━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 1 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through video conference as per
MahaRERA Circular No.: 27/2020


COMPLAINT NO. CC004000000110614

MANTRI TRINITY PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED

…COMPLAINANT/S

VS
DREAM WORLD LANDMARKS LLP

…RESPONDENT/S


MAHARERA PROJECT REGISTRATION NO. P50500054903


INTERIM ORDER


September 02, 2024
(Date of hearing – 26.07.2024 matter was reserved for order)


Coram: Shri. Ajoy Mehta, Chairperson, MahaRERA

Advocate Savio D’Cruz present for the Complainant.
Advocate. Mohammad Taha Sheikh i/b Dewani Associates present for the Respondent.

1. The Complainant is home buyer and Allottee within the meaning of Section 2(d) of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
the “said Act”) of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as the
“RERA”) and the Respondent is a partnership firm who is the Promoter within the
meaning of Section 2(zk) of the said Act. The Respondent firm is registered as the
Promoter of the Project namely “Godrej Forest Estate” under section 5 of the said Act
bearing
MAHARERA Project Registration No. P50500054903
(hereinafter referred
to as the “said Project”). On the MahaRERA Project registration webpage the
proposed date of completion is 31.03.2027.

2. The Complainant is seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) that the RERA project Registration No. P50500054903 that has been assigned to the
Respondent in respect of the said project be ordered to be cancelled.
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this complaint, this Hon’ble Authority be pleased
to restrain the Respondent and any person acting under their direction by an order of
temporary injunction from in any manner dealing with or disposing off, selling,
transferring, alienating, encumbering or parting with the possession of or creating
third part rights in the said plots of land or any part or portion thereof.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 2 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

(c) For such and other reliefs as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit and necessary in the
circumstances of the present case; and
(d) For cost of this Application.

3. The complaint was heard on 26.07.2024 wherein the following roznama was recorded
by this Authority:
“Complainant states that they were in the process of purchasing the very lands on which this
Project is coming up. There is a dispute between them and intermediary who was supposed
to aggregate the land and transfer it to them. This dispute is now pending before the
Arbitration Tribunal of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The Complainant hence seeks
revocation of RERA registration number under Section 7 of the said Act. The Promoter
informs that the complaint itself is not maintainable as the Complainant has no privity of
contract, Complainant has no locus standi and complaint is barred by limitation. The
Promoter informs that the two parties disputing certain payments have no locus standi over
the land which they seek to construct on. Parties to file written submissions, if any, on or
before 07.08.2024 subsequent to which the matter will be reserved for order.”

4. The brief submissions of the Complainant is as follows:
A.
That the complaint was filed on 25.06.2024.
B.
That an agreement dated 26.04.2007 was executed between the Complainant
and the intermediary with respect to the said plot situated at Khasra Nos.
93,94,95/1,95/2, 95/3, 95/4, 95/5 & 96 at mouje – Sumthana, Tal. Hingana,
District Nagpur.
C.
That the intermediary failed to assign the ownership of the said plot to the
complainants herein because of the dispute between the landowners.
D.
That the Public Notice was issued by the M/S Rohit Iron & steel (I) Pvt. Ltd,
falsely claiming to hold the title and interest with regards to some of the said
plots. However, Complainant through its advocate raised objection for the same
and informed not to create third party rights for the said plots.
E.
That Vide legal notice dated 28.06.2023 the Complainant informed that he has
invoked the Arbitration proceedings against Mr. Vinod Jethani.
F.
That the deed of conveyance dated 28.09.2023 was executed between the M/S
Rohit Iron & steel (I) Pvt. Ltd and the Respondent herein and one M/S. Shrivan
Estates LLP in respect of the said plot.
G.
That the Respondent is deliberately claiming ownership and rights over the
said plot vide project Known as “Godrej Forest Estate” which is registered

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 3 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

under the MahaRERA, falsely claiming that no litigation is pending with
respect to the said plot.
H.
That the litigation for the said plot is pending before the Arbitration Tribunal
of Hon’ble Bombay High court bearing ARBAPL- 26280- 2023.
I.
That the Respondent has laid no claim on the property of the said project before
any Authority since 2007, when the transaction between the Complainant and
Mr. Vinod Jethani was entered into, which confirms the Complainant’s
comprehensive rights over the property of the said project.
J.
Hence the Complainant seeks revocation of the said registration number.

5. The brief submissions of the Respondent is as follows:
A.
That the said properties were purchased vide Deed of conveyance dated

28. 09.2023 from the respective vendors were in Complainant is not recognized
as owners of the said plot.
B.
That the Respondent has never had any direct or indirect contractual or
monetary relationship whatsoever with the Complainant; upon the bare
perusal of the agreement which has been referred and relied upon by the
Complainant it is crystal clear that there has been no legal or direct contractual
relation between the complainant and the Respondent.
C.
That the project got registered after due compliance at every stage and with
approvals granted by all the concerned Authority. That the complainant is
misleading the Authority by way of suppression of material facts from the
Authority.
D.
That the unregistered and insufficient stamped document i.e the said
agreement executed between the Complainant and Mr. Vinod Jethani cannot be
admissible evidence produced before the Authority.
E.
It is pertinent to note that the cause of action regarding the subject property
arose in 2007 and the complainant raised its claim in the year 2023.As a result
of which the Complainant cannot take shelter from the limitation of act in order
to seek relief.

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 4 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

F.
That multiple transactions were carried out during the period including
changes in the ownership of the property. However, the Complainant did not
object the same and remained silent till 2023 which portraits grave negligence
on part of the Complainant. Thus the contention of the complaint regarding the
limitation is barred by the limitation act.
G.
That the Complainant lacks Locus Standi to approach this Hon'ble Authority as
it does not fall within the category of an allottee, promoter, developer, home
buyer or real estate agent & thus the complainant is not within the purview of
Section 2(d) which defines an allottee and 31 of the Act.
H.
That the Complainant has not brought on record the said arbitration application
against Mr. Vinod Jethani who has not been arraigned as a party to the
captioned complaint, which clearly establishes his mala fide intentions and an
attempt to deceitfully seek relief before the Authority without possessing the
locus to the same.
I.
That the instant complaint is nothing but an attempt on the part of the
Complainant to exercise rights he does not possess as against the Respondent
and the property in question.
J.
That the captioned complaint is devoid of merits in addition to being outside of
the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Authority, and hence deserves to be dismissed.

6. From the facts and submissions of the Complainant the issue that needs to be
examined is whether at this juncture, when the matter is already subjudiced before the
Higher courts / Authorities, the complainants merit any relief under the provisions of the said
Act?

7. Before answering the issue framed at para No. 6 herein above the Authority observes
that the Complainant contends that the legal title report uploaded by the Promoter
herein on the MahaRERA said project registration webpage, is misrepresentative and
false. The Complainant has uploaded an agreement dated 12.05.2007 executed
between one Mr. Vinod Jethani and the Complainant wherein terms for procurement

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 5 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

and acquiring of land of various survey numbers of Sumthana Village, Hingana
Taluka, Nagpur District are agreed between them.

8. The Authority at this juncture deems fit to find out whether there is any substance to
the averments of the Complainants or not. The Complainant has placed on record
various documents/legal instruments and on the basis of which the Authority thinks
it is imperative to ascertain whether full disclosure with respect and pertaining to the
rights and ownership of the land of the said project have been made. In view thereof,
the Authority hereby directs the Director of Compliance, MahaRERA Shri. Ramesh
Pawar to hear both the Parties, call for all the necessary documents from both the
Parties with respect to the disclosures made with respect to the land and thereby
submit a report before the Authority within 45 days from the date of this order.

9. Further it is observed that a petition filed by the Complainant herein is pending
before
the
Hon’ble
Bombay
High
Court
bearing
lodging
number
ARBAPL/26280/2023 filed on 20.09.2023. Therefore, the Authority thinks it is
necessary in law to not adjudicate the matter at this juncture as the subject matter in
issue is already subjudice before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the same is yet
to be decided. Thus, the Authority at this juncture will restrain itself from
adjudicating the complaint on merits and passing any order. Subsequent to the
decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the above matter and upon receipt of
the report of the Director of Compliance, MahaRERA, the Authority will issue
appropriate orders in the captioned complaint.

10. With respect to the relief of restraining the Respondent from creating any third party
rights, the Authority does not find any pressing reason to grant any such interim
reliefs. However, the Authority would direct that this order be put up on the website
to ensure transparency.

ORDER

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Page 6 of 6
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

11. Therefore, after considering the aforementioned observations and provisions of the
Act, the materials placed on record, the facts of the case and submissions made by
the Parties, the Authority passes the following order:
A.
The Director of Compliance, MahaRERA is directed to submit his report before
the Authority within 45 days of this order.
B.
This order be put on the website.
C.
The captioned complaint shall be listed within two months from the date of the
receipt of report from the Director of Compliance, MahaRERA.


Ajoy Mehta
Chairperson, MahaRERA
AJOY
MEHTA
Digitally signed by
AJOY MEHTA
Date: 2024.09.02
18:02:30 +05'30'