats sold," whereas, as on that date, 87
villas along with all 12 LIG/EWS units had already been
sold and registered, and property taxes were being
assessed and paid since the year 2020;
c) though the promoters' meeting is shown to have 17
signatories, four of such signatories belong to two families
i.e., Sumathi Mohan Rangineni, Vijay Mohan Rangineni &
Raju Rajesh, Deepa Bhupathi Raju, thereby violating the
mandate under Section 4(1) of the TMACS Act requiring
members to be from different families.
On the basis of the aforesaid aspects, it is submitted that
the very foundation of the registration is vitiated, as it is based
on a defective and unreliable verification report. It was further
submitted that these material discrepancies go to the root of the
matter and justify the setting aside of the registration, as rightly
held by the learned Single Judge.
ii) That the bye-laws of the appellant society are structured in a
manner that effectively excludes the allottees belonging to the
LIG/EWS category, who form an integral component of the
project in terms of G.O.Ms.No.528 dated 31.07.2008. That
such exclusion defeats the very object of the social housing
policy underlying the said G.O and results in creation of an
exclusive body of select villa owners, thereby rendering the
constitution and functioning of the appellant society
discriminatory and illegal.
iii) That presently the promoters continue to bear the expenses
towards maintenance of the entire project, including payment of
electricity and water charges for common areas and
infrastructure. In this regard, reliance was placed on the
invoices forming part of the paper book on pages 412-425,
which demonstrate that the burden of maintaining common
amenities continues to be discharged by the promoters. It was
further submitted that the activities of the appellant society,
even as claimed by it, are confined to internal arrangements
among its members and do not extend to maintenance of the
common infrastructure of the project as a whole.
iv) That the principle laid down in M/s. Saket Engineering Pvt.
Ltd. (supra 1) squarely applies to the present case, inasmuch
as the said decision lays down that there cannot be more than
one society in respect of a single project, in order to avoid
conflict, multiplicity, and administrative disharmony, and the
failure on the part of the registering authority to call for
objections from all stakeholders, particularly the LIG/EWS
allottees is unsustainable in law.
Submissions on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 14 (LIG/EWS
Allottees)
16. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 14,
supported the impugned order and addressed submissions with
regard to the necessity of an inclusive association, which are as
follows:
i) Learned counsel placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.528 dated
31.07.2008 which contemplates and mandates a social housing
mix by requiring inclusion of LIG and EWS units in such
projects. It was submitted that the building permission itself
was granted subject to incorporation of such LIG/EWS
components, and therefore, any association formed in respect of
the project is required to include all such allottees, and such
non-inclusion of LIG/EWS allottees in the appellant society
affects the validity of its registration.
ii) That the stipulation such as requirement of payment of
Rs.5,00,000/- as a condition for membership in the appellant
society operates as a prohibitive barrier, as such a requirement
is inconsistent with the principle of "free admission" underlying
the policy reflected in G.O.Ms.No.528, as well as the assurances
extended at the time of allotment, and has the effect of
excluding LIG/EWS allottees on economic grounds.
iii) Learned counsel referred to earlier proceedings involving the
club-house lessee, HH Business Enterprises LLP, in O.S.No.553
of 2024 which culminated in a compromise decree, to indicate
the existence of disputes relating to access and participation of
LIG/EWS allottees in common facilities.
iv) That the appeal is liable to be dismissed and that appropriate
directions may be issued for formation of a single association
encompassing all categories of allottees, including villa owners,
LIG, and EWS unit holders. It was further submitted that such
an association may provide for representation of all categories
in its governing body, in order to give effect to the objectives
underlying the housing project in both letter and spirit.
17. After a careful consideration of the rival submissions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the present appeal reflects a
classic case of a fragment of a community seeking to control the rights
and interests of the larger body of allottees, and the sub-version of the
statutory scheme envisaging social inclusion by economic exclusion.
Therefore, the controversy is not confined to the procedural legality of
the appellant society's registration but extends to the broader issue as
to whether a gated community created/developed under a policy of
social housing, can be permitted to be governed by an association that
deliberately and effectively excludes the very section of society it was
designed to include.
18. In light of the submissions advanced hereinabove, the issues
that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows:
I. Whether the registration of the appellant society under the
provisions of the TMACS Act, is legally sustainable, in the light
of the alleged procedural infirmities in its formation and the
non-inclusion of a section of stakeholders in the project?
II. Whether a single residential project, developed with a
mandatory social housing component comprising of LIG/EWS
units, can be subjected to multiple associations (formed out of
necessity upon exclusion from the registered association), and
whether the association formed for the governance,
management and maintenance of the units in a project is
required to be inclusive of all categories of unit holders within
the project?
III. Whether the subsequent application of the provisions of the RE
(R&D) Act 2016 to the project, and the observations made by
the TS RERA, have a bearing on the validity and composition of
the appellant society?
IV. What is the appropriate remedial direction to ensure the
establishment of a democratically representative and legally
valid association for the entire project, in consonance with the
principles of social inclusion as envisaged by the relevant
Government orders?
Consideration by this Court
Issue-I: Validity of registration of the appellant Society under the
TMACS Act
19. It is pertinent to note that Section 4 of the TMACS Act
prescribes the procedure for registration of a society. Sub-section (1)
mandates that not less than ten individuals, each belonging to a
different family, must come together with the intention of forming a
society. Sub-section (4) further obligates the Registrar to satisfy
himself that the application conforms to the provisions of the Act
before granting registration. The statutory scheme thus makes it clear
that the process of registration is not a mere formality, but requires
due application of mind and a proper enquiry into the foundational
requirements.
20. This position has been authoritatively laid down by this Court
in M/s. Saket Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra 1), wherein it was held
that the Registrar is duty-bound to verify the documents, invite
objections from stakeholders, and ensure that no parallel or
competing society exists for the same project prior to granting
registration.
21. Section 4 of TMACS Act is extracted hereunder for ready
reference:
Section 4. Registration.
(1) Where not less than twenty one individuals of class or category with
common bondage and each being a member of a different family or intend to
form a Co-operative Society, or two or more Co-operative Societies of a class
or category with common bondage and registered under this section wish to
form into a federation, or a society registered (under the provisions) of
the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 intends to convert itself into
a cooperative society under this Act, they shall frame bye-laws for this
purpose in accordance with Section 3 in the first instance:
Provided that no Co-operative Society shall be registered as a Dairy or
milk Co-operative Society and no Dairy or milk Co-operative Society
registered under any other law shall be converted into a dairy or milk Co-
operative Society under this Act:
Provided further that any Co-operative Society registered under this Act
if wishes to get itself converted and incorporated as Company
under Companies Act, 1956, shall have to first return the assets of the
Government it received either directly or through any other agency and also
return the Government land and machinery received, if any, and also any
outstanding loans due to, or guarantees or any of such assistance given by
the Government. Before applying for such conversion itself, a clearance
certificate to this effect from the State Government based on the
recommendations of the Registrar on whom powers are conferred as under
Section 4 of this Act shall be obtained. No Co-operative Society which is a
beneficiary of Government in terms of funds or land or any other assistance
in any form as on date has not fully repaid/returned to the Government, can
get registered under Companies Act:
Provided also that a Co-operative Society registered under this Act and
migrated to Companies Act or any other Act (other than the Telangana Co-
operative Societies Act, 1964) without returning the Government properties
(movable or immovable) and without settling the legacy issues with the
Government, such as goodwill are deemed to have returned back to this Act
and shall be covered under the definition of Society either under this Act or
under the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964, as the case may be,
notwithstanding any resolution passed by the General body of the Society,
in contravention of it.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained under this Act or under the
provisions of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964.),
all the Dairy/Milk Co-operative Societies registered or deemed to have been
registered or converted under the provisions of this Act, shall be deemed to
have been excluded from the provisions of this Act and deemed to have been
registered and continued under the provisions of the Telangana Co-operative
Societies Act, 1964.
(2) Thereafter an application for registration shall be submitted to the
Registrar by hand or by registered post.
(3) Every such application shall be accompanied by,--
(a) the original and one copy of the bye-laws of the proposed Co-
operative Society as adopted by the individuals or delegates of Co-
operative Societies who wish to form into a co-operative society
under this Act or by the general body of a Society registered under
the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 which wishes to
convert itself into a Co-operative Society under this Act;
(b) a list of names of individuals or co-operatives who wish to form into
a Co-operative Society under this Act or of the members of the
committee of the society registered under the Telangana Co-
operative Societies Act, 1964 which intends to convert itself into a
Co-operative Society under this Act with their addresses,
occupations and their financial commitments along with
address/and Identity proof of self and family members i.e.
Aadhaar/Food Security card to the proposed Co-operative Society]
(c) a true copy of the minutes of the meeting at which the bye-laws were
adopted, duly signed by at least a majority of individuals or
delegates present at the meeting where the bye-laws were adopted,
or by a majority of the members of the Committee of the Co-
operatives concerned where a Society registered under
the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 intends to concert
itself into a Co-operative Society under this Act;
(d) registration fee amounting to one percent of the total authorized
share capital by whatever name called subject to a minimum of one
hundred rupees and a maximum of ten thousand rupees; and
(e) in the case of a Society registered under Section 7 of the Telangana
Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and wishing to convert itself into a
Co-operative Society under this Act, evidence to show that the
Society has returned to the Government, the share capital, loans,
land/properties (movable/immovable), subsidies, concessions,
interest it received from the Government and No-objection Certificate
issued by the Government in this regard before its application for
conversion into this Act can be considered.
(4) The Registrar shall if he is satisfied that,--
(a) the application is in conformity with the requirements of this Act;
(b) the proposed bye-laws are not contrary to the provisions of this Act;
and
(c) the name of the proposed Co-operative Society is not the same as
that of a Co-operative Society already registered under this section,
or the same as that used by a class of Societies already registered
under Section 7 of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act,
1964,--
Register the Co-operative Society and also its bye-laws and
communicate by registered post a certificate of registration and the original
of the registered bye-laws signed and sealed by him, within period of sixty
days from the date of submission of application, to the Chief Promoter
mentioned in the application.
(5) If the conditions laid down in sub-section (4) are not fulfilled, the
Registrar shall communicate by registered post the order of refusal together
with the reasons therefor, within sixty days from the date of submission of
application, to the Chief Promoter.
(6) There shall be appointed a Registrar of Mutually Aided Co-operative
Societies for the State and as many other Officers as the Government may
think fit for the purposes of this Act.
22. Before adverting to the issue, it is necessary, for a proper
appreciation of the facts and the applicable law to reproduce the
verification report dated 19.10.2022:
GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA
COOPERATION DEPARTMENT
From To
K.Shantha District Cooperative
Assistant Registrar, Officer,
O/o DCO, RR District Ranga Reddy District.
Letter Rc.No.06/2022, Dated:19.10.2022.
Madam,
Sub:- Cooperation Department - MACS - "Pristine Estates Villa Owners
Mutually aided Cooperative Society, Sy.No.159, 162P, Club House,
Pristine Estates, Tellapur Road, Gopannapally Thanda, Gopannapally
Village Village, Ranga Reddy District - Submission of verification report
- Reg.
Ref:- E-Sahakara seva Online application received on 01.10.2022
@@@@@@
In compliance to the instructions issued vide references cited, I submit that,
I have visited the proposed "Pristine Estates Villa Owners Mutually aided
Cooperative Society., Gopanapally Village Village, Ranga Reddy District on
15.10.2022 at the address of the proposed society and verified the proposals and
conducted meeting with the promoters of the proposed society and submit the
report as follows.
6. There are (11) promoter/members in the proposed society total flats in
the society (35) Flats and verified the original sale deeds of the promoters,
all the members are genuine and residing in Sy.No.159, 162P, Club
House, Pristine Estates, Tellapur Road, Gopannapally Thanda,
Gopannapally Village Village, Ranga Reddy District.
7. The Address- The address of the proposed society is situated at,
Sy.No.159, 162P, Club House, Pristine Estates, Tellapur Road,
Gopannapally Thanda, Gopannapally Village Village, Ranga Reddy
District.
8. The Area of Operation- The area of operation of the proposed society shall
be "Pristine Estates Villa Owners Mutually aided Cooperative Society.,
Sy.No.159, 162P, Club House, Pristine Estates, Tellapur Road,
Gopannapally Thanda, Gopannapally Village Village, Ranga Reddy
District limits.
9. Byelaws - Model byelaws of the proposed society prepared under the
provisions of the TSMACS Act, 1995 are adopted in the promoters
meeting held on 19.10.2022 resolved unanimously to approve the byelaws
with the area of operation is Ranga Reddy District limits and resolved to
submit the same before the concerned registering authority for
registration.
10. Financial Feasibility - The authorized share capital of the society shall be
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Rupees only) made up of 100 shares of
Rs.1000 each.
The proposals are in conformity with the provisions of the MACS Act, 1995
the proposed society may be recommended for registration. The proposals are
submitted herewith in 2 sets with attestation on all required documents for
necessary action.
Enclosures: 1. (1) sets of proposals
2. Original copy of the Promoters meeting
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(K.Shantha)
Assistant Registrar
O/o DCO, RR Dist.
Check List for Registration of The Pristine Estates Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually
Aided Cooperative Society Ltd., Gopannapally Thanda, Gopannapalle Village of
Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
The Prestine Estates Villa Owners Maintenance
1. Name of the Proposed Society Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd.,
1. MAMIDI SRINIVAS REDDY
2. ILINANI DEEPIKA
3. VENKATA RAMANA SRIPADA
4. RAJU RAJESH
5. BILIA HARSHA VARDHAN REDDY
6. RAMESH VEERAMALLA
7. KATTA SITARAM REDDY
8. GUJJA SUMAN RAO
2. Names of the Promoters 9. RANGINENI VIJAYAMOHAN
10. RAVULA SIRISH KUMAR
11. BHARGAVI SUNKALA
No. of Members agreed for
Proposed Society
Percentage of Members
6. Agreed for the registration of 85% 81.8%
Proposed Society
Date of Meeting Conducted
7. 15.10.2022
by Verification Officer
No. of Members attended the
Meeting
Whether the Proposal is in
9. accordance with the Yes
provisions of the act
Recommendation of the
10. Recommended
Verification Officer
Total Apartment consists 100 Flats and out of 22
11. Remarks
flats are sold and 78 flats are there with the builder
Sd/-
Signature of the Verification Officer
PROMOTERS MEETING
Meeting of the promotes of the "The Pristine Estates Villa Owners
Maintenance Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Limited, Sy.No.159,
162P, Club House, Pristine Estates, Tellapur Road, Gopannapally
Thanda, Gopannapalle, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State is
Convened on 15-10-2022 @ 11.00 A.M in the presence of
Smt.K.Shantha, Assistant Registrar/Office, O/o the District
Cooperative Officer, Ranga Reddy District. The following promoters
attended the meeting for Verification of genuineness, feasibility and
necessity of the proposed society.
Sl.no. Name of the promoter Signature
1. MAMIDI SRINIVAS REDDY Sd/-
2. ILINANI DEEPIKA Sd/-
3. VENKATA RAMANA SRIPADA Sd/-
4. RAJU RAJESH Sd/-
5. BILIA HARSHA VARDHAN REDDY Sd/-
6. RAMESH VEERAMALLA Sd/-
7. KATTA SITARAM REDDY Sd/-
8. GUJJA SUMAN RAO Sd/-
9. RANGINENI VIJAYAMOHAN Sd/-
10. RAVULA SIRISH KUMAR Sd/-
11. BHARGAVI SUNKALA Sd/-
12.
Sd/-
(K.Shantha)
Assistant Registrar
O/o DCO, RR Dist
13. CHITTURI ANITA Sd/-
14. RAJASHEKAR VODELA Sd/-
15. SUMATHI MOHAN RANGINENI Sd/-
16. RICHA BUDDINENI Sd/-
17. B.NEELIMA REDDY Sd/-
18. DEEPA BHUPATHIRAJU Sd/-
23. After considering the material placed on record, including the
documents filed before the learned Single Judge this Court has noted
the following observations as under:
i. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein (writ petitioners) raised
specific and serious allegations regarding the fabrication of the
field verification report dated 19.10.2022. It was pointed out
that the verification report dated 19.10.2022 records that there
are "100 flats" and only "22 flats sold." This stands in stark
contrast to the case of the writ petitioners, supported by
property tax receipts and a detailed list of villa owners,
demonstrating that 87 villas along with all 12 LIG/EWS units
had already been sold and registered by the year 2020.
Significantly, the appellant, in its counter-affidavit, did
not specifically deny this core factual assertion. The DCO (4th
respondent), in his counter-affidavit, merely stated that the
verification officer submitted a report recommending
registration, without addressing the correctness of the
underlying data. In this context, the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naseem Bano v. State of U.P. 2
squarely applies, wherein it was held that uncontroverted
averments in a writ petition may be treated as admitted. The
failure of both the official respondents and the appellant to
explain the glaring discrepancy between the verification report
(100 flats, 22 sold) and the ground reality (105 villas and 12
units, with approximately 98 units sold) assumes critical
significance and renders the foundation of the registration
suspect. The relevant portion of the said decision in Naseem
Bano's case (supra 2) is extracted hereunder:
9. .... Since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 4
in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the writ
petition that 40 per cent of the total number of posts had not been
filled by promotion, inasmuch as the said averments had not been
1993 Supp (4) SCC 46
controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis
that the said averments had been admitted by respondents.
ii. Regarding the compliance with Section 4(1) of the TMACS Act,
the list of promoters who attended the formation meeting
discloses that certain individuals belong to the same family. For
instance, Sumathi Mohan Rangineni and Vijay Mohan
Rangineni are the wife and husband; similarly, Raju Rajesh and
Deepa Bhupathi Raju are also husband and wife. The statutory
requirement expressly mandates that the promoters must be
from different families. While the total number of signatories
may still exceed the minimum threshold of ten, the inclusion of
members from the same family reflects a procedural irregularity
and indicates the absence of a broad-based and representative
formation of the society. It lends credence to the contention that
the society was constituted by a limited and interconnected
group rather than through a wider consultative process.
iii. Further, it is not in dispute that no notice was issued to the
LIG/EWS allottees or to several other villa owners prior to the
registration of the appellant society. The Registrar did not invite
objections or put all stakeholders on notice before granting
registration. This omission is in clear violation of the principles
laid down by this Court in M/s. Saket Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
(supra 1). The requirement of inviting objections is not a mere
procedural formality, but a substantive safeguard to ensure
transparency and inclusivity in the formation of a society that is
intended to represent an entire residential community. The
failure to adhere to this requirement constitutes a fundamental
defect in the decision-making process.
iv. Upon perusal, the bye-laws of the appellant society indicate
that they are expressly confined to "Villa Owners." Clause 2(d)
defines a "Member" as "the villa owner of the Pristine Estates
Villas," thereby unequivocally excluding the LIG/EWS allottees.
Such exclusion is explicit and unambiguous. A society, which
by its very constitution excludes a class of allottees who are
otherwise entitled to be part of the project, cannot be regarded
as a valid association representing the entire body of allottees.
The subsequent imposition of a demand of Rs.5,00,000/-
towards "membership fee" for inclusion only aggravates the
discriminatory character of the society.
24. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the registration of the appellant society is vitiated by
fundamental infirmities. The registration appears to have been
granted on the basis of a verification report that does not reflect the
actual position on the ground. The mandatory requirement of inviting
objections from all stakeholders has been disregarded, resulting in a
violation of the principles of natural justice. More importantly, the
Constitution and bye-laws of the society are inherently exclusionary,
particularly in relation to the LIG/EWS allottees, which is contrary to
the statutory framework governing the project. Therefore, the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge on this issue do not warrant
interference and are affirmed.
Issue-II: Whether the appellant society can exclude LIG/EWS
allottees
25. The governing legal framework mandates inclusivity of all
sections of people-owners/allottees of all categories of units in the
project, in the formation and functioning of associations in group
housing projects. G.O.Ms.No.528 dated 31.07.2008, issued by the
Government of Andhra Pradesh, introduced amendments to the
applicable regulations with the objective of ensuring a "social housing
mix." In terms of Clause 5(iii)(b) and (c) of the amended regulations for
Group Housing Schemes, it is expressly stipulated that not less than
5% of the total units shall be earmarked for EWS and another 5% for
LIG dwelling units. The building permit granted for the project in
question was subject to these very conditions. Therefore, the project is
not merely a cluster of villas, but a statutorily integrated residential
community. Clause 5(iii)(b) and (c) is extracted hereunder for ready
reference:
"5 (iii) Group Housing Schemes:
(i) In respect of Group Housing Projects (which include apartment
block/blocks, row housing, cluster housing, mixed housing units, gated
developments and residential enclaves) in sites 4000 sq m and above, out
of the total site area:
a) *****
b) Atleast 5% of the total units shall be set apart and developed for
Economically Weaker Sections of Society (EWS) dwelling units with
maximum plinth area of 25 sq m;
c) Atleast 5% of the total units shall be set apart and developed for Lower
Income Group (LIG) dwelling units with maximum plinth area of 40 sq m;
For providing the above dwelling units within the site, the owner/developer
is given freedom to build these units in a separate block with separate
access.
(ii) In case it is not found feasible by the owner/developer to provide the
above EWS and LIG dwelling units within his site, the owner/developer is
given option to develop the required number of units under both categories
in any land within 5 km radius of the existing site with minimum BT road
connectivity of 12 m. Alternatively, the owner/developer is given option to
hand over the equivalent land within 5 km radius with minimum BT road
connectivity of 12 m to Hyderabad Urban Development
Authority/Hyderabad Airport Development Authority for facilitating
development of EWS/LIG housing.
(iii) Servant quarters constructed shall be reckoned towards EWS housing
requirements in Group Housing Schemes. In case of gated community
developments and row housing, such quarters shall be detached from the
main building and may also be allowed in the rear setback provided the
total length shall not exceed 1/3rd of plot width and only single storied
structure shall be allowed. As an option in gated developments and row
housing the EWS and LIG dwelling units can be accommodated in a
separate block or blocks. In case of Residential Complexes, the servant
quarters may be within the same block provided it is constructed with
separate entrance and with separate kitchenette and toilet facility. Such
Servant Quarters only will qualify to be reckoned as EWS Units.
Alternatively, the EWS and LIG dwelling units in such Complexes can be
accommodated in a separate block or blocks".
26. Further, under the RE(R&D) Act 2016 the expression
"association of allottees" is defined under Rule 2(b) of the Telangana
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (for short
'RERA Rules 2017'), as a collective of the allottees of a real estate
project. Section 11(4)(e) of the RE(R&D) Act 2016 casts an obligation
upon the promoter to facilitate the formation of such an association.
The legislative intent is thus to ensure the creation of a unified body
representing the collective interests of all allottees within a project.
Additionally, this Court in M/s.Saket Engineering Pvt. Ltd. (supra 1)
has categorically held that there cannot be more than one society for
a single project, as such multiplicity would lead to disharmony and
conflicting claims. Further, the exclusion of LIG/EWS allottees from
access to common facilities and participation in the association is
violative of the principle of equality under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and undermines their right to dignified living
under Article 21.
27. For proper appreciation of law, the aforesaid provisions of the
RERA Rules 2017 and RE (R&D) Act 2016 are extracted hereunder for
ready reference:
Rule.2(b) "association of allottees" means a collective of the allottees of
a real estate project, by whatever name called, registered under any law
for the time being in force, acting as a group to serve the cause of its
members, and shall include the authorized representatives of the allottees;
Section 11. Function and duties of promoter.
(4) The promoter shall--
(e) enable the formation of an association or society or cooperative society,
as the case may be, of the allottees, or a federation of the same, under the
laws applicable:
Provided that in the absence of local laws, the association of allottees, by
whatever name called, shall be formed within a period of three months of
the majority of allottees having booked their plot or apartment or building,
as the case may be, in the project;
28. Applying the aforesaid legal principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court is of the considered view that the LIG/EWS units
form an integral and inseparable component of the sanctioned project.
They are not an incidental or subsequent addition. The project
brochure and the building permit itself reflect their inclusion as part
of the original layout. The common amenities, including the club-
house and other shared facilities, are intended for the benefit and use
of all residents of the project not merely for the "villa owners". The
formation of an association restricted solely to "villa owners" results in
the creation of a stratified, two-tier community, wherein LIG/EWS
allottees stand effectively excluded. Such an arrangement runs
contrary to the underlying objective of the social housing policy,
which seeks integration and not segregation.
29. It is to be noted that the common amenities and facilities are
collective properly and all the unit holders pay the cost of the common
amenities and facilities through their purchase price as the cost of the
amenities and facilities is distributed amongst all the unit holders.
No unit holder(s) can claim exclusive rights in respect of common
amenities and facilities.
30. It is also to be noted that the provisions of the TMACS Act and
the RE (R&D) Act 2016 are required to be construed harmoniously.
While the TMACS Act provides the procedural mechanism for
registration of a society, the RE (R&D) Act 2016, read with the
applicable G.Os, furnishes the substantive framework governing the
composition of such an association. The entitlement of LIG/EWS
allottees to participate in the association flows directly from the
statutory and policy conditions under which the project itself was
sanctioned. Any association formed in respect of the said project must
necessarily conform to this overarching mandate. To permit the
functioning of an exclusive association would be to render the
conditions of social housing illusory and nugatory.
31. Further, the present dispute itself illustrates the consequences
of permitting an exclusionary association. The LIG/EWS allottees
have been constrained to approach this Court to vindicate their
rights. The allegations regarding installation of boom barriers,
engagement of private security, and regulation of access to common
areas by the appellant society, which have not been effectively
controverted, demonstrate the potential for conflict inherent in such
an arrangement. The principle enunciated in M/s.Saket Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. (supra 1), that a single project must have a single
association, is intended precisely to prevent such fragmentation and
the resultant disharmony. The fact that the project constitutes a
single, unified layout, and is not a multi-phased development,
reinforces the necessity for a single, inclusive association.
32. In light of the above, this Court holds that a single project must
necessarily have a single, democratically representative association. In
the case of the project in question i.e., Pristine Estates, which has
been conceived and sanctioned under a policy framework mandating
social housing, such an association must, as a matter of legal
requirement, be inclusive of all categories of allottees, including villa
owners, EWS allottees, and LIG allottees. Any association that
excludes a statutorily recognized class of allottees is not only contrary
to the principles of equality and inclusivity but is also unsustainable
in law.
Issue-III: Effect of the TS RERA order dated 04.07.2025
33. It is a settled principle that an order of a statutory authority
must be read as a whole and in its proper context. The jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to examine
the legality and validity of the registration of the appellant society.
This Court is not bound by observations made by another forum on
collateral issues, particularly when such observations are themselves
made subject to the final outcome of proceedings pending before this
Court.
34. It is apposite to note the proceedings before the TS RERA
Authority arose out of a complaint filed by the appellant society
seeking recognition and transfer of common amenities. The promoters
questioned the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that
the project was exempt from the applicability of the RE (R&D) Act
2016. The Authority, upon considering the amendment to Rule 2(j) of
the Telangana RERA Rules by G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 04.03.2025, held
that the project falls within the ambit of an "ongoing project" under
the RERA framework.
35. Further, a careful reading of the TS RERA order makes it
evident as to what it does not determine. The said order does not
declare the appellant society to be the final or legally recognized
association of all allottees in the project. On the contrary, the findings
recorded therein are expressly limited in scope. The TS RERA
observed that the complainant association qualifies as a 'valid and
competent association of allottees' only for the limited purpose of
maintaining the complaint before it. The relevant portion of the said
order is extracted hereunder:
96. Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Complainant Association
qualifies as a valid and competent "association of allottees" for the
purpose of maintaining the present complaint under the provisions of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The pendency of W.P.No.18220 of 2025, and the
status quo direction therein, pertain solely to the procedural challenge of
registration and cannot be read to oust or suspend the complainants'
rights under the statute
36. Further, the operative direction makes it abundantly clear that
the handover of common areas shall be effected only to the lawfully
constituted Association of Allottees, and specifically stipulates that
such direction shall remain subject to the outcome of W.P.No.18220
of 2025. It is further clarified therein that the handover shall be made
to such association as may ultimately be recognized in accordance
with law. Thus, the TS RERA order itself is expressly contingent upon
the final adjudication by this Court in the present proceedings. The
relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder:
140...iii. The Respondents No. 2 to 10 are hereby directed to strictly
comply with the statutory mandate under Sections 11(4)(f), 17(1) of the
Real 'Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The common areas,
including the clubhouse and amenities block, form an integral part of the
sanctioned project layout and shall be conveyed only to the lawfully
constituted Association of Allottees, or the competent authority, as the
case may be, in accordance with the sanctioned plan. This direction shall
be subject to the outcome of W.P.No.18220 of 2025, and the said
handover shall be effected to whichever Association of Allottees is
ultimately recognised in accordance with law.
37. Insofar as the observation of the TS RERA Authority regarding
the failure of the promoters to constitute an association is concerned,
the same cannot be construed as conferring legality upon the
appellant society. While it may be that the inaction of the promoters
prompted certain allottees to form an association, such formation
must nevertheless conform to the requirements of law. An association
which is exclusionary in nature and suffers from procedural
infirmities cannot derive legitimacy merely on account of the
promoter's omission to discharge its obligations. It is trite that an act
otherwise unlawful does not become lawful merely because it was
occasioned by the default of another.
38. Therefore, this Court holds that the TS RERA order dated
04.07.2025 does not validate or confer legitimacy upon the appellant
society as the sole or lawful association representing all allottees of
the Pristine Estates project. On the contrary, the said order expressly
leaves the determination of that issue to this Court. Thus, the
appellant cannot derive any support from the TS RERA order to
sustain its claim of exclusive and valid registration.
Issue-IV: The appropriate remedy
39. It is pertinent to note that the scope of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not confined to setting aside
illegal or arbitrary actions, but also extends in appropriate cases to
issue suitable directions to ensure that statutory mandates are
effectuated and justice is rendered in a meaningful manner. Where
the statutory scheme has been subverted or improperly implemented,
this Court is empowered to mould the relief in such a manner as to
remedy the injustice and restore compliance with the law.
40. In the present case, while the cancellation of the registration of
the appellant society is a necessary consequence of the findings
recorded herein, the same, by itself, would not suffice to resolve the
larger issue. The material on record indicates that the project has
remained without a legally valid and inclusive association for a
considerable period. It is therefore imperative that the situation is
rectified in a structured and legally compliant manner.
41. The promoters are under a statutory obligation in terms of
Section 11(4)(e) of the RE (R&D) Act 2016 to facilitate the formation of
an association of allottees. Equally, the LIG/EWS allottees derive a
statutory entitlement to be included in such an association by virtue
of the conditions imposed under G.O.Ms.No.528 dated 31.07.2008.
These obligations and entitlements cannot be rendered illusory. The
direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the promoters to draft
bye-laws and initiate the process for registration constitutes a step in
the right direction. However, having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that greater
clarity and specificity are required to ensure that the process
culminates in the formation of a truly inclusive and representative
association. The process cannot be left unstructured so as to risk the
emergence of another exclusionary body.
42. In this regard, the role of the District Co-operative Officer,
Ranga Reddy District (respondent No.4) assumes significance. The
District Co-operative Officer is required to actively oversee the process
of formation and registration, ensuring adherence to statutory
requirements, inclusivity of all categories of allottees, and compliance
with the principles laid down herein. Such supervision is necessary to
secure the formation of a single, unified association representing the
entire project.
43. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, while
affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge in setting aside the
registration of the appellant society, further directions are required to
guide and regulate the process of formation of a new association. The
object is not to visit the members of the appellant society with adverse
consequences, but to ensure that all stakeholders, including the
promoters, villa owners, LIG/EWS allottees, and other unit holders,
are brought within a common and inclusive institutional framework.
In the above circumstances, this Court holds that a more detailed and
structured set of directions is necessary to secure the formation of a
single, inclusive association for the entire project.
Conclusion and directions
44. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the present appeal. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Single
Judge that the registration of the appellant society is unsustainable
does not warrant interference and is accordingly affirmed. The Writ
Appeal is liable to be dismissed. However, having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, and to ensure that complete justice is
rendered between the parties and to ensure the establishment of a
harmonious and legally compliant association, this Court deems it
appropriate to modify the operative portion of the order of the learned
Single Judge and to issue the following directions as under:
i) Respondent No.4 herein, shall forthwith take necessary steps to
facilitate the formation of a single, unified, and inclusive
association/society of allottees for the entire Pristine Estates
project.
ii) The membership of the proposed society shall be open to all
categories of unit holders in the project, without any
discrimination whatsoever. Such membership shall expressly
include:
a) All owners of villas, whether completed or under
construction;
b) All allottees of the 6 EWS units;
c) All allottees of the 6 LIG units;
d) Any other person having a legally recognizable ownership
interest in any unit within the project layout.
iii) The bye-laws of the proposed society shall explicitly reflect and
incorporate the above inclusive membership criteria and the
social housing policy as reflected in G.O.Ms.No.528 dated
31.07.2008 and the initial allotment conditions, shall be strictly
adhered to.
iv) Respondent No.4 shall, within a period of sixteen (16) weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, prepare a draft
set of bye-laws for the proposed inclusive society. Such draft
bye-laws shall be circulated to all identified unit holders,
including all villa owners and EWS/LIG allottees, based on
available records and after due updating.
v) Upon finalization of the bye-laws and completion of the
constitutive process, the promoters shall submit an application
for registration of the new society before the competent
authority, who shall process the same in accordance with law,
ensuring compliance with the provisions of the TMACS Act and
the RERA framework.
vi) The directions issued by the learned Single Judge with regard to
the funds collected by the erstwhile appellant society shall be
maintained in a suspense account and returned to the
contributors after deducting legitimate expenses, shall continue
to operate. Upon registration of the new inclusive society, such
funds, subject to proper verification and audit, shall be
transferred to the newly constituted society and utilized for the
common benefit of all its members in accordance with its bye-
laws.
vii) Until such time as the new society is duly registered and
assumes charge, respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall continue to be
responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the common
areas and essential services of the project.
viii) The directions issues herein shall prevail notwithstanding
anything contained in any agreements/arrangements between
the parties to the contrary.
45. Accordingly, the W.A.No.281 of 2026 is hereby dismissed. The
order dated 26.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.18220 of 2025, insofar as it sets aside the registration of the
appellant society, stands upheld.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand
closed. No costs.
_______________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________
[
G.M.MOHIUDDIN,J
Date: 02.04.2026
Note:
LR copy to be marked (B/o) ssp/szt
