Interim Order Complaint No. 710 of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Quorum:

25th February 2026
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri LaxmiNarayanaJannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. SrinivasaRao, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO.617 OF 2023

Between
Smt Sree Vatsala

…. Complainant

AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.864 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Veecha Rama Rao
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.819 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

J Veenu Prasad
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.818 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

KandimallaNaveena
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.

COMPLAINT NO.691 OF 2023
Between
EggadaSurpiya

…. Complainant

AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–
K.Srinivas.

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent
1 of 35

---

T Venkata Prasad
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.698 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

N Bhaskara Satya Prasad
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.699 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Bhaskar P
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.697 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Methuku Shekar
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.661 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Manikyam Alla
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.968 OF 2023
Between
Pethala Raju

…. Complainant

AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–
K.Srinivas.

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent
2 of 35

---

G. Hemanthu
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.696 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

J Naveen Prasad
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.

COMPLAINT NO.8972 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

K Raja Rajeshwari
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.702 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

KOti Reddy
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.701 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

RamuChilakamarri
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.685 OF 2023
Between
K. Veena

…. Complainant

AND

3 of 35

---

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.971 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Seema
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.703 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Nagababu Doredla
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.700 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Rama Reddy K
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.846 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

SulegamaVenkateshwar
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.684 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Sujana Kaluva
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO. OF 2023
Between
K Munichandra

…. Complainant

AND
4 of 35

---

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.942 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Narayanavarapu Venkatesh
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.651 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

N Lakshmi
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.1048 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Mirza Quasi Rabbana Begum
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.1047 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

G. Prakash Rao
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.708 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Gante Bhaskar
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.705 OF 2023
Between
Yanamala Venkata Ramana

…. Complainant

AND
5 of 35

---

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.751 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Narsimha Rao Alladi
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.

COMPLAINT NO.709 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

Pola Shirisha
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.

COMPLAINT NO.654 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

Dasari Lakshmi Sailaja
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.711 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Mahankali Kiran Kumar
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.704 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Ravu Rambabu
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.726 OF 2023
Between

6 of 35

---

Lavu Sarala Rani
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.707 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

G Narmada
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.

COMPLAINT NO.706 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

Rama Rao Mundla
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.

COMPLAINT NO.710 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

KarikelliRavali
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.810 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

MPVS Naidu
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.809 OF 2023
Between
K Prathyusha

…. Complainant

AND

7 of 35

---

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.1020 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

T Gayathri
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.1021 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

Mohd. Nisar
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO.1105 OF 2023
Between

…. Complainant

K Satyanaryana Reddy
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.–

“Jaya Diamond Project”, rep by Sri
…. Respondent

K.Srinivas.
COMPLAINT NO. 199 OF 2024

M/s Jaya Diamonds Welfare Association, rep by President Mr. Sudheer Reddy
…. Complainant
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Diamond Project”,
…. Respondent

Sri Kakarla Srinivas

TGRERA PROJECT REGISTERATION NO: P02200004769
COMMON INTERIM ORDER
This Interim order shall be applicable to all the above captioned complaints which are
filed under under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as the “RE(R&D) Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”)
seeking directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondent.

8 of 35

---

The case of the complainants in all the above-captioned complaints rests on similar

grounds. Likewise, the stand taken by the Respondent in its counter-affidavits is identical.
Subsequently, all the complainants have formed an association under the name “Jaya Diamonds
Welfare Association” and have jointly filed a fresh complaint vide Complaint No. 199 of 2024.
Therefore, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the pleadings in Complaint No.
199 of 2024 filed by the said Association are referred to and relied upon herein.
A. Unit and project related details:
4. The particulars of the concerned project are as follow:
S.no

Heads

Information

1.
2.
3.

Promoter- Project name
Project area
Nature of the Project

4.

HMDA approval

5.
6.

RERA Registration
Situated

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures – “Jaya Diamond
3267 sq yards or 2731.01 sqmtrs.
Residential gated community
1 Stilt + Ground and 5 upper floors.
Total of 83 apartments
Building
technical
approval
no.
043524/MED/R1/HMDA/25022021,
dated
20.03.2021
Approved by local body vide permit no.
G1/DM/3810/BP/2021 dated 01.11.2021
P02200004769
Bachupally Village and Mandal, Medchal –
Malakajgiri District, Telangana

B. Brief facts and submissions of the complainant association are as follows:
5.

⁠It is submitted that the Complainant Association, Jaya Diamonds Welfare Association,

is a registered entity under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001 vide Registration
Number: 23 of 2024 on 09.01.2024, with a total of 63 members. The members of the
Complainant Association are allottees having sale holders/agreement holders/MOU holders in
the project named "JAYAS The Copy of Certificate of Registration of Jaya Diamonds Welfare
association.
6.

It is submitted that Respondent No. 1 is a company based in Hyderabad, India

incorporated under the then Companies Act, 1956. The Respondent No. 1 Company is inter alia
engaged in the business of developing both residential and commercial projects. It is submitted
that Respondent No. 2 is the Managing Director of Respondent No. 1 Company and is
responsible for overseeing and managing the development of the residential and commercial
projects undertaken by Respondent No. 1, including the project "JAYA'S DIAMOND."

9 of 35

---

It is submitted that Respondents herein approached the members of the Complainant
Association stating that he is a reputed builder and is developing a gated community "Jayas
Diamond", after having obtained permission from the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA) vide PERMIT No. HMDA/2021, consisting of Cellar +
Ground + 5 upper floors 16.03.2022 in Sy. No. 143/P, situated at Bachupally (v) Nizampet
Municipal Corporation, covering an extent of 3166.80 Sq. Mtrs or 3787.43 sq. yds for a
total number of 83 flats, clubhouses and other services (Hereinafter to be referred to as "the
Project"). The Respondents had obtained permission from this Hon'ble Authority for a
project vide Permission Registration No. P02200004769.

8.

⁠It is submitted that the members of the Complainant Association trusting the
Respondent's representations entered into various agreements i.e., Agreement of Sale,
Memorandum of Understanding and Sale Deeds over various flats in the project "JAYA
DIAMOND", which are residential apartments construction of which was undertaken by the
Respondent No.1 with an agreed-upon timeline for completion. It is submitted that
Respondent. No 1 is a developer that entered into Sale Deeds / Agreement of Sales /
Memorandum of Understandings agreements with several members of the Complainant
Association for the project named "JAYA DIAMOND"

9.

It is submitted that the Respondents by marketing the project and representing to the
prospective homebuyers that they will complete the project in time, lured the members of
the Complainant Association into purchasing the flats of the Project by paying the sale
consideration. It is further submitted that Respondent has barely made any progress in the
construction of the Project ever since February 2022, when the Project was supposed to be
completed and the respective flats in the Project were supposed to be handed over to the
members of the Complainant Association by December 2022. It is further submitted that the
Respondents, their staff and connected workers have all been very irresponsive and
lackadaisical ever since then.

10.

It is submitted that on several requests of the members of the Complainant Association
and after numerous reminders for the updates, the Respondent has failed to construct the
project despite theManaging Director, Srinivas Kakarla has wilfully absconded from his
duties and misappropriated the consideration amounts received from the sale or agreements
relating to 80% of the flats in the project. Furthermore, he has not provided any
compensation to flat owners as mentioned in the MOU/AOS/Sale Deeds. Despite multiple
attempts to reach Mr Srinivas Kakarla, he remains untraceable. Later, it is discovered that

10 of 35

---

It is respectfully submitted that all the complaints listed, namely, Complaint Nos.
639/2023, 661/2023, 685/2023, 684/2023, 703/2023, 702/2023, 698/2023, 698/2023,
699/2023, 700/2023, 696/2023, 697/2023, 693/2023, 819/2023, 818/2023, 691/2023,
692/2023, 810/2023, 809/2023, 894/2023, 864/2023, 971/2023, 972/2023, and 986/2023,
sought similar reliefs and involved issues of a similar nature. Consequently, the Telangana
State Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Hyderabad, issued a common interim order dated
13.09.2023 directing the Respondent, M/s. Jayathri Infrastructures, represented by its
Managing Director, Mr. Kakarle Srinivas, to cease the sale or registration of the 24 flats
specified in the Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the respective allottees to any
third party until further notice or the issuance of the final order by this Authority. The
Respondent was further directed to promptly proceed with registering the sale agreements,
already executed through MOUs dated between 28.07.2023 and 02.09.2023, in favor of the
allottees for the aforementioned flats, in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined
in the MOUs. This interim order shall remain effective until the issuance of the final order
or until further modifications or directions are issued by this Authority. The Respondent is
hereby notified that non-compliance with this order may result in further legal actions and
penalties under the provisions of the RERA Act.

12.

In order to secure the huge investments made by the members of the Complainant
Association, all the allottees have together formed the present Association, namely, "Jaya
Diamond Welfare Association" with Society Registration Number: 23 of 2024 dated
09.01.2024 and after due deliberations decided that JayaDiamond Welfare Association shall
take over the project for completion of the project in the interest of all the allottees. The
Copies of the Consent letters of the Allotees to RERA via Association for taking over the
Project by association.

13.

In furtherance of the said decision to take over the project, members of the Complainant
Association gave their consent for collectively taking over the Jaya Diamond Project by the
Complainant Association. The members of the Complainant Association also agree that
handing over the Project to Jaya Diamond Welfare Association is in their best interests and
they will not object to the decisions/resolutions passed/works undertaken by the Association
in furtherance of completion of the development of the project. Also, the members
undertook that any balance sale consideration that is due and payable by them shall be

11 of 35

---

It is submitted that the Complainant Association is cognisant of the fact that the project
is incomplete and would require an infusion of considerable capital for its completion. The
Complainant Association, in its efforts to safeguard the interests of the allottees, has
obtained a detailed business plan from ‘Suresh Reddy Infra,' a contractor with recognized
expertise in the field of construction. This plan outlines the strategies for raising funds and
effectively utilizing them for the completion of the project. The plan specifies the quality of
materials to be used, the services to be provided, the price per unit, and the timelines for
each phase of the project.

15.

It is submitted that the Contractor has committed to adhering to high standards of
construction, ensuring durability, safety, and compliance with all regulatory requirements.
The price breakdown per unit has been clearly laid out, reflecting transparency in financial
dealings. Furthermore, the timeline for the deliverables is reasonable, reflecting the
Contractor's experience in managing similar projects within set deadlines.

16.

It is submitted that the Complainant Association, having carefully reviewed this plan, is
confident that with the cooperative efforts between the Contractor and the Association, the
project can be completed efficiently. The oversight of the Association will ensure that the
work is executed as per the agreed terms, which will not only expedite the construction but
also indemnify the losses and damages previously suffered by the allottees due to delays
and mismanagement. The Association submits this plan to the relevant authorities as part of
its complaint, urging that this arrangement be recognized and facilitated to ensure timely
relief to the affected allottees.

17.

At the meeting of the members of Jaya Diamond Welfare Association held on 19th July
2024, it was unanimously resolved to open an account in the name of "JAYA DIAMOND
WELFARE ASSOCIATION" with HDFC Bank, Hyderabad. HDFC Bank is authorized to
honor all cheques, promissory notes, and other instruments drawn or accepted on behalf of
the Society, regardless of whether the account is in credit or overdrawn. It is further
resolved that any two of the following officers-Sudheer Reddy Kandimalla (President),
Narasimha Rao Alladi (General Secretary), Naga Babu Doredla (Treasurer), or
SreeVatsalaMachanuru (Executive Member)-are authorized to sign jointly on behalf of the
Society for any banking transactions, thereby binding the Society in all dealings with
HDFC Bank.

12 of 35

---

It is submitted that the aggrieved herein are innocent homebuyers who have made
payments to the Respondents out of their lifelong earnings for their dream house. It is
extremely unfair on the part of the Respondents to play fraud on innocent homebuyers and
be stripped of their dream house.

19.

It is submitted that the Associates/Members have filed several criminal complaints
against Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 2 is currently
absconding from the police authorities. This lack of engagement and effort to advance the
project has led to a noticeable lack of interest and lost confidence on Respondent No.2.

20.

It is further submitted that the homebuyers/allottees of the Jaya Diamond, project are
not the only ones who have approached this Hon'ble Authority complaining about
violations by Respondents but there are allottees of other projects which are undertaken by
the Respondents who have also approached this Hon'ble Authority alleging violations of the
provisions of the RERA Act, 2016. The Respondents are in blatant violation of the laws and
regulations for each and every project of theirs, which are seven (7) in total. Therefore, it is
submitted that the violations by the Respondents and their irresponsible behaviour and
casual attitude towards these projects, when the hard- earned money of the homebuyers is in
question, are completely unacceptable and cannot be condoned. Considering the blatant
violation of law by the Respondents in not just one, but all of their projects, is extremely
worrisome and warrants cancellation/revocation of the Respondent's registration.

21.

It is submitted that there are several violations committed by the Respondent which this
Hon'ble Authority already made prima facie finding on Respondent's blatant violation of
law and indulging in unfair practices. It is submitted that Respondent No.2 has
demonstrated a lack of interest in completing the project. It is submitted that the
Complainant Association herein through the present complaint prays that this Hon'ble
Authority may be pleased to undertake necessary steps to complete the project and the
Complainant Association is ready to fully cooperate in ensuring that the project is
completed.

22. It is further submitted that these funds may be handed over to the Complainant Association
along with the responsibility to complete the project. The Complainant Association is ready
and willing to take the necessary and appropriate steps to complete the project by
appointing credible and competent entities/ persons to complete the project. If even after the
auction of the said 12 vacant flats do not realise the requisite funds required for the
completion of the project, the Complainant Association is willing to infuse and invest extra
funds to complete the project.
13 of 35

---

Therefore, the Complainant Association herein is filing the present application under
Section 8 of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 to take over the
project through the Association and to appoint a competent builder who will complete the
project.

C. Relief(s) sought:
24..

In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
a. To conduct an investigation into the project.
b. To formally hand over the management and control of the project JAYA'S DIAMOND
to the Complainant Association herein, thereby permitting/ authorizing the Complainant
Association to appoint a competent/qualified builder to complete the project.
c.

To direct the Respondent to refund the amount to the allottees who have sought
cancellation of the unit.

d. To permit the Complainant Association to enter into a formal agreement/
MOU/Development Agreement with the Appointed builder.
e. To direct conduct of a forensic and structural audit of the Project to ascertain the extent
of fraud committed by Respondents No. 1 and 2.
f. To direct the respondent to furnish all project-related records before the Hon'ble
Authority.
g. Order Respondent No.1 and 2 to provide compensation to the Associates for the delay
in the project and any consequential financial losses suffered as a result.
h. Release the amounts in the bank account maintained by the Builder in compliance with
Section 4(1)(D) of the RERA Act.
D. Respondent Reply:
25.
The Respondent, through multiple submissions dated 22.08.2023, 03.09.2023,
08.09.2023, 01.11.2023, and 08.11.2023, has submitted that they are the absolute owners of
land admeasuring a total extent of 3,787.43 square yards in Survey No. 143/P, situated at
Bachupally Village and Mandal, falling under Nizampet Municipality, Medchal–Malkajgiri
District, having purchased the same from the AGPA holder, M/s Siva Sai Constructions,
through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.12502/2022 dated 25.04.2022, registered
at SRO, Qutbullapur.
26.

It is stated that the Respondent entered into a Contract Agreement with Sri M. Mohan

Rao for development of the said project. However, the said contractor allegedly abandoned the
14 of 35

---

It is further stated that during January 2023, certain criminal cases were registered

against the Respondent, which led to severe financial constraints and loss of goodwill among
existing customers. In order to mitigate the situation and maintain confidence, the Respondent
executed registrations in favour of certain existing customers, and submits that a few allottees
have also instituted civil suits against the Respondent, allegedly causing obstruction and
provoking other purchasers.
28.

The Respondent has stated that, despite such challenges, they have now resolved to

resume and complete the project without further delay or interruption. It is submitted that they
possess adequate financial resources to complete the remaining works. The Respondent has
also produced a communication from the Nizampet Municipal Authority directing temporary
suspension of cellar work during the monsoon season, and assures that the ongoing
construction shall be executed in compliance with local authority directives and without any
misuse of permissions.
29.

The Respondent, through submission dated 03.09.2023, furnished a construction

schedule, undertaking to complete the entire project, including obtaining Occupancy
Certificate, by December 2024, along with stage-wise timelines for completion of various
components of the project.
30.

It is further stated that the Respondent proposes to mobilize funds required for pending

construction by sale of approximately 20 unsold flats and 20 cancelled units, and that such
proceeds shall be utilized exclusively for project completion. The Respondent also submits that
a new partner has been inducted for construction purposes, who shall undertake the balance
construction for a mutually agreed consideration per square foot, upon execution of a formal
agreement to be placed before this Authority.
31.

In addition, the Respondent has expressed willingness to liquidate one of his personal

land assets to generate additional funds, if required, to ensure completion and handover of the
project to the respective allottees without further delay.
32.

On a subsequent date of hearing, the Respondent further submitted that the subject

property was acquired through multiple financial sources and that servicing such borrowings
has become critical. The Respondent claims to have paid monthly interest to creditors, besides
15 of 35

---

Reiterating earlier submissions, the Respondent submits that despite having advanced a

total amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- at the time of execution of the development agreement,
followed by an additional Rs. 45,00,000/-, the contractor failed to perform any work, resulting
in loss of valuable time, effort, and financial resources. Consequently, the Respondent asserts
that they have suffered reputational loss among customers and financial distress due to criminal
proceedings, yet they are now committed to personally oversee and complete the project within
the revised schedule.
E. Proceedings:
34.

The captioned complaints came up for hearing on multiple dates. The Respondent-

promoter filed several replies in which various explanations were offered for the delay in
execution of the project. The Complainants, including the Association of Allottees, persistently
pressed for expeditious completion of the project. At the outset the Respondent did not
controvert that there had been an inordinate delay even in commencing construction.
35.

By its interim order dated 13.09.2023 the Authority granted limited interim protection

to twenty-four (24) allottees whose agreements had not been registered and restrained the
Respondent-promoter from alienating the subject units pending adjudication of the disputes
before this Authority.
36.

During the course of hearings, the Respondent candidly admitted to serious delays and

attributed them to a multiplicity of causes, namely, financial distress, inability to secure further
funding, withdrawal of the originally engaged contractor, and pendency of certain criminal
proceedings which, according to the Respondent, impeded the on boarding of new development
partners. The Respondent also stated that an amount in excess of Rs. 1.5 crore had been
expended on the project and sought additional time alternatively a direction permitting
initiation of refund processes to either complete the project or refund the amounts collected.
37.

Notwithstanding repeated assurances, the Respondent failed to place before the

Authority any credible, time-bound programme for completion, any substantiating financial
particulars (bank statements, escrow/segregated account details, or binding commitments from
financiers), or any enforceable mechanism to secure completion. The proposals subsequently
filed by the Respondent contained vague references to “pooling of funds” and an imprecise
plan of action, devoid of quantifiable milestones or timelines. In view of the Respondent’s
inability to demonstrate tangible progress or furnish a dependable completion strategy, the
Authority considered it necessary to verify, independently, the factual status of the project.
16 of 35

---

Exercising the powers available to it under Section 35 of the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016, the Authority directed the Engineering Staff College of India
(ESCI) to carry out a technical inspection of the project commonly described as "Jaya
Diamond."
39.

On 01.11.2023 the Complainants brought to the notice of the Authority that a new entity

styled M/s Pranava Realtors India LLP had commenced marketing the project under the
nomenclature “Pranava Diamond”, and that such marketing was being conducted under the
same RERA registration number (P02200004769) originally granted to M/s Jayatthri
Infrastructures. Taking these allegations seriously, the Authority directed the Respondent to
immediately cease all marketing, sale or alienation activities in relation to the project until
further orders.
40.

ESCI, in its inspection report (Ref. No. ESCI/PD/TPQC/TSRERA/05/2023-24),

recorded the nature and stage of the development. The report indicated that the sanctioned
project comprised a stilt plus five upper floors with twelve flats on ea ch floor, aggregating 83
units. As per the inspection, only approximately six per cent (6%) of the total construction work
had been completed as on the date of inspection, leaving the balance 94% substantially
unfinished. The report further recorded that the Respondent had collected Rs. 23,26,85,905/from various homebuyers. A Chartered Accountant’s certificate placed on record estimated the
cost of completion at Rs. 11,82,81,500/- while the amount allegedly expended to date was Rs.
6,22,48,761/-.
41.

Subsequent hearings revealed that the Respondent is unable to demonstrate the ability to

mobilise additional funds, tendered a proposal to initiate refunds to the allottees, subject to the
Authority’s approval. The allottees uniformly rejected the offer. Several allottees emphasised
that, having discharged a substantial portion of the consideration (in many cases more than fifty
per cent), they would not be remedilessly relegated to an option of cancellation, rather, a
significant cohort expressly stated their desire to insist upon completion and delivery of
possession. Many of those who might earlier have considered cancellation informed the
Authority that they no longer sought rescission and instead sought adjudication for completion.
42.

On a fresh complaint bearing No.199 of 2024 was instituted by the Jaya Diamonds

Welfare Association (Registration No. 23 of 2024), representing nearly sixty (60) allottees. The
Association unequivocally stated that its members no longer wished to pursue refunds or
cancellations but sought completion of the project and delivery of possession. It prayed for
revocation of the promoter’s registration under Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and

17 of 35

---

Having regard to the fact that multiple individual complaints related to the very same

project were pending before this Authority and in the interests of judicial economy and
consistent adjudication, the Authority admitted Complaint No.199 of 2024 and ordered that the
earlier individual complaints be clubbed with Complaint No.199, which was designated as the
primary proceeding for final adjudication.
44.

The Authority afforded the Respondent numerous opportunities to file a proper reply

and to place before the Authority all necessary particulars. The Respondent’s non-appearance,
however, became a recurring feature. After several adjournments and unsuccessful attempts to
secure effective representation, a new counsel briefly entered appearance and sought time to
file vakalatnama, copies were collected from the registry but thereafter neither the counsel nor
the any other representatives of the Respondent attended the hearings. Summons issued
repeatedly were returned to the registry with reports of non-availability at the Respondent’s
cited place of residence and office for an extended period. The Authority, having afforded
adequate opportunity and being satisfied that the Respondent had been duly and repeatedly
given chances to be represented, proceeded to hear the matter ex parte.
45.

In sum, the material on record the ESCI report, the Chartered Accountant’s certificate,

the sequence of vague and non-compliant proposals by the Respondent, the repeated assurances
not followed by performance, and the Respondent’s prolonged non-attendance before this
Authority collectively disclose a pattern of non-performance and non-cooperation. These
factual findings, recorded at this stage, form the foundation for the adjudicatory exercise that
follows and will inform the Authority’s consideration of the remedies available under Sections
7, 8 and other relevant provisions of the RE(R&D) Act.
F. Initiation of Proceedings under Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016:
46.

The Authority had initiated proceedings under Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016 in respect of the present project upon a detailed perusal of the
records, submissions, and the material placed on record.
47.

Upon such examination, the Authority, in its Interim Order dated 09.04.2025, made the

following observations while keeping the RERA registration P02200004769 in abeyance.
During the hearing held on 08.11.2023, the Respondent categorically admitted before this
Authority that they were unable to secure any new promoter or financial partner for completion
of the project and expressed willingness to refund the amounts to allottees, thereby admitting
18 of 35

---

The Authority also noted that though the RERA registration of the project reflected a

completion date of 27.04.2025, the Respondent, through the contractual documents executed
with the allottees, had voluntarily advanced the delivery commitment to June 2023. Despite
this, since January 2023, there has been no construction activity at site, not even completion of
foundational work.
49.

The Authority further recorded the following violations and deficiencies committed by

the Respondent Promoter:
a. Failure to complete even 10% of the project construction till date, despite
having contractually committed, through multiple Memoranda of Understanding
and Agreements for Sale, to deliver possession by June 2023.
b. Failure to refund monies to those allottees who opted for cancellation of their
units due to the inordinate delay in project execution, thereby causing grave
financial distress to such allottees.
c. Indulgence in misleading representations before this Authority, by providing
false assurances regarding imminent completion of the project, which remain
unsubstantiated by any credible or documented progress.
d.

Non-compliance

with

Section

11

of

the

RE

(R&D) Act, owing to failure to upload mandatory quarterly progress reports,
thereby depriving stakeholders and allottees of vital project-related disclosures.
e. Violation of Section 13 of the RE(R&D) Act, by accepting more than 10% of the
total consideration from certain allottees without executing a valid Agreement for
Sale, in direct contravention of statutory safeguards.
f. Existence of material discrepancies between the Agreements for Sale uploaded
on the Authority’s website and those actually executed with individual allottees,
raising concerns regarding transparency and contractual fidelity.
g. Failure to secure requisite funding for project completion, despite having
already collected more than 50% of the total sale consideration from each allottee.
The Respondent has neither demonstrated financial prudence nor made credible
efforts to arrange alternative sources of funding, thereby jeopardizing the
legitimate expectations of the allottees and further delaying the execution of the

19 of 35

---

50.

In view of these repeated and persistent defaults, the Authority concluded that the

Respondent promoter has willfully violated the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, engaged in
systemic non-compliance, and demonstrated conduct detrimental to the interests of the
allottees.
51.

Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 20.02.2025 was issued under Section 7 of the

RE(R&D) Act, calling upon the Respondent to explain why the registration of the project “Jaya
Diamond” should not be revoked. The Respondent failed to submit any reply or justification
within the prescribed period. Consequently, the Authority was constrained to draw an adverse
inference and proceed in accordance with law.
52.

Thereafter, by Order dated 09.04.2025, the Authority kept the project in abeyance,

directing the Respondent to produce a verifiable plan for completion or evidence of secured
funding. However, even till date, no such compliance has been made. The Respondent has
remained completely indifferent, failed to demonstrate bona fides, and continued to mislead
both allottees and the Authority through false assurances and lack of sincerity.
53.

The Authority is satisfied that the Respondent has been accorded adequate and repeated

opportunities to rectify defaults and complete the project, yet failed to do so. The conduct of the
Respondent reflects persistent non-compliance and an attitude of willful default under the
RE(R&D) Act.

20 of 35

---

The Authority notes that the project “Jaya Diamond” (Registration No. P02200004769)

was kept in abeyance during pendency of the Section 7 proceedings. However, as the project
registration validity expired on 27.04.2025, the same now stands lapsed by operation of law.
Accordingly, there is no necessity of a separate revocation order under Section 7(3), as the
registration itself has ceased to exist upon lapse.
55.

The consequence of such lapse is explicitly provided under Section 8 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which empowers the Authority to take appropriate
action to ensure completion of the remaining development works through competent agencies,
association of allottees, or any other suitable arrangement deemed fit in the interest of the
allottees. Therefore, in the present case, the Authority deems it appropriate to invoke Section 8
of the RE(R&D) Act and proceed to take necessary steps to secure completion of the project
and safeguard the interests of the allottees.
G. Invocation and Scope of Section 8 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016:
56.

Before proceeding to determine the consequential course of action in the present matter,

this Authority deems it appropriate to comprehensively examine the statutory mandate
embodied under Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016

Section 8: Obligation of Authority consequent upon lapse of or on revocation of
registration.
8. Upon lapse of the registration or on revocation of the registration under this Act, the
Authority, may consult the appropriate Government to take such action as it may deem fit
including the carrying out of the remaining development works by competent authority or
by the association of allottees or in any other manner, as may be determined by the
Authority:
Provided that no direction, decision or order of the Authority under this section shall take
effect until the expiry of the period of appeal provided under the provisions of this Act:
Provided further that in case of revocation of registration of a project under this Act, the
association of allottees shall have the first right of refusal for carrying out of the remaining
development works.

57.

A plain and purposive reading of Section 8 makes it abundantly clear that the legislature

has consciously vested this Authority with wide, supervisory, and remedial powers to ensure
that a stalled or defaulted project does not descend into permanent abandonment merely
because of promoter incapacity or misconduct. Section 8 is not merely procedural, it is a
substantive protective mechanism designed to prevent projects from becoming economic
carcasses and to safeguard the life savings of homebuyers.
21 of 35

---

In the present case, the registration of the project “Jaya Diamond” (Registration No.

P02200004769) has lapsed by operation of law on 27.04.2025. Even prior to such lapse,
proceedings under Section 7 were initiated and the registration was kept in abeyance owing to
persistent, repeated, and systemic defaults committed by the Respondent–Promoter. The
material placed on record, including:

a) The ESCI Technical Inspection Report showing only approximately 6% completion of
construction;
b) Collection of over Rs. 23,26,85,905/- from allottees;
c) Absence of credible financial disclosures;
d) Failure to upload statutory quarterly updates;
e) Violation of Section 13 of the RE(R&D)Act by collecting more than 10% without
execution of Agreements for Sale;
f) Discrepancies between uploaded and executed Agreements;
g) Non-refund to cancellation-seeking allottees
h) Repeated non-appearance before this Authority;
i) Admission of inability to secure funding or development partners
j) Reccuring behaviour in various project of the Promoter namely- Jaya Gold, Jaya
Platinuim, Western Galaxy, Western Weaves, Little Woods-Kondapur
collectively establish not mere delay, but structural and financial incapacity coupled with
regulatory defiance.
59.

The Authority cannot lose sight of the broader pattern of conduct of the Respondent. It

has been brought on record that across multiple projects undertaken by the same promoter,
numerous complaints were adjudicated and some of them pending, in several instances
marketing and sales were undertaken without registration under the RE(R&D) Act, and in at
least one other project, namely “Jaya Platinum” (Complaint No. 1269/2023 & Ors., dated
02.12.2024), the promoter was declared a defaulter under Section 7(4)(a). The present default is
therefore not isolated but forms part of a repeated course of conduct demonstrating disregard
for statutory obligations.
60.

Section 8 is triggered not merely upon formal revocation but also upon lapse of

registration. The legislative design ensures that the interests of allottees do not evaporate with
the promoter’s registration. Once the project stands lapsed or revoked, the Authority assumes a
statutory obligation not discretion in the abstract, but a duty in substance to ensure that the
remaining development works are carried out in a manner that secures completion
22 of 35

---

The second proviso to Section 8 is particularly significant. It confers upon the

Association of Allottees the first right of refusal to carry out the remaining development works.
This statutory recognition reflects the central philosophy of the RE(R&D) Act, that the ultimate
stakeholders in a real estate project are the allottees, and that regulatory intervention must
prioritize their collective interest.
62.

In the present case, the Jaya Diamonds Welfare Association (Registration No. 23 of

2024), representing nearly sixty (60) allottees, has unequivocally expressed its desire not for
refund but for completion. The Association has lost confidence in the Respondent–Promoter
and has specifically prayed for invocation of Section 8 so that the project may be transferred to
the Association for completion. This unified stand of the allottees carries significant weight and
reflects commercial and residential realities many allottees having already paid more than fifty
per cent of the sale consideration.
63.

The Authority is mindful that Section 8 does not mandate automatic displacement of the

existing promoter in every case of lapse. There may arise exceptional circumstances where
delays are attributable to force majeure events or regulatory impediments beyond the
promoter’s control, and where the promoter demonstrates bona fide intent, financial capacity,
and a credible time-bound completion plan. In such circumstances, regulatory discretion may
be exercised to permit continuation under strict supervision.
64.

However, the present case is fundamentally distinguishable. The Respondent has

Admitted incapacity to continue, Failed to secure funding despite substantial collections,
Abandoned proceedings before this Authority, Furnished vague and non-quantifiable proposals,
Misled stakeholders with repeated false assurances and Engaged in systemic violations across
projects. The Authority finds no mitigating factor, no exceptional circumstance, and no credible
rehabilitation proposal warranting further indulgence.
65.

The jurisprudence on the subject further fortifies this interpretation. The Neelkamal

Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India upheld the constitutional validity of the
RE(R&D) Act and recognized the wide amplitude of powers conferred upon the Regulatory
Authority to intervene in order to secure completion of projects and protect allottees’ interests.
The Court acknowledged that such regulatory intervention is in furtherance of public interest
and consumer protection.
66.

Further, in Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while

dealing with large-scale defaults in real estate projects, emphasized that stalled housing projects
cannot be permitted to languish indefinitely and that mechanisms must be employed to secure
completion in order to protect homebuyers. The Supreme Court underscored that regulatory and
23 of 35

---

Guided by the statutory text, legislative intent, and binding judicial precedents, this

Authority is satisfied that:
a) The promoter is no longer in a position financially, administratively, or bona fide to
complete the project;
b) Continued association of the Respondent would only prolong stagnation and prejudice
the allottees;
c) The project cannot be permitted to remain in a state of suspended animation,
d) The Association of Allottees has demonstrated collective intent and readiness to assume
responsibility, subject to regulatory supervision.
68.

The RE(R&D) Act is a welfare legislation. It was enacted to restore faith in the real

estate sector, ensure transparency, and provide time-bound remedies. If, despite overwhelming
defaults, this Authority were to permit the Respondent to retain control, it would amount to
rendering Section 8 otiose and defeating the object of the statute.
69.

The allottees in the present project have waited for years. Construction has stagnated at

foundational level, financial transparency is absent, and regulatory directions have been
ignored. The Authority cannot, in equity or in law, allow the allottees to remain indefinitely at
the mercy of a promoter who has demonstrably abdicated responsibility.
70.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the present case squarely warrants invocation of

Section 8 of the RE(R&D) Act. The lapse of registration of “Jaya Diamond” (P02200004769),
coupled with the promoter’s systemic defaults and admitted incapacity, necessitates transfer of
the remaining development works to a competent mechanism in accordance with Section 8.
71.

In view of the statutory first right conferred upon the Association of Allottees, and

considering their categorical stand seeking completion, this Authority is inclined to proceed
with necessary consultations and regulatory steps for facilitating handover of the project to the
Association of Allottees.
72.

This exercise is not punitive, it is remedial. It is undertaken not to penalize the promoter

alone but to rescue the project, preserve the investments of homebuyers, and restore the
regulatory integrity envisaged under the RE(R&D) Act. The Authority, therefore, concludes
that invocation of Section 8 is not merely justified it is imperative in the facts and
circumstances of the present case. The interests of justice, equity, statutory mandate, and public
confidence in the regulatory framework all converge toward ensuring that the project is

24 of 35

---

Having considered Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,

2016, this Authority now proceeds to examine the organizational, financial, and structural
capability of the Jaya Diamonds Welfare Association to undertake and complete the remaining
development works of the project.
74.

From the tabulation placed on record, it emerges that out of the total 83 units comprised

in the project, 63 flat owners are presently before this Authority through the Jaya Diamonds
Welfare Association. This constitutes more than two-thirds of the total allottees in the project.
It is further placed on record that 12 units are presently mortgaged before competent financial
institutions. The existence of such encumbrances has been duly noted and shall be addressed in
accordance with law during the implementation phase.
75.

The details of the allottees, nature of agreements executed, payment status, and amounts

collected, as submitted by the Association, are tabulated below for ready reference:
S.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Name
Vuppuluri
Yashwanth
Gopi Dakamari
Papana Lakshmi
Samrajyam
Dasari Lakshmi
Sailaja
Satti Geetha Reddy
Sattu Vivekardhana
Reddy
M V R Yashwant
Reddy
Venkata Ramana
Naveen Kumar
Arumalla
Manda Lakshmi
Bhargavi Reddy
K Ravali
T R Vijaya Lakshmi
(Krishna Reddy)
Pushpa Latha
Nagababu D
J Venu Prasad
Khursheeda Yadiki
Nasiruddin
Azad Hussain
Penthala Raju
Machanuru Sree

Flat No.

Consent

MOU / Sale
Deed / AOS

G1

Sale Deed

G2

Sale Deed

G3

Sale Deed

Status of
Payments

Amount
(Rs.)

G4

Received

Sale Deed

Pending

G5

Received

Sale Deed

Statement

6370500

G6

Received

Sale Deed

Statement

6370500

G7

Received

Sale Deed

Received

4509500

G8

Received

MOU

Received

4773750

G9
G10

Sale Deed

G11

Received

Sale Deed

Received

4760000

G12

Received

AOS

Received

3527000

G13
101
102

Received
Received

Sale Deed
MOU
MOU

Received
Received

3631250
2100000

103

Received

MOU

Received

1500000

104
105
106
107

Received

MOU

Received

1500000

Received
Received

MOU
Sale Deed

Received
Received

2246125
4987500

25 of 35

---

Vatsala
Nagubandi Hari
Prasad
Gudipati Prakash Rao
Mallikarjuna Manda
Eggada Supriya
Ram Babu
Satya Narayana
Reddy
Musirika Nagarjuna
Reddy
Mirza Qudsiya
Begum
Dasari Lakshmi
Sailaja
M P V S Naidu
M Bhargavi Reddy
Sujana Kaluva
Garlapati Upender
Reddy
V Rama Rao
P V K Kishore
Kumar
Y Thirumala
Sudha Bhanu (Durga
Prasad)
Shekhar Methuku
Oruganti Mahesh
Reddy
Naveena (Sudheer
Reddy K)
Venakata Prasad
Jogu Shiva Punneth

108

Sale Deed

109
110
111
112
113
114

Received
Received
Received
Received

MOU
MOU
MOU
MOU

Received
Received
Received
Received

2142000
2900000
2150000
3624500

201

Received

Pending

Received

3870000

202

Received

Pending

Received

4046000

203

Received

MOU

Received

3800000

204

Received

Sale Deed

Pending

205
206
207

Received

MOU
Sale Deed
MOU

Received

2000000

Received

4702500

Received

208

5985000

209

Received

MOU

Received

3927000

210

Received

Pending

Received

4000000

210

Received

AOS

Received

2437000

211

Received

MOU

Received

1000000

213

Received

MOU

Received

2319905

214

Received

Pending

Received

6000000

301

Received

MOU

Received

Received
Received

MOU
Sale Deed

Received
Pending

2200000
3808000

K V Veena

302
303
304
305
306

Received

Received

3927000

48

N Lakshmi

307

Received

Received

5700000

49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56

Bhaskar Rao G
Polu Srinivas
Laxman Rao G
T Gayatri
Lavu Sarala Rani
Rama Reddy K
Ramu Chilakamarri
B Koti Reddy
Sudarshan
Chintakindi
J Naveen Prasad

308
309
310
311
312
313
314
401

Received
Received
Received
Pending
Received
Received
Received
Received

MOU
MOU &
AOS
Sale Deed
Sale Deed
Sale Deed
Sale Deed
Sale Deed
MOU
MOU
MOU

Received
Pending
Received
Received
Pending
Received
Pending
Received

5130000
4500580
3867500
3300000

402

Received

Sale Deed

Pending

3880000

403
404
405

Received

MOU

Received

4100000

Received

Sale Deed

Pending

3880000

37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

57
58
59
60

Chittimalla Mallaiah

4000000
4773000

26 of 35

---

76.

M Priyanka
Loka Pavani
Vunnava
Bolla Geetha
Narasimha Alladi
Rama Rao
K Prathyusha
Srinivas K
Kanna Munichandra
Sandhya Rani (Ravi
Kumar S)
Kiran Kumar
Neduri Chandrakala
G Hemanth Reddy
Pola Sirisha c/o M
Omkar
Bhaskara Satya
Prasad

Venkatesh
Bhaskar Pemmasani
Md Nisar
Dastha Giri Reddy
Manda Lakshmi
Bhargavi Reddy

406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414

Received
Received
Received
Received
Received

Sale Deed
Sale Deed
Sale Deed
MOU
AOS
MOU

Received
Received
Received
Pending
Received

501

Received

MOU

Received

502
503
504
505

Received

Received

4760000

Received

Sale Deed
Sale Deed
MOU

Received

1500000

506

Received

Sale Deed

Received

4760000

507

Received

MOU

Received

1000000

Received
Received
Received

MOU
MOU
Sale Deed

Received
Received
Received

1022000
3046000
3800000

508
509
510
511
512
513

3867500
3867500
2201500
2142000

514

Upon recording such majority intent, this Authority directed the Complainant

Association to submit a structured and comprehensive revival proposal, including:
a) Revised construction cost assessment.
b) Financial pooling mechanism and contribution structure;
c) Identification of execution agency/contractor;
d) Stage-wise construction schedule;
e) Estimated completion timeline;
f) Proposed payment schedule;
g) Mechanism for addressing mortgaged units and coordination with secured creditors;
h) Undertaking to comply with all statutory approvals and regulatory filings.
77.

The Association initially submitted proposals, which upon scrutiny were found to

require clarification. Accordingly, further directions were issued for rectification and detailed
substantiation. Thereafter, the Association submitted a revised and consolidated proposal dated
16.02.2026, accompanied by undertakings from its office bearers and participating allottees.

27 of 35

---

This Authority has carefully scrutinized the proposal submitted by the Jaya Diamonds

Welfare Association in the backdrop of the entire material available on record. The scrutiny has
been undertaken keeping in view the ESCI technical inspection findings, which reveal that the
project has progressed only to the extent of approximately six per cent completion. The
Authority has further considered the substantial amounts already collected by the Respondent
Promoter from the allottees, the financial exposure and vulnerability of the homebuyers, the
complete absence of any viable or time-bound completion proposal from the Respondent, and
the categorical admission of incapacity expressed by the Respondent during the course of
earlier hearings.
79.

The lapse of the project registration, the statutory mandate embedded under Section 8 of

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the first right of refusal conferred
upon the Association of Allottees have also been taken into due consideration. The Authority
has examined the matter not merely from a procedural standpoint, but from the standpoint of
ensuring substantive justice and safeguarding the legitimate expectations of the allottees, whose
life savings are locked in the project.
80.

Upon an overall appreciation of the facts and circumstances, this Authority is satisfied

that the Respondent–Promoter has irretrievably failed in the discharge of its statutory and
contractual obligations. The material on record demonstrates not a temporary setback, but a
structural inability and unwillingness to complete the project. The project, in the considered
opinion of this Authority, cannot be revived under the control of the existing promoter.

81.

At the same time, the Association of Allottees has demonstrated organizational

cohesion, majority backing, and a structured proposal for revival. The financial pooling
mechanism, stage-wise construction plan, and undertakings furnished by the Association, when
viewed in conjunction with regulatory supervision, appear feasible and implementable.
Continuation of the present stalemate would only aggravate the prejudice already suffered by
the allottees and would defeat the very object of the RE(R&D) Act.
82.

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 8 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and upon due consideration of the entire material on
record, this Authority holds that the project “Jaya Diamond” (Registration No. P02200004769)
shall be handed over to the Jaya Diamonds Welfare Association for the regulated, and

28 of 35

---

In accordance with the mandate under Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, this Authority has consulted the Government of Telangana through Letter
No. 1849/TGRERA/2024 dated 20.02.2025, and the requisite permission has been granted via
Memo No. No. 5791/Plg.III/2024 dated 12.09.2025.
H. Directions of the Authority:
84.

In the light of these aspects, the Authority proceeds to pass the following Order:

1. The Jaya Diamonds Welfare Association is hereby permitted under Section 8 of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016 to take over the project “Jaya Diamond” (Registration No.
P02200004769) for the regulated purpose of completing the remaining development
works.
2. The project shall be completed within a period of 24 months, with a grace period of 3
months, commencing from the date of formal handing over of possession and records.
3. A monitoring committee shall be constituted consisting of officials of the Authority
dedicated to overseeing the project's progress and construction. This committee shall
include an official from the MA&UD Department, a representative from ZC/DC OF
Cyberabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad, the Local SRO or their nominee, the
Local Tahsildar or their nominee as nominated by the DRO, an officer from TG RERA,
one member nominated by CREDAI, one member nominated by NAREDCO,
Secretary of UFERWAS-United Federation of Resident’s Welfare Associations,
Treasurer and President of Association of Allottees, and one member from ESCI.
Additionally, a concurrent auditor shall be appointed by the Association to carry out
audits on a concurrent basis. The Convener of the Monitoring Committee shall be the
Executive Director-I of TG RERA. Updates on the committee’s activities and progress
shall be presented to the Authority during its monthly meetings, preferably in the 4th
week of every month.
4. The association shall not inherit any liability incurred by the respondent-promoter in
the past. Any liability incurred by the respondent/promoter in respect of the project
shall remain with the responsibility of the respondent /promoter only. The Association
shall take over the project free from all charges, liabilities, or encumbrances. All
demands from local or state authorities against the respondent-promoter for liabilities
incurred before the project's takeover shall be directed to the respondent-promoter.
29 of 35

---

(a)Chairman:

Responsible for overseeing the entire project.
(b)Treasurer: Responsible for managing finances and budgets.
(c)Project Manager: Responsible for supervising construction and liaise with the
contractor/s.
(d)Legal Advisor: Responsible for handling legal compliance and documentation.
(e)Communication Officer: Responsible for engaging with allottees regularly and
communicating important or critical updates to them.
6. The Association must issue tender notices/invitations for prospective bidders to
undertake construction works for the project. After receiving tenders, contracts will be
awarded to the lowest bidders with the Approval of the General Body of the allottees.
The Association is advised to prepare proper tender documents in consultation with
subject matter experts, divided into two parts: a technical bid and a financial bid. Only
those bidders who qualify in the technical bid should have their financial bids opened.
Tender notices and associated documents must be approved by the Core Management
Committee (CMC) of the Association of Allottees. The tenders should be opened and
evaluated by the CMC, and upon their approval, the final recommendations should be
presented to and approved by the General Body of the Association of Allottees. Once
approved, the same should also be submitted to the Monitoring Committee.
7. The Core Management Committee (CMC) of the Association of Allottees shall ensure
that each contractor or agency involved in the project appoints a senior representative
who will be available on a regular basis at predetermined times to provide updates on
the progress of the project and address any concerns raised by the allottees. The contact
details (including phone numbers and email addresses) of the appointed representatives
shall be made available to the allottees and prominently displayed on a permanent
notice board at the project site. These contact details shall also be submitted to the
Monitoring Committee for record-keeping.
8. The Authority clarifies that, before awarding tenders, at least 25% of the total funds
required for project completion should be collected and placed into the association's
project escrow account. This ensures a smooth flow of construction once work begins.

30 of 35

---

31 of 35

---

---

---

---

(DTCP),

Development

Hyderabad;

Authority

the

(HMDA);

Commissioner,
the

Hyderabad

Commissioner,

Metropolitan

Cyberabad

Municipal

Corporation; the Zonal Commissioner, Quthbullapur Zone; Deputy Commissioner,
Nizampet Circle CMC; the concerned Police Authorities; and the District Collector,
Medchal–Malkajgiri District, with a request to extend necessary assistance and provide
adequate security to the Association of Allottees at the time of taking over possession
of the project, if so required.
38. A copy of this Order shall also be forwarded to the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar
concerned, with a direction that no document, instrument, agreement, conveyance, or
any other record purporting to create or transfer any right, title, interest, charge, or
encumbrance in respect of any unit or portion of the project “Jaya Diamond”
(Registration No. P02200004769) shall be registered at the instance of the Respondent–
Promoter or any person claiming through or under him, without prior written approval
of this Authority, until further orders. This direction is issued in exercise of powers
under Section 8 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, to ensure that no third-party rights are
created during the subsistence of the present regulatory arrangement.
39. The Secretary, Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA), is hereby
directed to initiate all necessary administrative steps for the constitution and
operationalization of the Monitoring Committee in terms of this Order. The Committee
shall be formally notified at the earliest. Further, the Secretary is directed to upload this
Order on the project registration web page of the TG RERA website forthwith.
Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

35 of 35

---