Interim Order Complaint No. 123 of 2026

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 123 of 2026
20th February 2026
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Quorum:

B. Prabhakar Rao
S/o Late Sri. Mallaiah, Aged: 62 years,
R/o H. No. 11-10-753,
Raparty Nagar, Khammam-507001

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Telangana Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited
Rep. by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director Sri. V.P. Goutham,
H.No.3-6-184, I Floor, TGHCL Building,
Street No. 17, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500029

2. M/s. Mahanandi Builders
Rep by its proprietor Eppa Suwarna
H.No.9-153V, Lertage Gayatri Nagar,
Meerpet, Saroornagar,
Ranga Reddy District-500097

3. The Sub-Registrar, Telangana Registrations and Stamps Department, Narapally
Office at Narapally, Peerjadiguda,
Medchal Malkajgiri District-500 039

...Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein, came up for hearing on
20.02.2026 before this Authority. Mr. Hari Prasad Podila, learned Counsel for the
Complainant, and Mr. K. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, were
present. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 remained absent. Upon hearing the arguments, this
Authority passes the following INTERIM ORDER:

2.

The present Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Rules”) alleging that the Respondent No.1 has violated the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel
of Complainant prayed before this Authority to pass the following interim orders reiterating
1

---

3.

The Complainant has averred, in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the main Complaint, that he had

agreed to purchase five unfinished flats bearing Nos. 104, 311, 401, 505 and 601 in Tower
A02, Sadbhavana Township, Pocharam, Ghatkesar, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, and had
entered into an Agreement of Sale with Respondent No. 2. It is stated that, on the information
furnished by Respondent No. 1, the Complainant approached Respondent No. 2 and entered
into said agreement to purchase the aforesaid flats at a total sale consideration calculated at
Rs. 1,650/- per sq. ft. for 1,470 sq. ft. per flat, amounting to Rs. 24,25,500/- per flat, payable
to Respondent No. 1, aggregating to Rs. 97,02,000/- for four flats together, with a balance
amount of Rs. 2,98,000/-. The Complainant asserts that he paid a total sum of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) through bank cheques to Respondent No. 1 towards
the full sale consideration of Flat Nos. 104, 311, 401 and 505, and part sale consideration of
Flat No. 601.

4.

Additionally, it contended that, notwithstanding receipt of the said amount, Respondent

No. 1 has failed and neglected to execute and register the sale deeds in favour of the
Complainant, and has also not issued a “No Objection Certificate” nor furnished the RERA
Registration Certificate, thereby disabling the Complainant from availing a bank loan for
payment of the balance consideration in respect of Flat No. 601. The Complainant alleges
that Respondent No. 1 has been deliberately prolonging the matter and subjecting him to
harassment.

5.

When the matter was taken up on 20.02.2026, the learned Counsel appearing for the

Complainant reiterated the averments made in the Complaint and submitted that immediate
interim protection is necessitated in view of the proposed sale of the schedule property by
Respondent No. 1 on 25.02.2026 by way of lottery.

2

---

The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1, Respondents No. 2 & 3 having

been remained absent, submitted that the Complainant, Respondent No.2 herein and one M/s
Brundavam Projects had already approached the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana by filing
Writ Petition Nos. 28502 of 2025, 28982 of 2025, and 33046 of 2025, respectively,
challenging the auction/allotment proceedings relating to Tower A02 and connected matters,
and that all the said Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana.
7.

He further submitted that, he would place on record a memo along with copies of the

orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in the aforesaid Writ Petitions, upon
obtaining instructions from Respondent No. 1. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 1 has filed a
detailed memo enclosing the certified copies of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court
of Telangana in the said three Writ Petitions.

8.

A perusal of the memo filed by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 discloses that

the unfinished Tower A02 was allotted to Respondent No. 2 vide Allotment-cumConfirmation Letter dated 25.04.2023 on an “as is where is” basis, for a total consideration of
approximately Rs. 29,51,00,000/-, subject to strict terms and conditions. It is stated therein
that ownership rights were to accrue to Respondent No. 2 only upon full payment of the sale
consideration; that failure to adhere to the stipulated payment schedule would entail
cancellation and forfeiture; that the tower was sold as a single unit comprising 120 unfinished
flats; and that the responsibility for obtaining all statutory approvals, including RERA
registration, Fire NOC, and Occupancy Certificate, as well as completion of internal and
external infrastructure, rested exclusively with the bidder/allottee/Respondent No. 2.

9.

It is further stated in the memo that Respondent No. 2 failed to adhere to the stipulated

payment schedule from the very inception, including a delay of approximately 173 days in
remittance of the first instalment. It is averred that, notwithstanding the grant of multiple
extensions and revised payment schedules in good faith, Respondent No. 2 did not comply
with its contractual obligations. Consequently, the Respondent No. 1 cancelled the allotment
vide proceedings dated 21.01.2025, strictly in terms of the conditions of allotment and after
following the principles of natural justice, and forfeited the amounts paid by Respondent No.
2. It is the categorical stand of Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 2 never acquired any
ownership or transferable rights in respect of the subject property.

3

---

Moreover, the Respondent No. 1 has further taken a specific stand that there exists no privity

of contract between the Complainant and Respondent No. 1, and that any alleged agreements or
transactions entered into by the Complainant were solely with the Respondent No. 2, undertaken at
the Complainant’s own risk, and without the knowledge, authorization, or consent of Respondent No.
1. It is also contended that the Respondent No. 1, being a Government undertaking entrusted with the
disposal of public assets, cannot be compelled to recognize any unauthorized third-party transactions
entered into by Respondent No. 2, nor can it be directed to transfer the subject property in the absence
of receipt of the full sale consideration in accordance with the terms of allotment.

11.

A perusal of the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 28502

of 2025, filed by the Complainant herein along with others as petitioners therein against
Respondent No. 1 herein and another Respondent arrayed therein as Respondents discloses
that the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana,
elaborately discussing all the aspects of the matter and the request to restrain the auction of
the subject property in Tower No. A02 was declined, with the following observations:
“9. Since Respondent No.2 failed to discharge the primary obligation to pay the
full tower consideration, no right, accrues to any third title or interest -statutory
or contractual party. Petitioners, therefore, cannot rely on their voluntary
deposits to claim locus or seek writ relief against the Corporation. Further, any
advertisements issued, promises made, or agreements entered by Respondent
No.2 with petitioners were entirely private arrangements for which the
Corporation bears no responsibility. The allotment letter expressly made
Respondent No.2 solely liable to complete the construction and to discharge the
entire tower consideration before any registration of individual flats could
occur. Petitioner's reliance on such private transactions cannot create any
contractual or statutory obligation against Respondent Corporation whose role
was confined to the original allotment and enforcement of its terms.”
“10. The other aspect, which has to be seen is issuance of NOC directly to
individual purchasers of Respondent No.2 would create serious complications.
Respondent No.1 issued NOC in respect of Tower A04 to the original allottee
namely The Telangana Public Sector Employees Mutually Aided Cooperative
Housing Society. In this case, Respondent No.2 failed to meet contractual
obligations, hence, petitioners' comparison with TGPSEMA tower A04
transaction is therefore, misplaced and does not give rise to any claim of
unequal treatment or discrimination and claims of preferential treatment under
Article 14 cannot be sustained.”
“11. Further, consequent upon cancellation of allotment on 21.01.2025,
Respondent No.1 issued a fresh notification dated 10.09.2025 for auction of
tower A02 after expiry of the statutory waiting period; wide publicity has been
given to the proposed auction through print and other media and substantial
4

---

It is pertinent to note that, for reasons best known to him, the Complainant has not

disclosed in the present proceedings that he had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 28502 of 2025,
along with others, before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, challenging the earlier
auction proceedings in respect of the subject property, and that the said Writ Petition was
dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court, which declined to grant any relief restraining the
auction. The non-disclosure of the said material fact prima facie indicates suppression of
earlier proceedings, and the present Complaint along with I.A. No. 12 of 2026 appears to
have been instituted without placing the said facts before this Authority.

13.

The principal interim relief sought by the Complainant, as detailed in paragraph 6(a)

above, in the present Complaint, is to restrain Respondent No. 1 from proceeding further with
the sale of the subject property by way of auction to third parties pending adjudication of the
main Complaint. The nature and substance of the interim relief so prayed for are substantially
identical to the relief sought by the Complainant in the Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble
High Court in respect of earlier auction proceedings. In view thereof, it is evident that the
Complainant has not disclosed the material facts relating to the earlier proceedings and has
failed to approach this Authority with clean hands, having omitted to place on record the true
and relevant facts in the present Complaint.

14.

A perusal of the Allotment-cum-Confirmation Letter dated 25.04.2023 issued by

Respondent No. 1 to Respondent No. 2, which has been filed along with the present
Complaint, reveals that the unfinished Tower A02 was allotted to Respondent No. 2 on an “as
is where is” basis for a total consideration of Rs. 29,50,00,000/-, subject to the terms and
conditions stipulated therein, and that ownership of the allotted tower was to accrue only
upon full payment of the entire sale consideration. As contended by the learned Counsel for
Respondent No. 1 in the memo filed before this Authority, and as also observed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the orders referred to above,
Respondent No. 2 failed to discharge its primary obligation to remit the full consideration
amount, and consequently, Respondent No. 1 cancelled the allotment vide proceedings dated
21.01.2025. In view thereof, Respondent No. 2 never acquired any ownership or transferable
5

---

15.

It is further evident that the said Allotment Letter does not authorize Respondent No.

2 to collect or route sale consideration amounts from third parties into the account of
Respondent No. 1 pursuant to any independent agreements entered into by Respondent No. 2.
In such circumstances, any agreements or transactions entered into by Respondent No. 2 with
the Complainant or other third parties were undertaken at its own risk, without the authority
or consent of Respondent No. 1. Consequently, no right, title, or interest - statutory or
contractual could have accrued to the Complainant or any third party on the basis of such
transactions. Therefore, as observed by the Hon’ble High Court in paragraph 9 of the order
referred to hereinabove, the Complainant cannot rely upon voluntary deposits made into the
account of Respondent No. 1 to assert locus standi or to seek the interim relief as prayed for
in the present proceedings.

16.

For the reasons enumerated hereinabove, this Authority is of the considered view that

the Complainant, having approached this Authority without full and candid disclosure of
material facts and having suppressed the earlier proceedings, and orders of the Hon’ble High
Court has failed to establish a prima facie case or to demonstrate that the balance of
convenience lies in his favour for grant of the interim relief sought pending disposal of the
main Complaint.

17.

Accordingly, the interim relief prayed for in the complaint stands considered and is

hereby rejected.

18.

Matter listed for further hearing on 24.03.2026.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Chairperson

TG RERA

TG RERA

6

---