Order Complaint No. 105 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
16th Day of May 2025
Corum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

COMPLAINT NO.105 OF 2024
1. Sri M. Prem Kumar
2. Ms. Steffi Vaz
3. Ms. Naziya Firdous
4. Sri Mohd. Naseeruddin
5. Ms. Shaziya Sultana
6. Sri Besi Praveen Kumar
7. Sri B. Pavan Kumar
8. Sri M. Raghu Ram Mahalingam
9. Ms. Aparna Kumari
10. Sri Y. Satyanarayana
11. Sri Ravindra Bandari
12. Sri Jagadeesh Kumar V.
13. Sri Pendyala Kondayya
14. Sri Sandeep Varma
15. Sri B. Naresh Kumar
16. Sri Palli Santosh Kumar
17. Sri Muntimadugu Mahesh Kumar
All Represented by
Sri M. Prem Kumar
R/0 H. No. 14-120, Kodandaram nagar, Dilsukhnagar,
Saroornagar, P & T colony, Saroornagar,
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana- 500060
…Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP,
represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
2. Sri Chekka Bhagyalaxmi
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
3. Sri K Balaji
K.Balaji, plot No.73, western Homes, Phase II,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

…Respondents

1

COMPLAINT NO.130 OF 2024
1. Sri Ramesh Elkaturi
2. Sri Chakradhara Poturaju
3. Sri Prasanna Siddireddy
4. Sri Santosh Kumar Panguluri
5. Sri Syam Sundaram Atukula
6. Sri Mekala Suresh
7. Ms. Peddi Prashanthi
8. Sri Sapelly Kondaiah
9. Sri Sapelly Srikanth
10. Sri Shaik Kabeer
11. Ms. MNV Pallavi
12. Ms. Seshavalli Gayatri Mopidevi
13. Sri Bantu Srikanth
14. Sri Padigela Ravi Kumar
15. Sri Chalumuri Sreenivas
16. Sri Dasarapu Sunil
17. Sri Kanukuntla Gangaiah
18. Sri Boragala Rajendar
19. Ms. Kanakam Rajani
20. Sri Lingamurthy Kyatham
21. Sri Raghavendran Vijayshankar
22. Ms. Divvela Uma
23. Sri Vijay Kumar Matta
All Represented by Sri Ramesh Elkaturi
Flat no. 101, Bommarillu Residency,
Gayatri Nagar Colony, Godavari Homes,
Suchitra, Hyderabad- 500067
…Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP,
represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
2. Sri Chekka Bhagyalaxmi
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
3. Sri K Balaji
K.Balaji, plot No.73, western Homes, Phase II,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
…Respondents

2

COMPLAINT NO.135 OF 2024
Smt. Gundala Swarna Manjiri
H.No. 8-2-268/1/7, Srinikethan Colony,
Banjara Hills, Road 3, Hyderabad-500034
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP,
represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
2. Sri Chekka Bhagyalaxmi
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
3. Sri K Balaji
K.Balaji, plot No.73, western Homes, Phase II,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
…Respondents
COMPLAINT NO.137 OF 2024
1. Sri Siddam Reddy Rajini Kantha Reddy
2. Sri Mahesh Jeruganti
3. Sri Guda Surya Prakash Reddy
4. Sri Kandi Naresh
5. Smt. Musunuri Vijaya Durga Bhavani
All Represented by
Sri Siddamreddy Rajinikantha Reddy
Flat no. 101, Bommarillu Residency,
Gayatri Nagar Colony, Godavari Homes,
Suchitra, Hyderabad- 500067
…Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP,
represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
2. Sri Chekka Bhagyalaxmi
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
3. Sri K Balaji
K.Balaji, plot No.73, western Homes, Phase II,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

…Respondents

3

COMPLAINT NO.200 OF 2024
1. Sri Yugendar Macharla
2. Ms. Tumathi Sindhu
3. Sri G. Ramesy
4. Sri V. Hari Krishna
5. Sri Lokender Singh
6. Ms. Prathyusha Engati
7. Ms. Namrata Shalini
8. Sri C. Krishna Teja
9. Sri C. Nishanth
10. Sri Shubham.G
11. Ms.L. Nirmala
12. Sri Roshan Zameer
All Represented by
Yugender Macharla
H.No.50, Laharijade residenza, Bhanoor,
Mdl. Patancheru. Dist: Sangareddy. TS 502305
…Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP,
represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
2. Sri Chekka Bhagyalaxmi
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
3. Sri K Balaji
K.Balaji, plot No.73, western Homes, Phase II,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
…Respondents
COMPLAINT NO.202 OF 2024
Ms. Ejanthkar Varsha
Villa no 180, Sark Garden Villa
Mokila- Shankar Pally Mandal
Ranga Reddy District- PIN NO 501203
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP,
represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072

4

2. Sri Chekka Bhagyalaxmi
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
3. Sri K Balaji
K.Balaji, plot No.73, western Homes, Phase II,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
…Respondents
COMPLAINT NO.203 OF 2024
Ms. Uma Maheswari P
H.No. 1-4-27-72/28, Padmashali Colony,
Kavadiguda, secunderabad-500080
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP,
represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
2. Sri Chekka Bhagyalaxmi
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
3. Sri K Balaji
K.Balaji, plot No.73, western Homes, Phase II,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
… Respondents

COMPLAINT NO.204 OF 2024
Ms. Shabnam Jabeen
Flat 204, Sourya Soudha Apartments,
KPHB Phase 6, KPHB, Hyderabad-500085
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP,
represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
2. Sri Chekka Bhagyalaxmi
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,

5

Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
3. Sri K Balaji
K.Balaji, plot No.73, western Homes, Phase II,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
…Respondents
COMPLAINT NO.205 OF 2024
Sri Honey Babu Rao
Flat 204, Sourya Soudha Apartments,
KPHB Phase 6, KPHB, Hyderabad-500085
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP,
represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
2. Sri Chekka Bhagyalaxmi
H. No. 15-31, RTP-1, Flat No. 406, Rain Tree Park,
Malaysia Township, Near Club House,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
3. Sri K Balaji
K.Balaji, plot No.73, western Homes, Phase II,
Kavuri Hills, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.
…Respondents
The present Complaint Nos.105/2024, 130/2024, 135/2024 and 137/2024
filed by the Complainants above-named came up for final hearing on 18.12.2024 and
whereas the Complaint Nos.200/2024, 202/2024, 203/2024, 204/2024 &
205/2024 came up for final hearing on 23.01.2025 before this Authority in the
presence of Complainants in person and Respondent No.3 in person, and none for
the remaining Respondent Nos.1 & 2 despite service of notice who entered
appearance through Counsel, Sri V.M.N.S. Prasad, Sri U. Narendra and Sri Govind
Narayana Swami in Complaint No.105/2024, and upon hearing the arguments, this
Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaints have 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”) seeking appropriate directions to the
Respondents.

6

A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainants in Complaint No.105/2024 also made Sri Potturu Rama

Kumar as Respondent No.4 along with Respondents No. 1-3, however as the
Complainants therein failed to give appropriate address, notice was not served.
Thereafter, as per Complainants’ request, said Respondent No.4, Sri Potturu Rama
Kumar has been deleted from the array of parties in the Complaint No.105/2024.
4.

The Complainants submitted that they entered into un-registered Agreements

of Sale with the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 for the purchase of a flat in the project named
"Aura (VELIMALA)", located at Velimala Village & (G.P), Ramachandrapuram Mandal,
Sanga Reddy district, Telangana. That as per the agreement, the possession of the
flat was to be handed over by December 2023, however, despite the commitment
made in the agreement, the construction of the project had been significantly delayed
and as of 19.06.2024, the Project was only 20% (twenty percent) completed.
5.

The Complainants have made several attempts to communicate with the

Respondents regarding the delay, yet there was no response or have been provided
vague and non-committal responses. The Complainants further submitted that the
delay in possession has caused severe financial hardship as they were burdened with
paying both the rent for current residence and the EMI for the home loan taken for
this flat. Additionally, the uncertainty and repeated delays have caused significant
mental distress.
6.

It was submitted that the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 may be diverting funds

collected from new buyers to other projects, which was evident from the ongoing
marketing and sales activities for the unsold flats in the same project. That such
diversion of funds is likely contributing to the delay in the completion of the project
and is against the interests of existing buyers. When Complainants visited the site
location multiple times, it was observed that in this project flats with slab and side
walls up to two floors on A-Block and B-Block did not start till date.
7.

It was submitted that the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 agreed in the respective

agreement of sale that if Respondent No.1 failed to deliver the project by Dec 2023,
they shall pay the rent from next month onwards i.e. January 2024 to the allottees

7

till the handing over of the flat. However, despite multiple reminders, there was no
response from Respondent No.1 in this regard.
8.

It was also submitted that as the Respondents have not registered the land in

favour of the Complainants herein and hence, they were concerned that the
Respondents may sell the project land to other buyers without any notice. They
added that the delay in obtaining HMDA approval for other blocks and failure to
apply for RERA registration (more than three years after the commencement of the
project or sale of the apartments) also raises concerns about possible irregularities
with respect to the Respondents' lands and means involved.
B. Relief sought:
9.

Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondents, the Complainants prayed for the

following:
i.

Direct the respondent to complete the construction and, handover possession
of the flat within a stipulated time frame.

ii.

Refund the amount paid along with interest if the respondent fails to complete
the project within the stipulated time.

iii.

Rectify any defects in the construction as per the agreed specifications.

C. Counter on behalf of Respondent No.3
10.

On 15.10.2024, Respondent No.3 filed reply submitting that originally, the

Respondent No.3 was the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Ac. 016 Gts., along with H.No. 6-56/1 admeasuring 214 Sq. Yds., situated in Sy. Nos.
213/P and 214 of Velimela Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District.
That in the year 2020 and 2021, Respondent No.3 had alienated the said land in
favour of Respondent No.1 through the execution of registered SGPA and sale deeds
at SRO Sangareddy, thereby transferring all rights, title, and interest in the property
to the purchaser.
11.

That subsequent to the said sale, Respondent No.3 does not have any legal or

beneficial interest in the subject land, either directly or indirectly. The transaction
concluded through the registered sale deeds and all rights over the property in
question have been duly transferred to the Respondent No.1. He further submitted
that Respondent No.1 had undertaken a project for the construction of residential

8

flats on the said property. Respondent No.3 is not privy to the terms and conditions
under which Respondent No.1 executed agreements with prospective purchasers,
nor does Respondent No.3 hold any knowledge of the subsequent developments or
transactions concerning the said project.
12.

It was also submitted that the claims raised in the complaint filed before this

Authority pertain to allegations against Respondent No.1, particularly concerning
their default in delivering possession of residential flats. That Respondent No.3 has
no role, liability, or association with the operations, agreements, or defaults of
Respondent No.1, nor does Respondent No.3 have any contractual or legal
relationship with any of the parties involved in the complaint.
13.

He submitted that Respondent No.3’s inclusion as a party respondent to the

complaint appears to be a case of misjoinder. The complaint against Respondent
No.3 seems to be based solely on his historical ownership of the land, which he had
lawfully sold several years prior to the initiation of the present dispute. That he is in
no way connected to the subject matter of the dispute concerning the delivery of flats,
agreements for sale, or any other obligations related to the project undertaken by
Respondent No.1. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the Complaint against him.
D. Points for consideration:
14.

In deliberation of the above-stated facts and the documents filed in support of

their contention, the following issues sprout for consideration:
I.

Whether the Respondents have violated Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, 2016
by not registering the Project – “Aura Velimala” with this Authority and
whether they are liable for punishment under Sections 59 & 60 thereof?

II.

Whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If yes,
to what extent?

E. Observations of the Authority
Point I
15.

Upon comprehensive examination of the material on record and having regard

to the submissions made, this Authority is of the considered view that Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 are liable under Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (“the Act”) for undertaking a real estate project without
obtaining mandatory registration with this Authority.

9

16.

It is evident from the documents filed by the Complainants that M/s

Bhuvanteza Infrastructures LLP, represented by Smt. Chekka Bhagya Laxmi,
obtained two permissions from the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority
(HMDA) for development of a residential project, details of which are as follows:
1. Application No. 044288/ZOA/R1/U6/HMDA/18032021 dated 18.03.2021 –
for a residential building comprising 1 cellar + 1 ground + 5 upper floors in
Survey

Nos.

212/P,

214/P

&

215/P,

Velimala-ORRGC

Village,

Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, over an extent of 3,954.39
sq. mts. technical approval was accorded on 06.07.2023.
2. Application No. 046028/ZOA/R1/U6/HMDA/27052021 dated 27.05.2021 –
for a similar residential development in Survey Nos. 212/P, 213/P & 214/P of
the same village and mandal, spread across 3,358.76 sq. mts.
17.

These two HMDA permissions, individually as well as cumulatively (covering

over 7,300 square metres), clearly satisfy the threshold stipulated under Section 3(2)
of the said Act, which mandates that any real estate project exceeding 500 square
metres in area or involving more than 8 apartments must be registered with the Real
Estate Regulatory Authority before any form of marketing, advertisement, booking,
or sale is undertaken. Section 3(1) of the Act states as follows:
“No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to
purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, in any
real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate
project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under this Act.”
18.

In the instant case, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, despite having obtained

statutory approvals and permissions for substantial residential development,
proceeded to advertise, market, and enter into agreements of sale with various buyers
without registering the project, now identified as “Aura Velimala Phase–1”, with this
Authority. Without having obtained registration under Section 3, the Respondent
Nos.1 & 2 could not have executed the agreements of sale with the Complainants
which constitutes a glaring violation of Sections 3.
19.

The execution of unregistered agreements of sale and acceptance of

substantial amounts from homebuyers is established through the documents
submitted by the Complainants, which further affirms that the project falls
undisputedly within the ambit of Section 3.

10

20.

Furthermore, Section 4(1) of the Act obligates every promoter to submit a

formal application to the Authority for registration of the project in a prescribed form
and manner prior to initiating any transaction or communication with prospective
buyers. There is no material on record to indicate that such an application was ever
made by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The absence of such application coupled with
actual execution of sale agreements clearly shows wilful non-compliance.
21.

The Respondent’s plea that certain statutory approvals were pending or

that registration was in process, cannot serve as a legal justification for such noncompliance. The Act makes no exception for provisional or pending applications; the
prohibition under Section 3(1) is absolute and unequivocal.
22.

This Authority also takes judicial note of the Respondent’s conduct across

multiple projects within its jurisdiction. In numerous cases involving similarly
situated allottees, the Respondent has habitually indulged in the practice of
undertaking real estate development without obtaining registration, thereby
defeating the very object and purpose of the Act. The repetitive and conscious pattern
of non-compliance evinces deliberate disregard for the statutory mandate and
regulatory framework, and undermines the rights and entitlements of homebuyers.
23.

In view of the foregoing, this Authority holds that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2

have violated Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2016, by initiating marketing and sale of
units in the project “Aura Velimala Phase–1” without securing the mandatory
registration. Accordingly, the Respondents are liable for penalty under Sections 59
and 60 of the RE (R&D)Act, 2016. These provisions explicitly state that
“If any promoter contravenes the provisions of Section 3, he shall be liable to a penalty
which may extend up to ten per cent of the estimated cost of the real estate project as
determined by the Authority.” (Section 59(1))
“If any promoter provides false information or contravenes the provisions of Section 4,
he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend up to five per cent of the estimated
cost of the real estate project as determined by the Authority.” (Section 60)

24.

The contraventions in question are not minor or technical, but go to the
root of the regulatory framework designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and
protection of the allottees in the real estate sector.

11

25.

However, with respect to the liability of Respondent No.3, it is evident from
the counter submitted by him that he is merely an individual who had transferred
the land upon which the present project is being undertaken by Respondent
Nos.1 and 2. Upon the absolute and complete alienation of his rights and title in
the said land to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, no residual, direct, or vested interest
subsists in favour of Respondent No.3. Consequently, he cannot be held liable for
any wrongful acts or omissions attributable to Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

26.

Therefore, Point I is answered in affirmative, and it is held that the Respondent

Nos.1 & 2 have violated Sections 3 & 4 by selling, marketing and advertising without
registering the Project “Aura Velimala Phase – 1” with RERA and hence they are
jointly liable for penalty under Sections 59 & 60, respectively.
Point II
27.

Now, this Authority proceeds to examine whether the Complainants are

entitled to relief under the applicable provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (“the Act”). The following table shown is for the ease of
understanding the facts:
S.No.
1.
2.
3.

Complaint
No.
105/2024
105/2024
105/2024

4.
5.
6.
7.

105/2024
105/2024
105/2024
105/2024

8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

105/2024
105/2024
105/2024
105/2024
105/2024
105/2024
105/2024
105/2024
105/2024

17.
18.

130/2024
130/2024

Complainant name
Sri M. Prem Kumar
Ms. Steffi Vaz
Ms. Naziya Firdous & Sri
Mohd. Naseeruddin

Ms. Shaziya Sultana
Sri Besi Praveen Kumar
Sri B. Pavan Kumar
Sri M. Raghu Ram
Mahalingam
Ms. Aparna Kumari
Sri Y. Satyanarayana
Sri Ravindra Bandari
Sri Jagadeesh Kumar V.
Sri Pendyala Kondayya
Sri Sandeep Varma
Sri B. Naresh Kumar
Sri Palli Santosh Kumar
Sri Muntimadugu Mahesh
Kumar
Sri Ramesh Elkaturi
Sri Chakradhara Poturaju

Amount paid
(Rs.)
20,00,000
9,00,000
40,92,000

Agreement
of Sale date
26.08.2021
28.06.2021
MOU
19.07.2022/
AoS
13.02.2022

33,68,000
21,73,500
28,50,000
11,00,000

05.11.2021
15.05.2023
15.09.2021
20.02.2021

12,50,000
20,00,000
33,16,000
35,10,000
14,00,000
6,00,000
32,24,000
17,00,000
34,75,000

05.10.2021
13.04.2021
24.11.2021
05.11.2021
24.11.2021
20.12.2021
27.10.2021
26.01.2022
24.11.2021

10,00,000
41,00,000

28.06.2021
04.08.2021

12

19.
20.

130/2024
130/2024

21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.

130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024

30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.

130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024
130/2024

39.
40.
41.

130/2024
130/2024
135/2024

42.

137/2024

43.
44.

137/2024
137/2024

45.
46.

137/2024
137/2024

47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.

200/2024
200/2024
200/2024
200/2024
200/2024
200/2024
200/2024

Sri Prasanna Siddireddy
Sri Santosh Kumar
Panguluri
Sri Syam Sundaram Atukula
Sri Mekala Suresh
Ms. Peddi Prashanthi
Sri Sapelly Kondaiah
Sri Sapelly Kondaiah
Sri Sapelly Srikanth
Sri Shaik Kabeer
Ms. MNV Pallavi
Ms. Seshavalli Gayatri
Mopidevi
Sri Bantu Srikanth
Sri Padigela Ravi Kumar
Sri Chalumuri Sreenivas
Sri Dasarapu Sunil
Sri Kanukuntla Gangaiah
Sri Boragala Rajendar
Ms. Kanakam Rajani
Sri Lingamurthy Kyatham
Sri Raghavendran
Vijayshankar
Ms. Divvela Uma
Sri Vijay Kumar Matta
Smt. Gundala Swarna
Manjiri
Sri Siddam Reddy Rajini
Kantha Reddy
Sri Mahesh Jeruganti
Sri Guda Surya Prakash
Reddy
Sri Kandi Naresh
Smt. Musunuri Vijaya Durga
Bhavani
Sri Yugendar Macharla
Ms. Tumathi Sindhu
Sri G. Ramesh
Sri V. Hari Krishna
Sri Lokender Singh
Ms. Prathyusha Engati
Ms. Namrata Shalini

54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.

200/2024
200/2024
200/2024
200/2024
200/2024
202/2024
203/2024
204/2024
205/2024

Sri C. Krishna Teja
Sri C. Nishanth
Sri Shubham. G
Ms. L. Nirmala
Sri Roshan Zameer
Ms. Ejanthkar Varsha
Ms. Uma Maheswari P
Ms. Shabnam Jabeen
Sri Honey Babu Rao

40,00,000
7,00,000

20.09.2021
26.02.2022

7,00,000
11,00,000
7,00,000
32,00,000
28,08,000
29,13,116
18,97,600
6,00,000
6,00,000

09.11.2021
11.12.2021
10.10.2021
22.01.2022
26.12.2021
22.01.2022
05.01.2021
04.10.2021
04.10.2021

34,50,000
33,10,000
26,00,000
30,50,000
8,20,000
8,20,000
10,00,000
51,00,000
34,15,500

01.10.2023
07.04.2021
08.03.2021
28.06.2021
28.06.2021
28.06.2021
02.10.2023
31.03.2023
17.04.2023

30,00,000
44,00,000
34,50,000

26.02.2022
18.12.2021
29.08.2021

52,00,000

06.03.2021

42,50,000
32,50,000

06.03.2021
06.03.2021

32,50,000
42,50,000

06.03.2021
06.03.2021

33,18,000
13,00,000
25,50,000
33,80,000
32,89,000
32,89,000
3,30,600

09.10.2021
17.03.2021
26.10.2021
27.07.2021
10.05.2023
10.03.2023
Sale deed
05.08.2020
08.09.2021
08.09.2021
06.03.2022
12.07.2021
08.09.2021
05.10.2021
05.10.2021
26.02.2022
26.02.2022

12,00,000
12,48,000
20,00,000
30,00,000
7,40,000
34,00,000
34,00,000
10,00,000
10,00,000

13

28.

The record clearly establishes that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 entered into

Agreements of sale with the respective Complainants for the purchase of residential
flats in the project titled “Aura Velimala Phase–1”, located at Velimala Village,
Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana. As per the terms of
these agreements, the Respondents had undertaken to complete the construction
and hand over possession of the flats by December 2023.
29.

However, despite the passage of significant time since the execution of these

agreements, many of which were executed between the years 2021 and 2023, the
Respondents have neither completed the project nor handed over possession of the
apartments to the respective allottees. As of the date of filing of this complaint, the
status of the project remains grossly incomplete, with construction having
progressed to only about 20%, as noted by the Complainants and undisputed by the
Respondents.
30.

This factual condition brings into clear operation the provisions of Section

18(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:
“If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot
or building, —
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may
be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of
suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other
reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes
to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available,
to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building,
as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this
behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act.”
31.

The legislative intent behind this provision is clear ie., where a promoter fails

to honour their contractual obligation of timely delivery of possession, the allottee is
entitled to seek refund of the entire amount paid, along with statutory interest as
prescribed under the Rules.
32.

In the present case, the default of the Respondents is not only evident but

also aggravated by their failure to take corrective steps, despite multiple reminders
and representations from the Complainants. The Authority finds that the
Respondents have failed to show any bona fide or justifiable reason for the

14

substantial delay in construction, especially considering that nearly three years have
passed since the commencement of the project and yet only a fraction of the work
stands completed.
33.

It is further noted that the Respondents did not demonstrate any firm

commitment or actionable roadmap for the completion of the project. The absence of
substantial progress even after the agreed delivery date has elapsed, coupled with
vague or evasive responses to the Complainants, reinforces the conclusion that the
Respondents are unable to fulfil their obligations under the agreement of sale.
34.

In the light of the material available on record, it is evident that the

Respondents collected substantial amounts from the Complainants even before
securing the requisite building permissions from the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA). This act of raising funds in the absence of statutory
approvals is a serious deviation from the expected conduct of a promoter under the
regulatory framework of the RE (R&D) Act,2016.
35.

Despite receiving considerable sums from the allottees, the construction of

the project remains stagnated at a mere 20%, with no substantial progress reported
even after lapse of time since the execution of the Agreements of Sale. In such a
scenario, the allottees cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession, particularly
when there is no clarity or commitment from the Respondent regarding the
completion timeline, thereby justifying the Complainants' entitlement to refund as
per relief (2) under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act.
36.

Regarding reliefs, (1) & (3), the Complainants categorically submitted that the

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are embroiled in several criminal cases on account of
complaints filed against him for siphoning funds and is not available to complete the
construction and handover the allotted apartments to them. In view of the same, this
Authority is of the considered opinion that the Complainants are entitled to their
relief of seeking refund from Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are jointly liable to refund
the amounts paid by the Complainants along with interest in accordance with Rule
15 of the Rules, 2017.
37.

Therefore, Point II is answered in affirmative and the Complainants are

entitled to refund in accordance with Section 18 of the Act, 2016.

15

E. Directions of the Authority
38.

In exercise of its powers under Section 37 , this Authority issues the following

directions:
a. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay penalty of Rs.
14,91,958/- towards violation of Sections 3 & 4 for non-registration of the
Project – “Aura Velimala Phase – 1” payable within 30 (thirty) days payable
within 30 days in favour of TG RERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online
payment

to

A/c

No.

50100595798191,

HDFC

Bank,

IFSC

Code:

HDFC0007036; and
b. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amounts
as mentioned in the table at Para 27 to the Complainants along with interest
at the rate of 11.0% per annum (SBI MCLR of 9.0% + 2%) from the date of the
respective agreement of sale of the Complainant till the date of actual refund
in accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules, 2017 within 30 (thirty) days; and
c. The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are hereby directed to take steps to file an
application for registration of the Project – “Aura Velimala Phase - 1” before
this Authority in accordance with Section 4 of the Act, 2016 and the Rules
thereunder with immediate effect and till the registration is granted by this
Authority, the Respondent shall, strictly, not advertise, market, book, sell or
offer for sale, or invite person/s to purchase in any manner any units of the
said Project – “Aura Velimala Phase - 1”.
d. Failing to comply with the above said directions by the Respondent Nos.1 & 2
shall attract penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the Act, 2016.
39.

The Complaints are disposed of in lieu of the above directions. No order as to

costs.

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

16