CC006000000397474
BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
MUMBAI
Virtual Hearing held through Video Conference as per Circular No: 49/2025

COMPLAINT NO.: CC006000000397474

BRAHMESH SOMABHAI PATEL​
​
…COMPLAINANT
Vs
SAVVY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED …RESPONDENT

MahaRERA Project registration No. P51800049155


INTERIM ORDER


(06.08.2026)
(Date of Hearing: 16.12.2025)

Coram: Shri. [Ravindra Deshpande], Member II, MahaRERA

Adv. Dev Mistry for the Complainant
Adv. Parth Chande for the Respondent

1. The present Maintainability Application is filed by the Respondent seeking
dismissal of the above Complaint at the threshold on the ground that the Complaint
is not maintainable under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the “RERA”), as the Complainant is neither an allottee nor
a person claiming rights as an allottee, but is admittedly a third party / co-owner
claiming rights arising out of a Deed of Family Arrangement and an Arbitral Award.
The Respondent submissions in the Miscellaneous Application on maintainability of
the Complaint are as below: -

2. The Respondent states that the Complaint has been filed by the Complainant who
claims rights arising out of a Deed of Family Arrangement dated 15/03/1991 and an
Arbitral Award dated 01/04/2013 passed by Justice (Retd.) S. N. Variava. As the

CC006000000397474
Complainant has not purchased or booked any flat in the project, he cannot be
termed as an "allottee" as defined under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act.

3. The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not entered into any
Agreement for Sale with the Respondent Promoter for the purchase of any unit or
apartment in the registered project known as "Merushikhar".

4. The Respondent further states that as such the dispute raised by the Complainant
arises out of private family settlements, title disputes, and enforcement of an Arbitral
Award, and not from an agreement for sale which is the jurisdictional requirement
under RERA.

5. The Respondent submitted that the Respondent has undertaken construction and
redevelopment strictly over land lawfully authorized under valid, registered
Development Agreements dated 20/08/2021 and 09/12/2022 executed by the
rightful and recorded co-owners of the project land.

6. The Respondent further submits that the Complainant has neither booked nor
purchased any unit, apartment, or share in the Respondent's project, nor has any
consideration been exchanged between the parties.

7. The Respondent states that the complaint is totally based upon alleged inter-se
disputes between family members/co-owners and enforcement of arbitral rights,
which are disputes governed by general civil law and personal laws.

8. The Respondent submits that as per Section 31 of RERA, which only allows
Complaints to be filed by an “Allottee” against a “Promoter” for violation of the act
or rules and regulations made thereunder. And further, the Complainant, being a
third-party claiming family property rights and not an allottee, does not fall within
the definition of “Allottee” under Section 2(d) of RERA.

9. The Respondent states that the Complainant has neither executed nor registered
any agreement for sale under the RERA Act and further contends that his rights
under the Arbitral Award are subject matter of challenge before the Hon'ble High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Arbitration Petition Nos. 520 of 2013 and 637 of

CC006000000397474

2013. Any breach or dispute regarding family settlements can be pursued before
Civil Courts having jurisdiction.

10. And further, the Respondent states that the MahaRERA authority lacks
jurisdiction because the Complainant is seeking determination of title, partition, and
enforcement of an Arbitral Award, which should be adjudicated by civil courts or
the Hon'ble High Court.

11. And further, the Respondent in support of their application submitted relevant
precedents before this Hon’ble Authority -
a. Dr. Yogesh Keshav Bele vs. Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority & Ors.
(Second Appeal No. 432 of 2023 dated 25/08/2023): The Hon'ble Bombay High
Court categorically held that a person owning land adjoining a RERA-registered
project, or having no direct interest therein as an allottee, promoter, or other
stakeholder, does not have the locus standi to maintain a complaint under Section 31
of the Act.
b. Ishaque Abdul Aziz Shaikh v. BP Infra Projects LLP & Ors. (
Complaint No.
CC006000000192922
dated 24/01/2023): MahaRERA held that in the absence of a
binding contract or allotment letter to establish a relationship of Allottee and
Promoter, the Complainant has no locus standi to file any complaint before this
Authority.
c. Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd. & Anr. Vs Macrotech Developers
Ltd.(
Complaint No. CC006000000251910
dated 05/09/2022): MahaRERA held that
Section 31 explicitly limits the pool of persons who can file complaints to "aggrieved
persons" who have grievances relating to real estate projects as consumers/allottees.

12. The Respondent, hence, states that the present complaint filed by the
complainant is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Authority on the above stated
facts and grounds.

CC006000000397474

13. The Complainant has opposed the Maintainability Application by filing
Affidavit-in-Reply on 16.05.2026 on MahaRERA Website thereby contending that the
dispute falls within the jurisdiction of this Authority.
The Arguments made by the Complainant in response to the Maintainability
Application in their Written Argument/Reply are as under: -

14. The Complainant asserts that under a Deed of Family Arrangement dated 15th
March, 1991 and Arbitral Award dated 1st April, 2013 passed by Justice (Retd.) S. N.
Variava, the Complainant was awarded a 50% share in the ground floor office
premises of M/s. Polymac Industries (CTS No. 187) along with monetary
entitlement.

15. The Complainant submits that in Notice of Motion No. 1273 of 2017 in
Arbitration Petition No. 520 of 2013, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court passed an
Order dated 27.03.2019 directing the co-owners/promoters to bring a concrete
redevelopment scheme before the Court to safeguard the Complainant's rights under
the Award.

16. The Complainant contends that the co-owners subsequently withdrew Notice of
Motion No. 1273 of 2017 on 10.02.2022 without obtaining approval, demolished the
existing structure in March 2023, and entered into Development Agreements with
the Respondent Promoter bypassing the Complainant.

17. The Complainant has alleged unauthorized redevelopment, suppression of
material facts, and creation of third-party rights by the Respondent Promoter on
property in which the Complainant holds subsisting rights.

18. As per the Complainant, they have contended that the project in question
"Merushikhar" is a registered project under the RERA Act and thus, is subject to the
provisions of the RERA Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder.

19. The Complainant further submits in the reply that they hold a position as an
"aggrieved person" under Section 31 of RERA as their vested legal rights under the

CC006000000397474
Arbitral Award and High Court Order are directly prejudiced by the redevelopment
activities undertaken by the Respondent.

20. The Complainant contends that Section 31 of RERA permits "any aggrieved
person" to file a complaint and is not restricted narrowly to conventional flat
purchasers under an Agreement for Sale.

21. The Complainant denies the argument of the Respondent that the complaint is
not maintainable and submits that the Respondent's argument is an attempt to evade
statutory obligations under Sections 34 and 35 of the Act. And hence, the
Complainant submits that the present application filed by the Respondent is
bad-in-law and therefore it be rejected.

22. It is seen from the Complaint, the Complainant has filed the complaint seeking
reliefs under the RERA Act against the Respondent Promoter. As per the Complaint,
the subject matter of the complaint is a project known as "Merushikhar" bearing
MahaRERA Reg. No. P51800049155 situated at CTS Nos. 186A, 187, 188 & 189A,
Parsi Panchayat Road, Village Mogra, Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 069 and it is the
case of the Complainant that he has a 50% share in the ground floor premises of CTS
No. 187 under an Arbitral Award dated 01/04/2013 and that the Respondent has
undertaken redevelopment without his consent and without complying with the
Hon'ble High Court's directives dated 27.03.2019.

23. Considering the documents and submissions it is observed herein that the
Respondent has registered the real estate project with MahaRERA bearing
registration no. P51800049155, having project name "Merushikhar" on the basis of
registered Development Agreements executed with the recorded co-owners of the
land.

24. I have gone through the Application and written arguments, in my opinion
firstly it is necessary to peruse the provisions of Section 2 (d) which provides the
definition of “Allottee” and Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 which deals regarding filing of complaints with the
Authority or the Adjudicating Officer. It states that
Section 2 (d) – “Allottee” means—

CC006000000397474
“allottee” in relation to a real estate project, means the person to whom a plot,
apartment or building, as the case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as
freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the
person who subsequently acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or
otherwise but does not include a person to whom such plot, apartment or building,
as the case may be, is given on rent.
Section 31 -
(1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the
adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the
provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any
promoter, allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be. Explanation. —For the
purpose of this sub-section "person" shall include the association of allottees or any
voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (1) shall be
such as may be specified by regulations.

25. After perusal of the above section under RERA, this Authority finds that the
Complainant does not fall within the definition of “Allottee” under Section 2(d) of
the RERA Act. And further, it is observed from Section 31(1) of RERA which
explicitly limits the filing of complaints to actions against a promoter, allottee, or real
estate agent for violations under RERA. And as the Complainant is not falling in the
definition of “Allottee” as per Section 2 (d) of RERA, 2016, he cannot file complaint
against the Respondent before this Hon’ble Authority. And even, the Complainant
has not booked, purchased, or agreed to purchase any apartment, plot, or building in
the project as an allottee.

26. I have observed that the Complainant is claiming rights based on a Deed of
Family Arrangement dated 15.03.1991 and an Arbitral Award dated 01.04.2013, and
the dispute between the parties relates to land title, family partition, and
enforcement of arbitral rights. It is well-settled that RERA is a special statute with
limited jurisdiction, enacted to protect the interests of home buyers / allottees, and

CC006000000397474
not to adjudicate inter-se family disputes, title claims, or enforcement of Arbitral
Awards.

27. And hence, in my opinion this Authority does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate
claims relating to land ownership titles, family arrangements, partition of property,
or enforcement of Arbitral Awards pending before the Hon'ble High Court, which
must be adjudicated before a Civil Court or the Hon'ble High Court having
jurisdiction.

28. In view of the above, this Authority finds that the Complainant is not an Allottee
and lacks locus standi under Section 31 of RERA. I further opined that permitting
such complaints would amount to expanding the jurisdiction of RERA. The dispute
is purely of civil nature arising from family settlements and arbitral awards.
Consequently, this Authority hold that it lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction to
entertain or adjudicate the present complaint. Hence, I proceed to pass following
order:
O R D E R

1. The Miscellaneous application is allowed.

2. The
complaint No. CC006000000397474
is dismissed as not maintainable before
this Authority.

3. The Miscellaneous Application is stand disposed off accordingly.

4. Liberty is granted to the Complainant to pursue his claims, if any, before
appropriate Civil Court or Hon'ble High Court having jurisdiction.

5. No order as to costs.
Date: 06.08.2026
(Ravindra Deshpande)
Member-II, MahaRERA


RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO
DESHPANDE
Digitally signed by RAVINDRA
PADMAKARAO DESHPANDE
Date: 2026.08.06 12:43:06
+05'30'