Lake Buffer Claims and a Pending Suit: What TG-RERA's Orders Mean for Hyderabad Land Checks

In December 2024, a legislator wrote to the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority about two gated projects on the city's edge, alleging that each had taken in part of a lake. Almost two years later, on 10 November 2026, TG-RERA closed both files. In each case it found that the allegations, so far as the RERA Act goes, were "not established", and in each it added a line that every Hyderabad buyer should read twice: its findings are not a ruling on title, survey boundaries, lake protection or Full Tank Level (FTL) and buffer zone demarcation.

The same day, in a third order, the Authority told a Bachupally promoter to upload details of a civil suit over its project land within 30 days. Read together, the three orders show what a RERA registration does and does not tell you about the land under a project, and where a buyer has to look beyond it.

The short answer. On 10 November 2026, TG-RERA disposed of lake encroachment allegations against Praneeth Pranav Grove Park (Gagilapur) and Vajram Ixora (Gopanpally) with no penalty, relying on reports and clearances from HMDA, the District Collector, GHMC, revenue and irrigation officials. It also directed Makuta Developers to upload particulars of O.S. No. 77 of 2025 for its project My Space II within 30 days, saying disclosure duties are continuing. The trade-off: a registration and a closed RERA file reduce one kind of risk, but TG-RERA itself said they do not settle FTL, title or survey questions.

What did TG-RERA examine in the two lake cases?

Both cases began from a representation dated 7 December 2024 by a sitting MLA, later supported by a further representation dated 28 November 2025. In the Praneeth Pranav Grove Park order (Suo Motu Case No. 5056 of 2024), the allegation was that the project at Gagilapur village, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma mandal, included the notified lake area of Md. Osman Kunta and fell within its FTL and buffer zone. In the Vajram Ixora order (Suo Motu Case No. 5053 of 2024), the allegation was encroachment of about 1.5 acres of Medla Kunta (Devuni Kunta) at Gopanpally village, Serilingampally mandal.

The question TG-RERA framed in both was narrow: was the project developed on or within the FTL or buffer zone, and was registration obtained by false particulars or suppression of material facts under Section 4? It answered by looking at what other authorities had already recorded.

What evidence led TG-RERA to close the files?

For Praneeth Pranav Grove Park, the order records an Irrigation and CAD Department NOC dated 8 June 2021 permitting development over Ac.60-10.5 guntas after excluding FTL and buffer areas, and HMDA layout approval dated 13 May 2022. The District Collector reported on 30 January 2026 that out of Ac.70-21 guntas, Ac.10-10.5 guntas were affected by FTL, buffer zones, feeder channels and other restricted areas, and that ground verification found the water body intact. HMDA reported on 14 October 2026 a net layout area of Ac.60-09.5 guntas, or 243,771.03 square metres, with 884 residential units and a clubhouse, and an inspection on 28 September 2026 that found no construction in the FTL or buffer.

For Vajram Ixora, the order records a Deputy Collector and Tahsildar communication dated 25 November 2021 and an Irrigation Department letter dated 7 December 2021 stating that the land does not fall in the FTL or buffer zone of Medla Kunta, and a GHMC building permit dated 17 August 2022. In both cases TG-RERA found no material showing registration was obtained by false particulars, and held that no penalty or adverse action was warranted.

The Vajram order also sets out the title and development chain the promoter relied on, which is a useful model of what a buyer can ask to see: a registered sale deed dated 21 December 2002, mutation proceedings dated 18 August 2003, a registered partition deed dated 23 April 2016, a development agreement cum general power of attorney dated 27 July 2019, registered gift deeds dated 19 June 2023 and a supplementary ratification deed dated 30 June 2023. The promoter said it applied to GHMC for building permission on 28 September 2021. Each of these is a document with a date and number that a lawyer can trace, which is exactly the kind of paper trail a buyer should expect for any project.

Why does the "confined to RERA jurisdiction" line matter?

Both orders end with the same caution. The findings "are confined to the jurisdiction of this Authority" and "shall not be construed as an adjudication upon any independent issue relating to title, survey, revenue records, environmental compliance, lake protection or FTL/buffer zone demarcation", which may fall to other authorities. The Vajram order adds that RERA's power under Section 35 is to inquire into compliance with the Act and "cannot be extended to conclusively determine" questions that belong to revenue, irrigation, planning or environmental authorities.

For a buyer, that means a clean RERA outcome is useful evidence but not a final answer on land status. The documents that actually decide FTL and buffer questions are the irrigation and revenue communications and the planning approval, and the orders show these documents by number and date. A careful buyer asks to see them.

What did TG-RERA direct in the My Space II litigation case?

In the My Space II order (Suo Motu Case No. 46 of 2026), a petitioner alleged that Makuta Developers did not disclose disputes over project land at Bachupally. The project was registered on 13 September 2022, while the civil suit, O.S. No. 77 of 2025 seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 29 March 2000, was filed later. TG-RERA held that a later suit cannot by itself show suppression at the time of registration, and that the title dispute is for the civil court.

But it went further. The order says a promoter's obligations "are continuing in nature" and that new litigation over project land "must be appropriately disclosed and updated on the official portal". It directed Makuta to upload complete particulars of the suit within 30 days under the heading "Litigations related to the project?" on the TG-RERA portal, warned of penal proceedings for non-compliance, and cautioned all promoters to update litigation details whenever new proceedings arise. No penalty was imposed in this order.

How do the three orders compare?

What land checks should a Hyderabad buyer run on a lake-side project?

These orders give a ready template, because they list the exact documents that authorities relied on. Our report on the other TG-RERA orders issued on 10 November 2026 covers registration timing. For land status, use this checklist.

1. Find the project on the TG-RERA project search and note the registration number and validity date.
2. Open the "Litigations related to the project?" section of the project details and read every entry.
3. Ask the promoter for the irrigation department NOC or letter on FTL and buffer status, with its number and date.
4. Ask for the revenue communication from the Tahsildar, Deputy Collector or Collector on the survey numbers.
5. Match the layout or building permission number and date with the permission listed in the RERA filing.
6. Check whether the approved net area excludes any FTL, buffer, feeder channel or surplus channel land, as the HMDA report did here.
7. For title, survey and boundary questions, get an independent legal opinion, since the RERA orders say they do not decide these.

Should a buyer avoid a project that faced a complaint?

Not automatically. In two of these cases the allegations were examined for nearly two years and found not established under the RERA Act, on the strength of reports from the authorities that grant layout and building approvals. A complaint is a prompt to verify, not proof of a problem. The opposite is also true: a project that never faced a complaint has not had its land status tested at all.

What the orders do suggest is a sequence. Check the RERA filing first, then the approval documents named in it, and then the land records. Our guide to the encumbrance certificate in Telangana covers the next step in that chain. Where the question is technical, such as FTL demarcation, the competent authority's written record is what counts.

Frequently asked questions

Did TG-RERA find lake encroachment in Praneeth Pranav Grove Park or Vajram Ixora?

No. In orders dated 10 November 2026, TG-RERA held that the allegations, so far as they relate to the RERA Act, were not established and imposed no penalty. It relied on irrigation, revenue and planning records, and said its findings do not decide title, survey or FTL and buffer demarcation questions.

Does a RERA order settle whether a project is inside a lake buffer zone?

No. Both 10 November 2026 orders state that the findings are confined to RERA jurisdiction and are not an adjudication on title, survey, revenue records, environmental compliance, lake protection or FTL and buffer demarcation. Those questions may fall within the jurisdiction of other competent authorities under their respective laws.

Must a builder disclose a court case filed after RERA registration?

TG-RERA said in the My Space II order that a promoter's obligations are continuing and that later litigation over project land must be disclosed and updated on the portal. It directed Makuta Developers to upload details of O.S. No. 77 of 2025 within 30 days under the litigation heading.

Where can I see litigation disclosed for a Telangana project?

The My Space II order refers to the heading "Litigations related to the project?" on the official TG-RERA portal. Search the project on the TG-RERA project search page, open its details, and read that section. Ask the promoter to explain any entry and get an independent legal opinion before booking.

Last updated 2026-11-15. PropNewz Team.