Interim Order Complaint No.228 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 15th April, 2026
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO. 228/2025/TGRERA

Serenity Park Flat Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society Limited.
Represented by – Mrs Manjulatha Uppalapati (President)
(Club House, Sy. No. 1/2, Serenity Park Apartments,
Sunday Market Road, Kokapet (V),
Gandipet (M), Ranga Reddy (D) 500075)
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Qualitas Golden Enclave Pvt. Ltd. (Represented by Mr. Mani Manjiri Dasari)
(W-2, Tapasya Apartments FLR-2, Plot - 17 & 22,
Gandipet, Gayatri Enclave, Narsingi)
2. Gangidi Shiva Reddy
(10-78/B/801, Tower (B), Serenity Park Apartments,
Near Govt. School, Shanthi Nagar Road,
Kokapet, KV Rangareddy, Telangana 500075)
3. Gangidi Prabhakar Reddy
(10-78/A/801, Tower (A), Serenity Park Apartments,
Near Govt. School, Shanthi Nagar Road,
Kokapet, KV Rangareddy, Telangana 500075)
4. Gangidi Shyam Sunder Reddy
(B-2001, Jayabheri The Peak, Toll to Kokapet,
Pipe Line Rd, Narsingi, Telangana 500075)
5. Muddam Vijaya Lakshmi
(H. No: 8-1-164/2, Pragathi Colony,
Mailardevpalle, Rajendra Nagar,
Rangareddy, Telangana, 500077)
…Respondents
Page 1 of 7

---

It was submitted that Respondent No. 1 was a company engaged in the business of real

estate development and construction. Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 5 were the owners
of the land admeasuring Ac 2-00 Guntas in Survey Nos. 1/2, situated at Kokapet Village,
Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, designated as the project land. The said landowners
offered the land to Respondent No. 1 by way of a Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney (DGPA), bearing Document No. 2796 of 2016, dated April 18, 2016. This
agreement was executed for the purpose of developing a residential apartment complex
comprising a basement, stilt, and eight upper floors under the name and style of "Serenity
Park." The project was subsequently granted a RERA registration certificate, bearing No.
P02400000100, on December 21, 2018.
3.

As per the terms of the DGPA, it was mutually agreed that Respondent No. 1 would

complete all the amenities of the project prior to handing over the physical possession of the
flats. Following the widespread advertisement of the project through brochures and based on
the explicit representations made by the Respondents that all amenities would be completed
upon handing over possession, the members of the Complainant society purchased flats in the
project. These purchases were formalized through Agreements for Sale (AOS) and Sale Deeds,
the formats of which were unilaterally prescribed by the Respondents.
4.

Detailing the financial aspects, it was submitted that per the terms of the AOS, the

Respondents had collected a total Corpus Fund of Rs. 1,60,00,000 (Rupees One Crore Sixty
Lakhs Only), calculated at Rs. 1,00,000 per flat for the 160 flats in the project. Furthermore, as
per the terms of the AOS and the Sale Deeds, the Respondents had collected monies from the
Complainant's members as advance maintenance charges, payable at the rate of Rs. 3 per square
foot per month for a period of two years, intended for the maintenance and management of the
common areas and amenities within the project.
5.

It was averred that despite these collections, Respondent No. 1 did not complete all the

amenities as promised under the brochure, the DGPA, the AOS, and the Sale Deeds. Instead,
Page 2 of 7

---

Due to the incomplete handover, the pending issues regarding the Corpus Fund and

Maintenance accounts, the failure of Respondent No. 1 to properly complete the project and
resolve defects, and the pressing need to maintain the project to prevent further suffering of the
members, all the allottees were constrained to formally constitute the Complainant society on
June 6, 2024.
7.

It was submitted that the Complainant continuously followed up with the Respondents

regarding the ongoing issues, but the Respondents evaded them on various pretexts. Finally, a
meeting was conducted on December 29, 2023, where the Respondents agreed to resolve all
identified issues. Despite this, the Respondents also failed to hand over the Corpus Fund and
failed to render true statements or receipts for the Maintenance amounts collected and
disbursed, providing only incomplete statements that did not account for all 160 flats.
Consequently, the Complainant issued a notice on August 1, 2024, demanding the payment of
the Corpus Fund and Maintenance amounts. This led to subsequent meetings on August 1,
2024, and August 22, 2024, to discuss pending issues and payment timelines.
8.

Aggrieved by the continued inaction and failure of the Respondents to resolve any

issues, the Complainant issued a legal notice on November 7, 2024. Respondent No. 1 issued
a reply notice on November 25, 2024, containing baseless denials and attempting to shift the
blame onto the Complainant, although notably failing to deny its liability to refund the Corpus
Fund and render true accounts.
9.

The Complainant extensively detailed the statutory contraventions committed by the

Respondents. It was submitted that the Agreement for Sale executed by the Respondents was
not in compliance with the format prescribed under Rule 38 and the corresponding Annexure
of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. Furthermore, it was
alleged that the Respondents fraudulently misrepresented on the TS RERA website that they
had executed the prescribed format, thereby misleading the authorities and future allottees.
Page 3 of 7

---

The Complainant provided a comprehensive and detailed list of the uncompleted

amenities and glaring defects in the project, despite the issuance of the Occupancy Certificate:
First, Respondent No. 1 failed to install electric fencing near the temple at the front entrance,
causing significant safety concerns and enabling unauthorized entry. Second, the promised
cupboards for document storage in the clubhouse room were not provided. Third, the banquet
hall facilities lacked a promised background frame and a music system with an amplifier.
Fourth, the clubhouse facilities were entirely devoid of water filters and gardening tools. Fifth,
while a second generator was installed, it had not been tested with load, nor was it operated,
leaving its capacity and operational status unverified. Sixth, regarding the Sewage Treatment
Plant (STP), although installed, its capacity was unverified and it was not made operational. In
this regard, the Commissioner of Narsingi Municipality had issued a notice dated December
12, 2024 (Notice No. 01/NMC/2024), threatening legal action against the Complainants
because untreated sewage was being directed into municipal lines due to the STP's nonfunctionality. It was noted that Respondent No. 1 had falsely denied the STP's non-operational
status in its reply notice dated November 25, 2024. Seventh, no exit drain pipes were provided
at the basketball and tennis courts, leading to water clogging and damage. Eighth, equipment
at the swimming pool, specifically umbrellas and lounge chairs promised in the brochure, were
not provided.
11.

The Complainant further submitted that the Respondents had committed offenses under

Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003. A letter dated November 14, 2024, from the Southern
Power Distribution Company of TG Limited (SPDC) revealed that electricity for the clubhouse
was being improperly billed under domestic usage instead of commercial usage. This resulted
in a penalty of Rs. 6,44,634 being levied, which the Complainant was constrained to pay
(totaling Rs. 6,44,809) to ensure continued supply. It was discovered that this was a repeated
occurrence, with previous notices and orders issued by SPDC in March 2022 and October 2024
regarding the misuse of electricity, all of which had been deliberately suppressed by the
Respondents.
12.

In addition to the incomplete amenities, the Complainant detailed numerous repairs

necessitated by deficient services and improper maintenance by Respondent No. 1 during the
two-year maintenance period: The lawn grass and sand in the kids' play area were not
maintained. Improper flooring installed in the clubhouse on the terrace caused water leakage
to the eighth floor below. The mats and flooring at the basketball/tennis courts were damaged,
posing a safety hazard. Seepage in the cellar/basement ceilings and walls occurred due to poor
Page 4 of 7

---

Addressing the severe harassment faced by the residents, it was submitted that an FIR

(Crime No. 1789 of 2024) was registered on December 9, 2024, at the Narsingi Police Station
against Respondent No. 2 (Mr. G. Shiva Reddy, Landowner) under Sections 79, 351(2), and
324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR detailed that he harassed female
residents, engaged in altercations with security guards, and caused significant damage to the
entry and exit barricades, resulting in the security personnel abandoning the premises. It was
further averred that when Respondent No. 2 was repeatedly requested to deposit the Corpus
Fund with the Association, he retaliated by damaging the project complex buildings.
14.

It was also submitted that Respondent No. 2, with mala fide intent to arm-twist the

Complainant into halting their lawful requests for the Corpus Fund, began filing baseless
complaints before statutory authorities. Relying on one such baseless complaint claiming noncompliance with approvals, the Municipal Commissioner of Narsingi Municipality issued a
Show Cause Notice to the Complainant on January 23, 2025. It was highlighted that all
approvals had been obtained by the landowners themselves, and flats were sold based on their
own representations.
15.

In conclusion, it was submitted that the Respondents repeatedly broke their promises

and breached the trust of the Complainant. Having collected the full sale consideration upfront
on false assurances, the Respondents deliberately prolonged the completion of the project and
the provision of amenities, attempting to deflect and escape their responsibilities. The actions
and inactions of the Respondents clearly indicated a mala fide intent to cheat and unjustly
enrich themselves, causing profound inconvenience and hardship to the Complainants due to

Page 5 of 7

---

Pending the adjudication and disposal of this complaint, the Respondent be directed to
deposit the amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lakhs Only)
(calculated at Rs.1,00,000/- per flat/allottee for 160 flats) i.e. the Corpus Fund due and
payable by the Respondents to the Complainant, with this Hon'ble Authority to secure
the amount payable to the Complaints.

ii.

Any other interim relief that this Hon'ble Authority deems fit and proper on the facts
and in the circumstance of this case, in the interest of justice.

16.

This Authority observes that the Corpus Fund is a critical and essential reserve

collected from allottees at the time of purchase, intended to meet the long-term maintenance
requirements, repair works, and future capital expenditure of the project. Once the project is
handed over and the Association of Allottees is constituted and registered, the Corpus Fund
must necessarily be transferred to and held in the official account of the said Association, so as
to enable the allottees to effectively maintain and manage the common areas and amenities of
the project.
17.

In the present case, the total Corpus Fund collected from the allottees amounts to Rs.

1,60,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lakhs Only), calculated at Rs. 1,00,000/- per flat for
160 flats. As per the Addendum Supplementary Deed to the Development Agreement-cumGeneral Power of Attorney dated 26.04.2021, the sharing arrangement between the parties was
clearly delineated, whereby Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, being the landowners, were entitled to a
44% share of the apartments, equivalent to 70 flats, and Respondent No. 1, being the developer,
was entitled to the remaining 56% share, equivalent to 90 flats, out of the total of 160 flats in
the project. In accordance with this sharing arrangement, the Corpus Fund collected from the
respective allottees of each party's share would correspondingly be attributable to and held by
that party. The project is presently being maintained by the Complainant, namely the Serenity
Park Flat Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-Operative Society Limited, which has been
duly constituted by the allottees. It is placed on record that Respondent No. 1 has already
remitted an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Only) towards its share of the
Corpus Fund collected by it in respect of its 90 flats, to the Complainant association. With
regard to Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, it has been submitted before this Authority during the course
Page 6 of 7

---

This Authority is of the considered view that a prima facie case is made out for directing

the remittance of the balance Corpus Fund to the Complainant association. The Corpus Fund,
being collected for the specific purpose of maintenance and upkeep of the project, must be held
and managed by the Association of Allottees, which is presently discharging the responsibility
of maintaining the project. The continued retention of the said funds by Respondent Nos. 2 to
5 is unjustified and prejudicial to the interests of the allottees.
19.

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 36 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, this Authority hereby passes the following
INTERIM ORDER:
i.

Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, namely Sri Gangidi Shiva Reddy, Sri Gangidi Prabhakar
Reddy, Sri Gangidi Shyam Sunder Reddy, and Smt. Muddam Vijaya Lakshmi, are
hereby directed to remit the balance Corpus Fund amount of ₹70,00,000/- (Rupees
Seventy Lakhs only), together with interest at the rate of the prevailing State Bank of
India MCLR + 2% per annum (calculated from the respective dates of deposit by the
allottees), to the official bank account of the Complainant association, namely
Serenity Park Flat Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Co-operative Society
Limited, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of this Order.

ii.

Failure to comply with the above directions within the stipulated period shall attract
further action in accordance with Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.

20.

The matter is posted for further hearing on 10.06.2026.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

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

Page 7 of 7

---