Order Complaint No. 116 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
27th 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.116 OF 2024
1. Bachu Jagadeeswara Reddy
2. Gorrepati Bala Chandra Reddy
3. Reshma Ravindran
4. Vivek Jatla
5. Naziya Firdous
6. Srikanth Makutam
7. Yeduguru Chaitanya Reddy
8. P. Madhu Suman
9. C. Vinay Goud
10. Bhuban Barik
11. Devdutta Achary
12. K.P. Rajinikanth
13. Akhil Rangam
14. Mohan Deveswar
15. Bayini Swapna
16. Uttej Ravirala & Spandana Vattikuti
17. Korrapati Shanmukha Manoj Bharadwaj
18. Gandham Sai Deepak
19. M. Bhanu Prakash & Leela Madhavi
20. Venu Madhav Tumati
21. Jaya Prasad Rao Adnala
22. Chennuri Gowtham
23. Ramidi Sheshu Kumar Reddy
24. Sravya Kompella
25. Kesanapally Jamuna Rani
Addresses furnished:
1. R. Akhil
D.No: 2-6-31, Sikhwadi,
Near Vegetable Market,
Karimnagar, 505001
2. Gandham Sai Deepak,
Flat: 103, Lalitha Towers,
Sultanbagh, Erragadda,
Hyderabad, 500018
…Complainants

1 of 18

---

Indrasen Guduru
Rajashekar Reddy Vinta
Dudyala Rajendra Prasad
Ramu Gali
Addresses furnished:
1. Indrasen Guduru
H.No-4-29, JPN Nagar, Miyapur
Hyderabad-500049
2. Rajashekhar Reddy V
Flat 104, Karthik Pride
30/3, ACES Layout A block
Singsandra, Bangalore-560068
…Complainants
Versus
1. M/s Bhuvanteza Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
Represented through its Managing Director,
Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
Corporate Office H. No. 201, 2nd Floor,
Lumbini Amrutha Chambers, Nagarjuna Circle,
Road No. 3, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad- 500082
2. Sri Chekka Venkata Subramanyam
2 of 18

---

The present matters filed by the Complainants hereinabove came up for final hearing
on 12.12.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for Complainants, Sri B. Manoj
Kumar and none for Respondents despite service of notice who was set ex-parte vide Order
dated 21.11.2024, and upon hearing the arguments, this Authority passes the following
COMMON 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 action against the Respondents.

A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainants submitted that in 2022, Complainants entered into respective

agreements of sale with the Respondent No.1 for the purchase of flats in the project named
"Aura Phase-2 (VELIMALA)", located at Velimala Village & (G.P), Ramachandrapuram
Mandal, Sanga Reddy district, Telangana (State). That as per the agreement, HMDA and
RERA approvals of the Construction were assured to be obtained by December 2022 and
registration would be made to the Complainants subsequent to the same. However, despite the
commitment, the construction of the project was significantly delayed. As of 18.06.2024, the
project did not even commence with the construction.

4.

The Complainants submitted that the delay in possession has caused them severe

financial hardship as Complainants are burdened with paying both the rent and EMI for the
loan taken for the said flats. It was also submitted that upon physical verification of the project

3 of 18

---

B. Relief sought:
5.

It was submitted that the Complainants are afraid the Respondent may create third party

rights in the flats and therefore, prayed as under:
i.

Completion and Possession: Direct the respondent to complete the construction and
handover possession of the flat by August 2024.

ii.

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

iii.

Rectification of Defects: Rectify any defects in the construction as per the agreed
specifications.

iv.

Cost of Litigation: Award the cost of litigation incurred in pursuing this complaint.

C. Additional affidavit/grounds filed by the Complainants:
6.

The Complainants filed additional grounds along with additional documents in the

above-mentioned complaints, submitting that Respondent No.1 is M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra
Projects Pvt. Ltd., is a Private Limited Company incorporated on 30th June, 2020, with CIN
No. U45201TG2020PTC141246 and its Registration No. 141246, located in above mentioned
address, represented by its Managing Director Mr. Chekka Venkata Subrahmanyam who is
Respondent No. 2. Further, it was submitted that the Respondent No.3 is Authorised Signatory
of the Respondent No.1 Company and that at the time of Incorporation of Company the
Respondent No.3 was Director along with one Mr. Guntupalli Samanth. While so, the
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein are Husband and wife.

7.

It was submitted that; the Respondent No.4 herein was the Land Lord / Original Owner

of Sy. Nos. 216/A1, 216/AA, 216AA1, 216/A2/1, 215/A, 210/A1, 209/A, 208, 207 entered into
agreement and understanding with the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein for Development of his
land into Residential multi-storeyed Complex, as such the Respondent No.4 herein is Promoter
as per the provisions of Act, 2016.

8.

Further, it was submitted that the Respondents invited the general public through

various modes of advertisement and offered the customers flats in the name of Pre-Launch of
AURA-II Project. Respondents displayed the ongoing site i.e., AURA-I to various customers
4 of 18

---

9.

Complainants also submitted that the Respondents also extended an offer to the

Complainants to sell a specific Flat in the Project consisting of 2 & 3 BHKs. In addition to their
regular offer of Flat fixatures, the Respondents also included various amenities, including a car
parking space and the proportionate undivided share of land in the said property / Project. That
the Respondents extensively promoted the entire Project through, various media channels,
including print, electronic, and social media, painting as appealing picture of the Development.
Additionally, Respondents released several enticing brochures underscoring the exceptional
quality and superiority of the Project.

10.

That, the Respondents promised to provide world-class amenities and facilities while

strictly adhering to the Project proposed timelines. The promise also included top-notch
amenities such as elevators, swimming pool, ample car parking, indoor and outdoor sports
facilities, a club house, 100% vastu compliance, power backup, rainwater harvesting, and
C.C.TV. cameras and intercom systems at the main gate, lobby and corridors through their
Company Brochure and various advertising promotions. Complainants herein and family
members got enticed by the offer and advertisements of the Respondents, which emphasized
the importance of prompt documentation, construction and adherence to timelines. Moreover,
the Complainants herein were drawn to the Project layout, designs, specifications, and the
Respondents’ commitment to meet deadlines, all of which seemed to align perfectly with needs
of the Complainants herein. That Respondents herein entered into Memorandum of
Understanding for Buyback of Flats in Project with few Complainants herein within two or
three years from the date of M.O.U., whereas the Project is not seen the light of the day till
today.
5 of 18

---

That the Complainants having waited for more than one year have realized that the

Respondents never intended for commencement of Project AURA-II and left the construction
of AURA- I in shell stage and there are no activities in the Project and it was left abandoned
till date. That the Respondents deceived and misguided the Complainants herein along with
other customers, compelling the Complainants herein to invest substantial amounts of hardearned money as mentioned in their Agreement of Sale. While so, the Complainant's invested
funds were meticulously accumulated through savings, loans from friends, relatives and
financial institutions etc., the life strategies of the Complainants and their family members to
balance their professional work and matrimonial life including taking care of their children was
severely hampered and disrupted in view of the delay in commencement of the Project AURAII by Respondents.

12.

That, the Complainants herein received a telephonic call from other Customers of

Project named AURA- II informing that the Respondents duped uncountable customers in the
name of Project AURA-II and in other projects started by them, the Complainants came to
knowledge that there is a pending Complaint before Central Crime Station (CCS), at
Hyderabad filed by other project customers, when the Complainants along with other
customers approached the Police informed that the Respondents already filed Quash Petition
before Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad, as such the Police advised
to approach right forum and they cannot take any action pending the Quash Petition, as such
the Complaint lodged by the Complainants herein are kept as pendency by the Police.

13.

That the Complainant herein along with other 23 customers of Project filed present

Complaints, without prejudice to the Complainant filed before any appropriate authority to
recover the money from Respondents herein. As the Project started after 01.01.2017, the same
ought to have been registered with this Authority, and since the Respondents failed to do so,
necessary action should be initiated as per rules and regulations in force by Act, 2016 and Rules
2017.

14.

It was submitted that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 displayed their Company name board

adjacent to the Aura-I site, imploring the customers as if that they owned the land for the
development of Aura-II Project. The said Respondent No. 1 Company Board was installed
from year 2022-2023 and till Mid 2024, which shows that the Respondents make believed the
6 of 18

---

15.

It was submitted that all the Respondents cheated the customers by providing a Legal

Opinion rendered by SS Associates & Advocates, represented by Mr. Chundi Sai Kumar,
Advocate along with few Pahanies, Sale Deeds, Proceedings of Nala Conversation and various
Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney with possession. The said Legal Opinion
reflects that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 entered into Agreement to develop the project in the
sites belongs to the Respondent No. 4 herein with a total extent of Ac. 4.03 gts., situated at
Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, under the city Municipal limits of Tellapur,
Sangareddy District. Further, that M/s. Varunraj Properties Pvt. Ltd., can enter in the
Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney over the schedule land to raise the
Project, and as such the Respondent No. 4 is a promoter to the Project as per provisions of the
Act, 2016.

16.

Accordingly, the Complainants prayed to hold all the Respondents liable for violating

provisions of the Act, 2016 and also to direct the Respondents to repay the amounts paid by
the Complainants along with an interest as per Rules, 2017.

D. Hearing conducted:
17.

During the course of hearing, the Complainants, while re-iterating the contents of its

additional grounds, categorically submitted that the Sections which attract in the instant case
are Section 7 Section 8 Section 18 Section 72 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.

18.

The Complainants also relied on the following judgments:
A. In the matter of Fortune Infrastructure v. Trevor D'Lima reported in (2018) 5 SCC 442,
wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “No hard and fast rule can be laid down,
however, a few examples would be where an allotment is made, price is received/paid,
but possession is not given within the period set out in the brochure. The
Commission/Forum would then need to determine the loss. Loss could be determined
7 of 18

---

85. From the scheme of the Act of which a detailed reference has been made
and taking note of power of adjudication delineated with the Regulatory
Authority and adjudicating officer, what finally culls out is that although the
Act indicates the distinct expressions like “refund”, “interest", "penalty" and
"compensation", a conjoint reading of Sections 18 and 19 clearly manifests that
8 of 18

---

19.

Accordingly, the Complainants prayed to refund the amounts along with interest to the

Complainants along with interest and take appropriate action against the Respondents for
violation of the provisions of the Act, 2016.

9 of 18

---

After due deliberation on the contentions of the Complainants and the documents filed

in their support, the following issues sprout for consideration by this Authority:
I.

Whether the Respondents have violated any provisions of the Act, 2016? If yes,
what provisions and whether they are liable for penalty?

II.

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

E. Observations of the Authority:

21.

Before going into the discussion, it is pertinent to note as to the notice served on the

Respondents. With respect to Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3, the Complainants filed a memo for
proof of service on the said Respondents in both the Complaints, however, only in Complaint
No.116/2024, on 04.09.2024 the Respondent No.1 entered appearance through its Counsel, Sri
V.M.N.S Prasad and Sri U. Narendra. However, despite service of notice, no appearance was
made by the party-in-person or the Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1. Despite service of
notice, no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2, 3 & 4 in both Complaint
No.116/2024 & 140/2024 and therefore, this Authority set them ex-parte vide Order dated
21.11.2024. The matter is accordingly being proceeded herewith as if the Respondents do not
seek to furnish any reply to the contentions raised by the Complainant.

Point I
22.

The Complainants have vehemently argued that the Respondent No.1 entered into a

Development Agreement with the Respondent No.4, through its Authorised Representatives,
Respondent Nos.2 & 3. They submitted that Respondent No.4 who is the original landowner
of Sy. Nos. 216/A1, 216/AA, 216AA1, 216/A2/1, 215/A, 210/A1, 209/A, 208, 207 at Velimala
Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana State, entered into the
said Development Agreement to construct a residential complex comprising of four towers
(namely A, B, C & D Blocks) in the name and style Aura-II. Lured by the brochures issued by
the Respondent No.1, the Complainants invested their hard-earned money in the Project in
exchange of which, the Respondent No.1, through Respondent No.2 issued respective
Agreement of Sale in favour of the Complainants.

10 of 18

---

That despite several reminders, the Respondent No.1 did not commence construction,

neither did he respond to the Complainants who sought for refund of their amounts.
Accordingly, aggrieved by the actions of the Respondents, the Complainants prayed to refund
the amounts invested by them along with interest as per Rules, 2017.

24.

The Complainants also highlighted the violations committed on part of the

Respondents, being Section 7. They also relied on Section 8, 18 and 72 of the Act, 2016.
Further, they relied on the judgments as mentioned in Para No.18 above and also categorically
prayed that all the Respondents including the landowner i.e., the Respondent No.4, are jointly
and severally liable for the violations and appropriate action be initiated against them
accordingly.

25.

To be able to identify whether the Respondents are jointly & severally liable to refund

the amounts paid by the Complainants, this Authority has to examine whether the Respondent
No.4 is the original landowner to the project and whether landowner of the project is also a
promoter in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2016. For this, a perusal of the
Agreement of sale executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of the Complainants is relevant. In
the recitals, the Respondent No.1 states “Whereas the VENDOR is the Agreement holder of the
below mentioned properties:
i.

Agriculture land bearing Sy No.215/A, at extent of Ac. 1.0000 Gts,
Sy.No.216/A2/1, extent Ac. 0.0300 Gts, Sy.no. 210/A1, extent Ac. 1.0300 Gts,
Sy.no. 207, extent Ac. 0.1300 Gts, Sy.no. 208, extent Ac. 0.2600 Gts,
Sy.no.216/AA1, extent Ac. 0.1000 Gts, Sy.no. 209/A, extent Ac. 0.0300 Gts,
Sy.no.216/A1, extent Ac. 0.0300 Gts & Sy.no 216/AA, extent Ac. 0.1000 Gts,
Thus Total extent of 3.3100 Gts, Situated at VELIMALA Village,
Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana State. Having
Through Patta Passbook no. T09210090951, Katha No. 231.

ii.

Non-Agriculture land bearing Sy No. 209/AA, at area of Ac.0.0100 Gts., and
Sy.No. 210/AA, at area of 0.1400., thus the total Area comes to Ac. 0.1500 Gts.,
With

Document

No.

14232/19

Situated

at

VELIMALA

Village,

Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana State.
Whereas the above-named Vendor has clubbed the above said their properties
being adjacent to each other, which is totally admeasuring to Ac.4.06 Gnts.

11 of 18

---

26.

A perusal of the above-mentioned clause will show that Respondent No.1 is an

agreement holder of the above-mentioned properties in which the Project titled “Aura – II” is
situated. The Complainants submitted that all the Respondents cheated the customers by
providing a Legal Opinion rendered by SS Associates & Advocates, represented by Mr. Chundi
Sai Kumar, Advocate along with few Pahanies, Sale Deeds, Proceedings of Nala Conversation
and various Agreement of Sale - cum - General Power of Attorney with possession. They
further submitted that the said Legal Opinion reflects that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 entered
into Agreement to develop the project in the sites belongs to the Respondent No. 4 herein with
a total extent of Ac. 4.03 gts., situated at Velimela Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, under
the city Municipal limits of Tellapur, Sangareddy District. Further, that M/s. Varunraj
Properties Pvt. Ltd., can enter in the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney
over the schedule land to raise the Project, and that, as such the Respondent No. 4 is a promoter
to the Project as per provisions of the Act, 2016.

27.

This Authority has perused the Legal Opinion rendered by SS Associates & Advocates,

represented by Mr. Chundi Sai Kumar, Advocate in which the Counsel has opined that M/s
Varunraj Properties Pvt. Ltd. has purchased the land through development agreement with
possession with the below landlords to construct a Residential Towers in total land
admeasuring A/c 4.0300 Guntas and that the Counsel accepts the title of present owners being
1) Mrs. Chekka Bhagyalakshmi (Respondent No.3) in respect of open place admeasuring 1815
Sq. yards (equivalent to 1517.52 Sq. Meters) in Sy. Nos. 209/AA1 and 210/EE1 (as per NALA
proceedings), situated at Velimela Village, Ramchandrapuram Mandal, Sanga Reddy District,
and 2) in Sy.No. 207,208,209,210,215,216 it reveals that Jangala Pramod Krishna (Respondent
12 of 18

---

28.

Therefore, this Authority cannot conclusively hold that Respondent No.4 is the

landowner of the subject land without having perused documents as stated in the legal opinion
filed by the Complainants and in lieu thereof, Respondent No.4 cannot be termed as a
landowner.
29.

Now the question remains if the Respondent No.1, together with Respondent Nos.2 &

3 have violated any provisions of the Act, 2016.

30.

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.
The said provision 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.”

31.

It is pertinent to note that the Complainants have submitted that no permission from the

competent authority was obtained by the Respondent No.1 before entering into the Agreements
13 of 18

---

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–2” 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)
33.

Therefore, Point I is answered accordingly, and Respondent No.1 is in violation of

Sections 3, 4 and is liable for penalty under Sections 59, 60 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.

Point II
34.

For the ease of understanding of facts, the details of the Agreements of sale, as well as

the amounts paid by the respective Complainants are enumerated in the table given as under:

S.No.

1.

Complaint No.

116/2024

Complainant Name

Bachu Jagadeeswara

Amount paid in Agreement
Rupees (Rs)

sale date

22,00,000/-

10.03.2022

17,00,000/-

24.09.2022

10,00,000/-

05.03.2022

of

Reddy
2.

116/2024

Gorrepati Bala Chandra
Reddy

3.

116/2024

Reshma Ravindran

14 of 18

---

116/2024

Vivek Jatla

11,25,000/-

29.11.2021

5.

116/2024

Naziya Firdous

40,92,000/-

11.04.2022

6.

116/2024

Srikanth Makutam

28,29,000/-

03.09.2021

7.

116/2024

Yeduguru Chaitanya

6,00,000/-

19.01.2022

Reddy
8.

116/2024

P. Madhu Suman

17,00,000/-

24.06.2022

9.

116/2024

C. Vinay Goud

8,47,550/-

08.06.2022

10.

116/2024

Bhuban Barik

7,00,000/-

04.12.2021

11.

116/2024

Devdutta Achary

17,20,400/-

11.05.2022

12.

116/2024

K.P. Rajinikanth

10,23,000/-

13.01.2022

13.

116/2024

Akhil Rangam

6,00,000/-

14.

116/2024

Mohan Deveswar

11,38,500/-

No AOS
entered.
Payment
Receipts
produced.
09.12.2022

15.

116/2024

Bayini Swapna

45,18,000/-

MOU dated:
15.06.2022
AOS dated
19.04.2022

16.

116/2024

Uttej Ravirala & Spandana

44,00,000/-

10.02.2022

11,25,300/-

27.08.2022

Vattikuti
17.

116/2024

Korrapati Shanmukha
Manoj Bharadwaj

18.

116/2024

Gandham Sai Deepak

20,00,000/-

18.04.2022

19.

116/2024

M. Bhanu Prakash & Leela

20,00,00/-

No

Madhavi

AOS

entered.
Payment
Receipts
produced.

20.

116/2024

Venu Madhav Tumati

16,00,000/-

25.03.2022

21.

116/2024

Jaya Prasad Rao Adnala

10,01,000/-

18.04.2022

22.

116/2024

Chennuri Gowtham

11,25,000/-

22.02.2022

23.

116/2024

Ramidi Sheshu Kumar

31,62,500/-

13.03.2022

Reddy

15 of 18

---

116/2024

Sravya Kompella

15,45,000/-

01.05.2022

25.

116/2024

Kesanapally Jamuna Rani

8,34,900/-

19.04.2022

26.

140/2024

Indrasen Guduru

45,00,000/-

19.12.2021

27.

140/2024

Rajasekhar Reddy Vinta

31,62,500/-

27.03.2022

28.

140/2024

Dudyala Rajendra Prasad

16,44,500/-

13.04.2022

29.

140/2024

Ramu Gali

17,74,500/-

07.02.2022

35.

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–2”, located at Velimala Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal,
Sangareddy District, Telangana.
36.

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

agreements, many of which were executed between the years 2021 and 2022, 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 haven’t been started only (0% progress), as noted by the
Complainants.
37.

This factual condition brings into clear operation the provisions of Section 18(1) of

the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 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.”
38.

The legislative intent behind this provision is clear i.e., 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.

16 of 18

---

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 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.
40.

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 any progress in the
construction, 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.
41.

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.
42.

Despite receiving considerable sums from the allottees, the construction of the project

remains stagnated, not even started, 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 RE(R&D) Act,2016.
43.

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 all the Complainants are entitled to their relief of seeking refund from Respondent No.1 is
liable to refund the amounts paid by the Complainants along with interest in accordance with
Rule 15 of the Rules, 2017.

44.

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

refund in accordance with Section 18 of the Act, 2016, in accordance with their respective
Agreements of sale. However, two of the Complainants, Akhil Rangam and Bhanu Prakash &
Leela Madhavi have produced payment receipts of the respective amounts paid, since
17 of 18

---

G. Directions of the Authority:
45.

Vide its powers under Sections 37 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016, this Authority issues

the following directions:
a. Respondent No.1 is liable to pay penalty of Rs.21,83,739/- towards violation of
Sections 3 & 4 for non-registration of the Project “Aura Velimala Phase – 2” payable
within 30 (thirty) 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 No.1 is hereby directed to refund the amounts paid by all 29 Complainants
in CC Nos. 116/2024 and 140/2024, as per the amounts specified in their respective
Agreements of sale/payment receipts as detailed in the table under Para 34. The refund
shall be made along with interest at the rate of 11.0% per annum (comprising SBI
MCLR of 9.0% + 2%), calculated from the date of each Complainant's respective
Agreement of sale/last date of payment as the case may be, until the date of actual
refund. The said refund shall be done in accordance with Rule 15 of the Telangana Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, within a period of 90 (ninety) days
from the date of this Order.; 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 – 2” 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 – 2”.
d. Failing to comply with the above-said directions by Respondent No.1 shall attract
penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the Act, 2016.
46.

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

18 of 18

---