COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000238776


BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI

Hearing held through hybrid mode as per MahaRERA Circular No.: 49/2025

CORAM: Ravindra Deshpande, Member II, MahaRERA


COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000238776

VIJAY BABURAO BAKARE


… APPLICANT

Versus

1. SURAJ ESTATE DEVELOPERS

2. PATANKAR HOTEL ENTERPRISES
PVT LTD THROUGH
SIDDHARTH RAMCHANDRA PATANKAR
…RESPONDENTS


MahaRERA Project registration No. P53000046495

O R D E R
On Miscellaneous application filed by the Complainant
(Order Date- 06.11.2025)


Coram: Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, Member 2 MahaRERA

Complainant appeared in person
Adv. Vidyadhar Joshi appeared for Respondent no. 1
Adv. Vandure Patil appeared for Respondent no. 2

1. The Complainant has filed this application to initiate preliminary enquiry
against the act of Respondents affecting administration of justice by inducing
fraud with respect of document titled as “search report”.
The facts narrated by the Complainant in the present application are as
follows.:-

The Respondents have submitted to the MahaRERA Authority a document
titled “Title Search Report” dated 23.06.2022, issued by Adv. Vidyadhar
Vinayak Joshi, as a part of the Legal Title Report of the same date, for obtaining
registration of the project “Royal 09 Tourist Hub” undertaken by Suraj Estate
Developers and Patankar Hotel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
The said Title Search Report covers a 30-year title verification period (1992–
2022) and, at page 5, contains the following recitals:
"B' Tenure Order :-
It Further appears that Collector Office Kolhapur by its Order bearing No.
Tenure/SR/278/9 dated 20/07/2010 changed the tenure of said CTS No. 204/C/1A/2 at
E ward Kolhapur admeasuring 2573.50 Sq Mtrs to 'C' Tenure from 'B' Tenure,
subjected to terms and conditions stated therein. It Further appears that City Survey



COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000238776


Office has changed said 'B' Tenure to 'C' Tenure to the Record of Rights of said
property by Mutation Entry No 38856 certified on 22/06/2021."

2. It is submitted by the complainant that the Order bearing No.
Tenure/SR/278/9 dated 20/07/2010 changed the tenure of said CTS No.
204/C/1A/2 at E ward Kolhapur admeasuring 2573.50 Sq Mtrs to 'C' Tenure
from 'B' Tenure is nowhere in existence. In these circumstances, the applicant
has filed this present application in this Hon'ble court in exercise of jurisdiction
of this Hon'ble court u/s 379 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 and
u/s 236 and 237 of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita 2023.

3. It is submitted by the complainant that the said Title Search Report is false and
deliberate attempt has been made to deceive the MahaRERA Authority and
gain undue Registration Certificate relying on foresaid falsified information
submitted under the title of 'Legal Title Report' and 'Search Report'

4. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 that, all requisite and
lawful documents, as mandated under the provisions of the RERA, were duly
filed for the registration of the project titled “Royal 09 Tourist Business Hub.”
Upon verification of their authenticity and correctness, the said project was
accordingly granted registration. It is further submitted that the Order effecting
the change from ‘B’ tenure to ‘C’ tenure has been duly accepted and acted upon
by the City Survey Office, Kolhapur, and therefore, the Complainant lacks the
locus standi, authority, or competence to challenge the said Order in the
present proceedings. Moreover, the present application filed by the
Complainant is distinct and extraneous to the main application already
pending for final arguments, and hence, the same is frivolous, misconceived,
and unsustainable in law, serving only to delay the adjudication of the main
matter. The complainant is unnecessarily referring wrong dates and
challenging the Mutation Entry No. 38856 which has been duly certified by the
revenue authorities on 22/06/2021. If the complainant is having any objection
about certification of said Mutation Entry No. 38856 there is remedy provided
under revenue law. If the Complainant genuinely believes that the
Respondents have committed perjury, he ought to have approached the
competent forum prescribed under law for such criminal remedies. Instead,
without availing the appropriate legal process or authority, the Complainant
has unnecessarily filed the present application. Mere typing mistake occurred
in Search Report about date of said Order for Change of “B Tenure” to “C
Tenure” in respect of said Project land cannot said to be a Perjury.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondent nos. 1 and 2 that, the Complainant
is neither an allottee nor an interested party in the Real Estate Project “Royal 09



COMPLAINT NO.: CC005000000238776


Tourist Business Hub.” The Complainant has filed Civil Suit No. 623/2022
before the Hon’ble Civil Court seeking a declaration regarding the change of
tenure of the project plot, which is presently pending adjudication. The Hon’ble
Collector, Kolhapur, vide a reasoned order passed in 07.10.2010, lawfully
converted the property tenure from ‘B’ to ‘C’, against which no appeal has been
preferred. The project property of Respondent No. 2 is thus of ‘C’ tenure, and
any order concerning the same cannot be passed without considering the say
of the Hon’ble Collector, Kolhapur.

6. The present application is filed by the Complainant, requesting to initiate the
proceedings, which relates to offences in relation to the court proceedings, such
as perjury or fabricating evidence. Sec. 379 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 allows the court, when deemed expedient in the interest of justice
to enquire of such offences, make a complaint and take action against the
accused by binding over them to appear or sending them to custody. The said
section provides the procedure for courts to handle offences mentioned in the
sec. 215 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and it is for the court of law,
and not to this authority. This authority has no jurisdiction regarding the same
and hence, in my considered opinion, the application filed by the complainant
is out of jurisdiction of this authority. Hence, this Authority lacks jurisdiction
to entertain the application under the said provisions. Thus, I pass the
following order:

O R D E R

1. The application stands rejected for want of jurisdiction.


Ravindra Deshpande,
Member 2, MahaRERA
Date: 06.11.2025
RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2025.11.06 14:49:56
+05'30'