CCP No.04 of 2024 dt.24.03.2025 Ex parte CC

BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY,
HYDERABAD.
Dated, this, the 24th day of MARCH, 2025.
Present:- Sri Syed Lateef-ur Rahman,
Adjudicating Officer.
C.C.P.No.04/2024/TG RERA
Between:
1) Sri Adepu Srikanth S/o Adepu Muttilingam, Aged: 31 yrs,
Occ: Pvt.employee, Flat No.205, Maha Homes, Muthyam
Block, Isnapur PO, Sanga Reddy District – 502307.
2) Sri Sirikonda Ashok Kumar S/o Sirikonda Upender,
aged: 37 yrs, Occ: Pvt. employee, Flat No.302,
Maha Homes, Muthyam Block, Isnapur PO, Sanga Reddy
District – 502307.
3) Sri Gangisetty Satish Babu S/o Gangisetty Venkateswarlu,
aged: 39 yrs, Occ: Pvt.employee, Flat No.303, Maha
Homes, Muthyam Block, Isnapur PO, Sanga Reddy
District – 502307.
4) Smt.Kandhi Alekhya W/o Dharavath Ramesh, aged: 32 yrs,
Occ: Pvt.employee, Flat No.403, Maha Homes, Muthyam
Block, Isnapur PO, Sanga Reddy District – 502307.
5) Sri Boojanapalli Naga Sunil Kumar S/o Boojanapalli
Naga Raju, aged: 30 yrs, Occ: Pvt. employee, Flat No.505,
Maha Homes, Muthyam Block, Isnapur PO, Sanga Reddy
District – 502307.
…Complainants.
And
1) M/s.Maha Homes, rep., by Santhosh Kumar Gundla & Rupali
Raul, Plot No.131/P and 132/P, Alkapur Township, Rajender
Nagar, Manikonda, Ranga Reddy District 500 089.
2) Sri Gundla Santhosh Kumar S/ late Anand, Partner,
M/s.Maha Homes, aged: 44 yrs, Occ: Business R/o H.No.3-5-4,
Indiranagar, Ramanthapur, Amberpet, Hyderabad 500 013.
3) Smt.R.Rohini W/o Raul Ratnakar, rep., by her GPA holder,
aged: 62 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.13-1-13/2/35/C,
Mangalhat, Amamnagar, Hyderabad 500 006.
…Respondents.
This complaint came up for hearing before me on 24.02.2025 in the
presence of Sri A.Naveen Reddy and Sri K.Uday Kumar, Advocates for the
Complainants and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 remained ex parte; upon perusing
the material on record and on hearing argument of learned Counsel for the

---

The case of the complainants, as revealed from the complaint, is that

Respondent No.1 is a builder. Respondent No.2 is a partner of builder and
Respondent No.3 is GPA holder of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2(b). Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the absolute owners and possessors of
open plots bearing Nos.87, 87/part and 88 total admeasuring 1066 Sq.yards
in Sy.No.386 sitiuated at Isnapur village, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy
District

having

purchased

vide

Sale

Deeds

bearing

Document

Nos.11192/2019, dt.11.03.2019 and 19588/2019, dt.02.05.2019.

The

respondents got permission from HMDA dt.31.01.2020 for construction of
stilt + 5 floors on an extent of 891.22 Sq.Meters. Later, the respondents
have

completed

dt.11.04.2022.

construction

and

obtained

Occupancy

Certificate

However, the respondents failed to get the Project MAHA

HOMES - MUTYAM registered with RERA authority.
2(c). It is stated that Respondent No.2 made a promise to the complainants
that the Project would be finished by 31.03.2021 during the process of

Page 2 of 16

---

As such, the Occupancy

Certificate was issued on 11.04.2022.
2(d). According to the complainants, the respondents did not make
construction as per HMDA approval. The material used was of low quality
leading to multiple cracks in walls within a year and damage to the floor and
slab. Respondent No.2 collected Rs.45,000/- (Rs.Forty Five Thousand only)
from the complainants promising to provide drinking water connection, but
failed to keep up the promise. He returned the said amount after a period of
two years.

The respondents have also failed to provide water purifier

provision as promised.
2(e). It is further pleaded that the respondents have constructed two Blocks
by name Maha Homes - Madhuram and Maha Home - Muthyam side by side.
The water tank constructed for Maha Homes Muthyam is next to Maha
Homes Madhuram septic tank and as a result of which, the water pollutes
and causes health problem.

The respondents also did not follow the

guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.168, dt.07.04.2012 with regard to Car parking.
Fire Safety protection has also not been provided as per TS Fire Service Act,
1999, which resulted in fire accident. The respondents have also failed to
provide separate Transformer to Maha Home – Muthyam Block as per HMDA
approval. There is only one Transformer provided to Maha Homes –
Madhuram Block which is also to be used by Maha Home – Muthyam Block
and this was opposed by the owners of said two Blocks.
2(f).

The complainants also plead with regard to failure of respondents

either in construction as per HMDA approval or providing facilities under
Page 3 of 16

---

ii)
iii)
iv)

v)
vi)

An amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs only) as
compensation for collecting amount as stated above and failed
to provide drinking water connection and for failure to provide
water purifier provision.
An amount of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) as
compensation for constructing water tank and septic tank side
by side causing water contamination and health issues.
An amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand
only) as compensation for collecting amounts from the
complainants to affect mutation.
An amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Lakhs only) as
compensation towards deficiency in service, for using poor
quality of material, unfair trade practice and failure to provide
separate Transformer etc.
An amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Lakhs only) as
compensation for mental agony and harassment.
An amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as
compensation towards legal expenses.

Page 4 of 16

---

On

07.08.2024 at 3.00 PM, Complainant No.6 representing other complainants,
was present and Mr.Santosh Kumar Gundla/Respondent No.2 appeared
and represented that he is representing Respondent No.1 M/s.Maha Homes
and Respondent No.1 Rupali Raul is his wife and R.Rohini/Respondent No.3
is his Aunt and further stated that he is representing them. As such, the
case was adjourned to 13.08.2024 for counters of Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3(b). On 13.08.2024, the complainants have appeared, but Respondent
Nos.1 to 3 remained absent and there was no representation on their behalf.
Page 5 of 16

---

The complainants have filed evidence affidavit of Complainant No.1

and additional affidavit of Complainant No.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A34
in support of their contentions.
5.

Heard learned Counsel for the complainants. Learned Counsel for the

complainants has also filed written arguments.
6.

Now the Point for consideration is Whether the complainants are

entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount?
POINT:
7(a). A reference to the case of the complainants as pleaded in complaint
has been made supra. A perusal of entire complaint and documents filed
does not reveal that subsequent to Agreement of Sale and Sale Deeds on
record, there is any contract or agreement between the complainants and
the respondents under which the respondents are under an obligation to do
further acts with regard to construction as pleaded in pleading.

Without

any such contract or agreement, it is not known as to how the complainants
can plead as alleged in the complaint that the respondents have failed to do
alleged acts mentioned in complaint and as such they are entitled for
compensation, especially when the Agreement of Sale and Sale Deeds on
record do not have such terms or do not create such an obligation on the
respondents.
Page 6 of 16

---

Now coming to the case on hand, the complainants have filed evidence

affidavit and additional evidence affidavit of complainant No.1 and got
marked Exs.A1 to A34 in support of their contentions.
9(a). Out of documentary evidence Exs.A1 to 34, the documents relevant to
consider the relationship between the parties and contract or agreement on
the subject are Exs.A5, 10 and 33.

Exs.A5 and A10 are registered Sale

Deeds executed by respondent No.3 in favour of complainant No.1 and his
wife and Complainant No.2 in respect of their respective semi finished Flats;
and Ex.A33 is Agreement of Sale executed by respondent No.2 in favour of
complainant No.2 in respect of his Flat with columns, beams and roof.
9(b). First let us have a look at Ex.A33.

Ex.A33 is Agreement of Sale

executed by respondent No.2 in favour of complainant No.2.

There are no

such Agreements of Sale executed by the respondents in favour of the other
complainants. A perusal of Ex.A33 shows that respondent No.2 has agreed
Page 7 of 16

---

Therefore, especially in the light of said

documentary evidence between the parties and there being no documents
binding respondents for the works as alleged and pleaded in the complaint
coupled with observations made in Para 7(a) and7 (b) above, it is very
Page 8 of 16

---

As such, a

complaint in Form ‘M’ vide Complaint No.601/2021 was filed before the
RERA Authority, which by order dt.26.09.2023 (Ex.A20) imposed penalty for
violating provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, inasmuch as the Project
was not registered with RERA.

Therefore, the case of the complainants gets

support from the said order of the Authority Ex.A20 and the complainants
may be granted compensation.
10(b). I have considered the said submission of the learned Counsel. I have
also gone through the said order Ex.A20 of the RERA Authority. A perusal
of said order shows that Sri Sreekanth Veerla, Smt.Pampa Modak and Sri
Bindhu Madhav Purohit, who are not parties to this case, had filed said
complaint and said order Ex.A20 was passed by the Authority.
10(c). In the said order Ex.A20, the RERA Authority referred to facts of said
case in Para 2 and 3, which read as under:
“2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant
raised issues with respect to the Respondent Builder not
registering its Project with this Authority and further upraised
this Authority of the various difficulties faced by the residents
of M/s.Maha Homes with regard to septic tank, water tank
being side by side, that there is no proper roadway, there are
Page 9 of 16

---

The Complainant, Sri Srikanth Veerla, along with

Complaint has filed an incomplete Agreement of

Sale

dt.25.11.2019 clearly establishing its rights in the Respondent
Builder’s residential project. He filed Encumbrance Certificate
which determines that the Sale Deed has been entered into
between the Respondent Builder and the Complainant Sri
Srikanth Veerla on 06.01.2019, along with the HMDA
Permission & Plan Copy dated 23.08.2019, Broucher issued
by the Respondent Builder and the Sale Deed of the
Respondent Builder duly acquiring the land on which the
present Residential Project is built.
Madhav

Purohit

filed

his

Complainant, Sri Bindu

registered

Sale

Deed

dated

28.04.2021 entered into between the Respondent Builder and
the Complainant, along with Encumbrance Certificate, HMDA
Permission & Plan Copy dated 23.08.2019 copy, Broucher
issued by the Respondent Builder. ”
The RERA Authority has framed following Issues in Para 6 of
the said order Ex.A20 as under:
i.
ii.

Whether the Respondent has violated Section 3(1) and
4(1) of the Act, 2016?
Whether the Parking Space as given in the HMDA Plan is
4, but the Respondent has crammed 20 spaces making it
difficult for the cars to pass through the drive way?

Then the RERA Authority has concluded on Issue No.1 in Para 9 as
under:-

Page 10 of 16

---

Since the Authority has already issued a notice dated

08.11.2021 and Reminder Notice dated 01.02.2022 as to why
penalty under Section 59 (1) of the Act should not be imposed for
violating Section 3 & 4 of the Act, and no reply has been
submitted by the Respondent Builder in this regard, therefore,
this Authority deems fit that penalty ought to be imposed on the
Respondent Builder for apparent violation of the provisions of the
Act

and

the

Rules

thereunder.

Therefore,

a

penalty

of

Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) under Section 59 (1) of
the Act for registration of 18 flats @ Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand only) each and Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand
only) each for advertising remaining two Flats in violation of
Section 4 of the Act, is imposed on the Respondent Builder
payable within 15 days from the date of receipt of this Order in
favour of TS RERA FUNDS through Demand Draft or online
payment to A/c No.50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code:
HDFC0007036.”
Thereafter, the RERA Authority considered Issue No.2 and held in Para 10,
which reads as under:
“10.

As per the HMDA Permission Letter dated: 23.08.2019

vide Application No.025256/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA/28062019,
the building permission has been sanctioned for stilt + 5 (five)
floors where stilt floor is considered that parking is deemed to
be satisfied as per G.O.Ms.No.168, dated: 07.04.2012.
Therefore, the parking space is rightly provided by the
Respondent.”
Ultimately, the RERA Authority under order Ex.A20 has disposed off
the complaint passing orders in Para-11 and 12, which reads as
under:

Page 11 of 16

---

After consideration of the facts and circumstances, this

Authority directs the Respondent Builder to register its Project
‘Madhuram’ before this Authority within 15 days of the receipt
of this Order, as otherwise action under Section 63 of the Act
shall be taken in accordance with law.
12.

In lieu thereof, the present complaint stands disposed

of.”
10(d). Admittedly, the complainants in Complaint No.601/2021 (Ex.A20) are
not complainants in this case.

What are the terms and conditions of

Agreements or Sale Deeds between the complainants and respondents in
said Complaint No.601/2021 do not appear from order Ex.A20. Though from
the facts of case in Complaint No.601/2021 noted supra, it was the case of
the complainants therein that the Builder Maha Homes constructed septic
tank and water tank side by side and that there are no proper roads and
there are water leakages, no orders or directions are either sought or given in
said order on said aspects.

In these circumstances, the said order of the

Authority under Ex.A20 would be of no importance or helpful to the
complainants, especially in view of the discussion and reasons recorded
supra.
11.

No

doubt,

the

complainants

have

filed

copy

of

legal

notice

dt.20.02.2023 Ex.A12 said to have been issued by one Flat buyer and one
Agreement of Sale Ex.A29 executed between Flat buyer and respondent No.2
in respect of sale of Flat No.201 with columns, beams and roof and car
parking. The buyer of the said Flat is not a party to the present complaint.
Even the contents of said Agreement of Sale Ex.A29 are similar to

Page 12 of 16

---

The complainants have filed several other documents as mentioned in

appendix of evidence below. In the absence of any contracts or agreements
creating relationship and obligation between the parties, this Authority has
no hesitation to observe that the other documents are of no help to the
complainants.
13.

Learned Counsel for the complainants has advanced the other

contentions as mentioned in written arguments in detail. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions in M/s.Dwarakamai
Residency Owners vs. M/s. Sai Estates Developers rendered on 10.09.2012
by the A.P.State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, Hyderabad
and in Siromani Mittasala, Chairman vs. President, Brindavanam Colony
[2002 (1) ALD-136].

I have gone through the contentions mentioned in

written arguments and the said decisions relied. On a careful consideration
of said contentions, I am of the considered view that every case has to be
decided in the light of pleadings and contract/agreement between the
parties. There being no contracts or agreements between the complainants
and respondents creating obligation on the respondents for the claims
Page 13 of 16

---

---

For all the foregoing reasons, the conclusion that emerges on the Point

is that the complainants are not entitled for compensation.

The Point is

answered accordingly.
16.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court
on this, the 24th day of MARCH, 2025.
ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
NONE
Exhibits Marked for Complainant marked by consent.

Exhibit
Ex.A1

Date
31.01.2020

Ex.A2
Ex.A3
Ex.A4
Ex.A5
Ex.A6
Ex.A7
Ex.A8

04.07.2019
11.04.2022
22.03.2022
21.09.2022
03.10.2021
26.04.2023
03.09.2022

Description of document
Building permission sanction proceedings
copy.
Copy of Inspection report.
Occupancy Certificate.
Copy of Inspection report.
Copy of Sale-Deed document No.32670/2022
Copy of Property Assessment.
Copy of Property Mutation Proceedings.
Receipt for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as
advance.
Page 15 of 16

---

21.08.2022

Ex.A10

16.06.2021

Ex.A11
Ex.A12
Ex.A13
Ex.A14
Ex.A15
Ex.A16
Ex.A17
Ex.A18

03.10.2021
20.02.2023
20.02.2023
23.02.2023
Nil
Nil
16.03.2023
16.02.2023

Ex.A19
Ex.A20

25.03.2023
26.09.2023

Ex.A21

02.05.2024

Ex.A22
Ex.A23

NIL
12.02.2024

Ex.A24
Ex.A25

19.03.2024
12.02.2024

Ex.A26
Ex.A27

01.04.2024
12.04.2024

Ex.A28
Ex.A29
Ex.A30

10.05.2024
10.09.2020
13.06.2024

Ex.A31

24.08.2024

Ex.A32
Ex.A33
Ex.A34

21.06.2024
22.02.2021
01.08.2019

Receipt for payment of Rs.50,000/- towards
Token amount.
Copy of Sale-Deed document
No.22062/2021.
Copy of Property Assessment.
Copy of legal notice.
Copy of Postal receipt.
Copy of Postal receipt.
Copy of Track consignment.
Copy of Track consignment.
Copy of complaint letter.
Copy of application filed seeking certain
information under RTI Act.
Information furnished under RTI Act.
Copy of order passed by RERA authority in
Complaint No.601/2021.
Copy of application filed seeking certain
information under RTI Act.
Information furnished under RTI Act.
Copy of application filed seeking certain
information under RTI Act.
Information furnished under RTI Act
Copy of application filed seeking certain
information under RTI Act.
Information furnished under RTI Act.
Copy of application filed seeking certain
information under RTI Act.
Information furnished under RTI Act.
Copy of Agreement of Sale.
Copy of show-cause notice issued by TG
RERA
Copy of Statement of Encumbrance on
Property.
Copy of quotation for Lift repairing.
Copy of Agreement of Sale.
Copy of Occupancy Certificate.

Exhibits Marked for the Respondents:
Ex parte

ADJUDICATING OFFICER,
TG RERA: HYDERABAD.
CC.

Page 16 of 16

---