Order Complaint No. 117 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.117 OF 2024
17th Day of May 2025
Quorum:

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

M/s Viana Homes Pvt. Ltd.
through its Managing Director,
Sri Anji Reddy
R/0- Plot No. 3 & 53
Radhika Reddy Arcade, Jayabheri Pine Valley
Gachibowli, Hyderabad

…Complainant

Versus
1. Sri Sikha Balaraju
R/o- H. No. 2-17/2-2
Rajula Bazar, High School Road
Vijayawada-521108
2. M/s Infy Projects,
Represented through its Managing Director
Sikha Balaraju
R/o-3rd floor, G-Square, Survey No. 79/P
Beside Raidurgam Police Station, Serilingampally
Hyderabad, Telanagana 500032
3. M/s Bell Square Pvt Ltd
Represented through its Managing director
Sikha Balaraju
R/o-3rd floor, G-Square, Survey No. 79/P
Beside Raidurgam Police Station, Serilingampally
Hyderabad, Telanagana 500032
4. Smt. K Vijaya Lakshmi
R/o-F. No. 40J, G Block Rain Vistas Rock Garden
Green Hills Road, Moosapet
Hyderabad 500018

…Respondent(s)

1

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing
on 08.08.2024, 04.09.2024, 24.09.2024, 03.10.2024, 29.10.2024 and
22.11.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for Complainant,
Sri Drupad Sangwan and none for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 despite service of
notice and Respondent No.4 appeared in person, and after hearing the
arguments, this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under

Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation & 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 reliefs against the Respondents.

Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant submitted that Complainant owns and manages the

commercial complex known as "POOJITHA TECH PARK" registered with this
Authority bearing Registration No. P02400002546 having validity up to
27.01.2027. It was submitted that this complex is situated in and over the
land measuring approximately 2 acres and 10 guntas (10,890 square yards),
encompassing Survey No. 89/ (as per linked documents and passbooks) and
Survey Nos. 89/1 and 89/2 (as per Web Pahani). Located in Kokapet Village
and Grampanchayat, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana
State. It was submitted that the Complainant and two other stakeholders, no
other person, individual, or company has any rights or claims to offer, sell, or
transfer any part of the "Poojitha Tech Park" commercial property to
prospective purchasers.
4.

It was submitted that in the year 2022, Respondent No. 1 approached

the Complainant at its registered office, and proposed that he had a
substantial client base interested in purchasing commercial space in
"POOJITHA TECH PARK" and expressed his intention to mediate prospective
transactions. Although the Complainant discussed the terms of the
2

agreement, Respondent No.1 never finalized it, and the Complainant
Company did not pursue the matter further. Thus, no express agreement was
entered into between the complainant herein and the Respondents.
Subsequently, the Respondents introduced the Complainant to several
prospective purchasers, leading to the execution of some Sale Agreements
with those individuals.
5.

The Complainant submitted that Respondent No. 1, using his

companies, namely M/s. Infy Projects Pvt Ltd and M/s. Bell Square Pvt Ltd /
M/s. Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd. and (Respondent No. 2 and 3), the Respondent
No.1 has been falsely representing potential purchasers as licensed or
authorized RERA agents of the Complainant. The Complainant clarified that
they have not entered into any agency agreement with Respondents No. 1 to
3, nor have they authorized the Respondents to act on its behalf i.e. M/s.
Viana Homes Pvt Ltd. That Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in collusion and in
connivance with each other have misled prospective purchasers by quoting
higher

prices

than

those

stipulated

in

the

Sale

Agreements

and

misappropriated these amounts, causing financial losses and reputational
damage to it. That an intending purchaser reported that the Respondents
falsely represented themselves as M/s. Viana Homes Pvt Ltd's marketing head
without authorization. That despite multiple attempts to contact him via calls
and messages, Respondent No.1 remained unresponsive.
6.

It was submitted that one of the holders of a Sale Agreement for a

commercial space in "POOJITHA TECH PARK" filed a complaint with this
Authority against the Complainant vide Complaint No. 1784 of 2023 and he
has been arrayed as Respondent No. 4 to the present complaint. The
allegations made in the complaint are directly tied to the fraudulent activities
and misrepresentations carried out by the Respondent No.1 and his
companies, who falsely presented himself/themselves as an authorized agent
of the Complainant Company. The Complainant has been informed that First
Information Reports (FIRs) have also been registered by EOW Cyberabad PS

3

against Respondent No.1 for fraud and cheating amounting to Rs. 4 Crores in
relation to Complainant project, "РООJIТНА ТЕCH PARK."
7.

That Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have engaged in forging and fabricating

signatures/receipts of Complainant Company representatives, thereby
putting them at severe risk. That Respondent Nos. 1 to 3’s fraudulent actions
not only involve the misappropriation of funds but also the use of deceitful
means to manipulate and mislead prospective purchasers. That Complainant
filed a police complaint against Respondent Nos. I to 3 and urged the Police
Authorities to take immediate and appropriate action against them.
8.

It was submitted that Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein without being

registered as agents under Section 9 have facilitated the sale or purchase of
a commercial flat in the real estate project of it’s company and as such are
liable to be punished under Section 62 of the RERA Act, 2016.
9.
i.

Accordingly, aggrieved, the Complainant prayed as under:
Impose maximum penalty as per Section 62 of RERA Act, 2016 on
Respondent No. 1 to 3 in the interest of justice;

ii.

If any RERA license of being an agent/ promoter is issued to Respondent
No. 1 to 3, cancel the said licenses and bar them from acting as RERA
agents in future;

iii.

Direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to refund all the amounts that have been
appropriated on behalf of the Complainant on the Project "Poojitha Tech
Park" to the Complainant promoter;

Points for consideration:
10.

Upon deliberation of the contentions as well as the documents filed

therein, the following issues sprout for consideration:
I.

Whether the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 violated Section 9 of the Act,
2016? If yes, are they liable for penalty?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to its reliefs as prayed for? If
yes, to what extent?
4

Observations and directions of the Authority:
11.

Notices were issued to the parties and Respondent Nos.1 & 2 entered

appearance through their Counsel, Sri Habeeb Sultan Ali & Sri K. Shiva
Kumar. There was no representation from Respondent No.3. Despite issuance
of notice again and receipt of the same by the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and the
Counsel for Respondent No.1, there was no response from the said
Respondents in terms of filing any reply or any oral submissions before the
Authority. In lieu of the same, this Authority set the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
ex-parte vide Order dated 22.11.2024. Respondent No.4 submitted that no
reply needs to be filed on her behalf, however orally submitted that the
Respondent No.1 is an un-registered agent who, admittedly, entered into a
transaction with Respondent No.4 on behalf of the Complainant.

Point I
12.

Issue in the present complaint is regarding the Respondents not being

registered with this Authority and entering into transactions on behalf of the
Complainant company without any authorization from the said Complainant
Company. Issue is also to identify whether the Respondents are qualified as
agents or not.
13.

The Definition of an agent as provided under Section 2(zm) is:
“(zm) "real estate agent" means any person, who negotiates or acts on
behalf of one person in a transaction of transfer of his plot, apartment or
building, as the case may be, in a real estate project, by way of sale, with
another person or transfer of plot, apartment or building, as the case may
be, of any other person to him and receives remuneration or fees or any
other charges for his services whether as commission or otherwise and
includes a person who introduces, through any medium, prospective
buyers and sellers to each other for negotiation for sale or purchase of
plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, and includes property
dealers, brokers, middlemen by whatever name called”
5

14.

As per the Complainant’s assertions and the Complaint filed before this

Authority in case of 1784 of 2023 and 139 of 2024, along with submissions
of Respondent No. 4, it is evident that Respondent No.1, acting on behalf of
the Complainant, engaged in a transaction and received monetary
consideration from Respondent No.4 towards the purchase of the flat. The
aforesaid act, undertaken by Respondent No.1 in conjunction with
Respondent Nos.2 and 3, squarely falls within the statutory definition of a
"real estate agent," as they collectively facilitated the transaction with
Respondent No.4 on behalf of the Complainant. This Authority has decided to
adjudicate the issue concerning the refund of the excess amount claimed by
Respondent No.4 in the said case no. 139 of 2024. Accordingly, the issue shall
be addressed and proceeded with in that complaint.
15.

Now that it is established that Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 are “real estate

agents” not being registered with the Act, 2016, Section 9 provides as under:
“9. Registration of real estate agents.—(1) No real estate agent shall
facilitate the sale or purchase of or act on behalf of any person to facilitate
the sale or purchase of any plot, apartment or building, as the case may
be, in a real estate project or part of it, being the part of the real estate
project registered under section 3, being sold by the promoter in any
planning area, without obtaining registration under this section. (2) Every
real estate agent shall make an application to the Authority for
registration in such form, manner, within such time and accompanied by
such fee and documents as may be prescribed.”
16.

This very provision mandates every real estate agent to register

themselves before the Authority before facilitating any the sale or purchase of
any plot, building or apartment. Further, Clause (2) also mandates such
person to make an application for registration before entering into any sale
transactions as an “agent”. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 by not registering
themselves as agents before this Authority have gravely violated the above-

6

quoted provision and are therefore, liable for penalty under Section 62 of the
Act, 2016.
17.

Therefore, Point I is answered in affirmative.

Point II
18.

The relief (i) sought for by the Complainant has been granted as

explained above. Relief (ii) cannot be granted as there is no license/certificate
issued by this Authority in favour of Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3. Regarding relief
(iii), the Complainant has failed to establish, in consonance with Respondent
No.4, as to how much amounts have been received by the Respondent Nos.1,
2 & 3 on behalf of the Complainant. In the absence of the reply on behalf of
the said Respondents, and the adequate evidence of exact amounts being
received by them, this Authority is not included to issue any vague order.
Therefore, relief (iii) is not granted in favour of the Complainant.
19.

Therefore, Point II is answered as above.

Directions of the Authority:
20.

In light of the above discussion, the Authority vide its powers under

Section 37 and 38, issues the following directions:
i.

Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 are jointly and severally liable for penalty
under Section 62 for violation of Section 9(1) & (2) and are therefore,
directed to pay penalty of Rs.3,69,600/-(Rupees Three Lakh Sixty
Nine Thousand Six Hundred Only) payable within 30 (thirty) days
in favor of TG RERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online
payment to A/c No. 50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code:
HDFC0007036; and

ii.

Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 are directed, strictly, not to facilitate the
sale or purchase of or act on behalf of any person, including the
Complainant herein, the sale or purchase of any plot, apartment or
building, as the case may be, in a real estate project or part of it,
7

being the part of the real estate project registered under section 3,
being sold by the promoter in any planning area, without obtaining
registration under Section 9, as otherwise stringent action,
including penalty for every day during which such default
continues, which may cumulatively extend up to five per cent., of
the estimated cost of plot, apartment or building, as the case may
be, of the real estate project, for which the sale or purchase has
been facilitated, shall be imposed on the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3
in accordance with Section 65 of the Act, 2016.
21.

In light of the above directions, the present complaint is 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

8