Order Complaint No. 110 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 110 of 2025
Dated: 13th November 2025
Quorum: Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Naredla Swathipriya
(R/o 151, Kamma Bazar, VTC: Tholukodu, PO: Tholukodu,
Sub district: Mylavaram, District: NTR, A.P – 521230)

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. BhuvanTeza Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd
(Rep by Chekka Venkata Subramanyam),
#201, 2nd Floor, Lumbini Amrutha Chambers,
Nagarjuna Circle, Road Number 3, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad-500082)

2. Chekka Venkata Subramanyam,
(Flat# C-110, Jayabheri Orange County, Road #2,
Financial District, Nanakramguda, Telangana – 500032)

… Respondents
The present matters filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person and none for the Respondents despite
multiple opportunities given to appear before the bench, hence set ex-parte and upon hearing
the submissions of the Complainant, this Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

This Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Rules”), seeking appropriate action against the Respondents.
A. Brief Facts of the Case:
3.

The Complainant submitted that she had purchased a flat in the pre-launch sale from

the Respondents. The flat purchased is Flat No. 304, Block-B, a 2BHK unit admeasuring 1040
sq. ft in Aura Velima Phase -1 developed by M/s Bhuvanteza Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd., situated at
Page 1 of 6

---

Accordingly, the Complainant sought for the following reliefs:
1. Direct the Respondent to complete and hand over the flat within 6 months and register
the flat in Complainant's name
2. To be given existence constructed block-B partially constructed of the same area
purchased as per the document.

C. Points to be determined:
5.
Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following
questions arise for adjudication:
I. Whether the Respondents have violated provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016?
II. Whether Complainant is liable for relief as prayed for? If yes, to what extent?
D. Observation of the Authority:
6.

Before further adjudicating on the matter, this Authority takes due note of the repeated

non-compliance by the Respondents, who have failed to appear before this Authority despite
service of multiple notices and affording sufficient opportunities. In view of their continued
absence, the Respondents are hereby set ex parte, and the matter is being adjudicated based on
the pleadings, documents, and submissions placed on record by the Complainant
Point -I
7.

It is observed from the records available with this authority in a prior matter, vide

Complaint No. 105 of 2024, involving different Complainants but the same project and
Respondent No.1/Promoter, this Authority had already adjudicated on similar facts and in
respect of the project ‘Aura (Velimela),’ undertaken by the Respondent No.1, and accordingly
imposed a penalty of Rs. 14,91,958/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ninety-One Thousand Nine
Page 2 of 6

---

Furthermore, this Authority takes note that the conduct of the Respondent-promoter

exhibits a recurring pattern of disregard and non-compliance with the statutory mandates under
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It is pertinent to mention that in a
previous matter, i.e., Complaint No. 264 of 2024, the Authority had taken cognisance of similar
violations and had declared Respondent No. 1 as a defaulter. The relevant extract from the
said order is reproduced below for reference:
“35… Accordingly, Respondent No.1 is hereby declared to be a “defaulter” both
in its capacity as a “promoter” and as an “agent” within the meaning of Sections
2(zk) and 2(zm) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. As a consequence, the Respondent shall
be prohibited from undertaking, advertising, marketing, booking, selling, or
registering any new real estate project or acting as a real estate agent within the
jurisdiction of this Authority until such time as all existing dues, refunds, interest,
penalties, and regulatory compliances are fully discharged to the satisfaction of
this Authority”
9.

Point I is answered accordingly.

Point – II
10.

Upon perusal of the Agreement of Sale dated 12.01.2022 executed by the Respondents

in favour of the Complainant, a s per the Agreement of slae and payment receipts it is evident
that the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs only),
which payment has been duly acknowledged by the Respondents and It is also pertinent to note
from the available documents placed on record by the Complainant that the Respondent No.1
has only obtained permission bearing Application No. 044288/ZOA/R1/U6/HMDA/18032021
for the construction of A-Block with 1 Cellar + 1 Ground + 5 Upper Floors in plot nos in Survey
No. 212/P, 214/P & 215/P of Velimela- ORRGC Village, Ramachandrapuram- ORRGC
Mandal, Sanaga Reddy District to an extent of 3954.39 Sq.Mts.
11.

However, the Respondent No.1/Promoter has neither completed the construction

activity in the said project nor demonstrated any bona fide intention to fulfil its contractual
Page 3 of 6

---

The Complainant has sought reliefs including possession, registration, and completion

of the project. However, upon examination of the material on record, it is evident that the
Respondent No.1 / Promoter has neither commenced any construction activity in the said
project nor demonstrated any bona fide intention to fulfil its contractual and statutory
obligations towards the Complainant. Such continued inaction, despite having collected
substantial amounts from the Complainant, indicates a deliberate and dishonest course of
conduct on the part of the Promoter. It is further observed that the Respondent Promoter has
completely abandoned the project and, in all proceedings pertaining thereto, has failed to
establish any genuine intent or credible plan to initiate or resume construction. In view of the
fact that the project has remained stalled for several years and that the Respondent Promoter
has effectively abandoned the development altogether, this Authority finds it neither reasonable
nor feasible to direct completion of the project at this stage.
13.

Accordingly, in the considered view of this Authority, the appropriate relief in the

present matter would be refund of the amounts paid by the Complainant, along with interest as
prescribed, rather than directing completion of the project. This conclusion is drawn keeping
in mind the beneficial object of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
which casts upon this Authority the duty to safeguard the interests of allottees. The
Complainant, having already invested hard-earned money with legitimate expectations of
timely delivery, cannot be made to wait indefinitely until the Promoter demonstrates bona fide
intent or financial capacity to complete the project which, as on date, has not been established.
14.

Accordingly, while the reliefs as sought by the Complainants cannot be granted in the

form prayed, this Authority is of the considered view that the Complainants cannot be left
remediless, and the only feasible course available in the interest of justice is to direct refund of
the amounts paid by the Complainants along with appropriate interest, as provided under
Section 18(1)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, since the
Respondent has failed to complete or even commence the construction of the project.
15.

In these circumstances, under Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, extends a clear

statutory right to an allottee to seek a refund along with interest where the Respondent
No.1/Promoter either fails to complete the project or is unable to hand over possession within
Page 4 of 6

---

In light of the above foregoing observations, this Authority notes that the Complainant

is entitled for relief as mentioned in the main Complaint under Section 18(1)(a) of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016, which reads as follows:
“(1) 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.”
17.

Accordingly, the Complainant is entitled for Refund of the amount paid to the

Respondents and also with the interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, i.e., the State Bank of India’s Marginal
Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum (i.e., 8.75% + 2%), calculated from the
respective date of Agreement of Sale dt: 20.02.2023 until the date of actual refund.
18.

However, it is to be noted that the Complainant submitted that she had transferred the

amount Rs. 6,00,000/- after the entering of the Agreement of sale, and in her complaint submits
that she has UTR number along with a bank statement; however, the Complainant fails to
submit any documentary evidence before this to substantiate her claim, hence the said amount
cannot be considered, and however liberty is given to the Complainant to present Rs. 6 Lakhs
amount paid receipt to the Respondent while receiving refund along with interest of the paid
amount.

Page 5 of 6

---

In view of the above findings, this Authority is of the considered that the Complainant

is entitled to the relief sought, refund of the entire sale consideration with interest from the
Respondent No.1.
20. Point II is answered accordingly.
E. Directions of the Authority:
21.

In exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of the

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and in furtherance of the findings and
conclusions drawn hereinabove, the following directions are hereby issued:
a. The Respondent No. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty one
lakh Only) along with interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI MCLR of
8.75% + 2%) from the date of the Agreement of Sale dated 12.01.2022 till the
date of actual refund in accordance with Rule 15 of the Telangana RE(R&D)
Rules, 2017 within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this Order;
b. Failing to comply with the above-said direction by the Respondent shall attract
a penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

22.

The Complaint stands disposed of. 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

Page 6 of 6

---