Order Complaint No. 122 of 2024​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 122 of 2024
31st January 2026
Quorum:

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

The RVE Social Welfare Association
(Rep by its Secretary, R/o- flat no.409, Raheja Vistas, Road no.12
IDA, Nacharam Hyderabad – 500 076
Telangana )

The Raheja Viastas Towers ABC Flat Owners Cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd.
(Rep by its President Ms. Sheetal Wagh, resident of A 805, Raheja
Vistas, Road no.12, IDA, Nacharam,
Hyderabad-500 076)

…Complainants
AND
M/s K Raheja Corp Real Estate Pvt Ltd.
(Formally known as M/s Paradigm Logistics and Distribution Pvt Ltd.)
(Office address, Plot no.127A, Road No.12,
IDA, Opposite TSFSASI, Nacharam, Hyderabad – 500 076)

…Respondent

The present matter, instituted by the Complainants, were taken up for hearing before this
Authority. The Complainants were represented by Learned Counsel Sri Venkata Ramana and
Respondent was represented by Learned Counsel Sri M.Murthy Maan. Upon perusal of the
material available on record, and after hearing the submissions advanced by the Counsels for the
respective parties, and having reserved the matter for consideration, this Authority now proceeds
to pass 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 “RE(R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE(R&D) Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the
Respondent.

1 of 59

---

The Complainant, RVE Social Welfare Association, Nacharam, Hyderabad, is a society

comprising members primarily from DEF Blocks of Raheja Vistas, duly registered under the
Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, bearing Registration No. 250/2024. The office
bearers of the said Association are all owners of apartments situated in the DEF Block of the
residential project known as Raheja Vistas.
4.

The said residential project was originally developed and constructed by M/s Paradigm

Logistics and Distribution Private Limited, which is now known as K. Raheja Corp Real Estate
Private Limited. The members of the Complainant Association purchased apartments in the DEF
Block of the said project. It is the case of the Complainant that several issues, which are
detrimental to the interests, safety, finances, and quality of life of its members, continue to
subsist and remain unresolved by the builder, both in its earlier avatar and in its present avatar.
Owing to the persistent failure of the builder to address these issues, the present complaint has
been filed before this Authority.
5.

It is submitted that even after the lapse of more than one year from the completion of the

formation of the D, E & F Maintenance Society, the handover of finances and assets has not been
completed by the builder. Due to the delay in handing over the financials, the society has
suffered a financial loss of approximately ₹8,27,064/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Twenty-Seven
Thousand Sixty-Four only) till date. The details of the said financial loss and its computation are
placed on record. It is further stated that the builder has withheld an amount of approximately
₹1.12 Crores out of the maintenance deposit, under the guise of various deductions, which
pertain to periods even prior to the formation of the society.
6.

It is further submitted that the DEF Blocks were completed approximately two and a half

years ago, yet the builder has failed to provide a proper compound wall ensuring safety and
security. The absence of an adequate compound wall has resulted in unauthorised entry of
miscreants into the community, and the premises have increasingly become a haven for stray
dogs, whose population has multiplied manifold. The situation has been aggravated by inferior
security arrangements at the main gate, absence of CCTV cameras, and lack of proper identity
verification of visitors and strangers, thereby posing serious safety concerns.
2 of 59

---

It is stated that there are no CCTV cameras in common areas, internal roads, clubhouse

premises, and children’s play areas, thereby exposing residents particularly children, girls, and
women to significant safety risks.
8.

The builder has failed to undertake proper planning for ingress and egress to the

community. The existing layout provides for both entry and exit through the same road, which,
according to the residents, is likely to cause more problems than it resolves. Despite repeated
requests by the residents for the provision of a circular internal road within the community, the
builder has not acceded to the said request. The proposed road design further complicates
vehicular movement from the basement parking areas of D, E, and F Towers.
9.

It is submitted that the said road layout poses a serious safety hazard, as there exist blind

curves at the corners of D and F Blocks, rendering the area accident-prone by any stretch of
imagination. No convex mirrors have been provided at the F Tower corner. A representation in
this regard was submitted by the residents seeking provision of a circular road,
10.

The proposed road further obstructs smooth vehicular movement into the basement

parking area, as there exists only one entry and one exit for approximately 300 families and their
vehicles, thereby causing congestion and safety risks.
11.

It is further stated that the builder has provided ill-designed and awkwardly placed speed

breakers, contrary to the standards prescribed by the Indian Road Congress Guidelines Manual
IRC:99-2018, causing grave inconvenience to commuters. Despite repeated requests, the builder
has refused to provide bitumen-based speed breakers with requisite specifications and signage as
mandated under IRC guidelines. Relevant correspondence in this regard is placed on record.
Additionally, convex mirrors at turnabouts have not been provided for smooth traffic flow.
12.

The builder has also failed to provide amenities as promised in the brochure and

Agreement of Sale. The clubhouse provided is grossly inadequate for a community comprising
more than 900 flats with approximately 1,800 residents, and the builder is charging exorbitant
amounts from individual owners, treating the clubhouse as a commercial establishment.
13.

It is further submitted that open-to-sky duct areas have been left uncovered, resulting in

accumulation of pigeon droppings, release of harmful and carcinogenic gases, and creation of
3 of 59

---

The park area, designated as Green Open Space, is not being maintained and has

deteriorated into a neglected zone with broken asbestos sheets, rusted children’s play equipment,
damaged seating areas, and dog excreta in common spaces, in the absence of a demarcated pet
area. Further, although the approved plan envisaged a specific percentage of green open spaces,
certain areas remain inaccessible to residents of all nine towers, as they fall outside the boundary
wall of the residential project.
15.

It is further submittnned that there is no clear physical demarcation of land within the

community. The residents have not been informed about the precise delineation of the built-up
area of all nine blocks, apex area, driveway area, open spaces, garden areas, and service areas,
which is likely to give rise to future disputes. The builder has failed to carry out physical
demarcation strictly in accordance with the approved drawings.
16.

The builder has not made available parking layout drawings despite repeated requests. It

is alleged that the builder has altered visitor parking slots and sold several such slots at a
premium, thereby depriving residents of common parking facilities.
17.

It is further alleged that the builder has not handed over adequate common parking slots

commensurate with the size of the community. Further, bills, invoices, and warranty certificates
from vendors relating to windows, balcony glass doors, locks, sanitary fittings, and electrical
fittings at the unit level have not been furnished to the owners
18.

The builder has failed to construct toilets for housekeeping staff, which is a basic

necessity, particularly for female workers, amounting to a violation of fundamental human
dignity and basic rights.
19.

It is further submitted that no water outlet or collection area has been provided for

housekeeping staff, compelling them to draw water from fire extinguishers, thereby posing a
grave safety risk to the entire community in the event of fire.

4 of 59

---

The builder has constructed G, H, and I Blocks at a significantly higher ground level,

resulting in multi-layered slopes of approximately two feet inclining towards the E and F Blocks.
During heavy rainfall, this is likely to cause flooding in the stilt and basement areas of E and F
Blocks.
21.

It is brought to notice that on 8th March 2023, the TNREAT Appellate Tribunal, presided

over by Justice M. Duraiswamy (Chairperson) and Justice R. Padmanabhan (Judicial Member),
ruled that builders cannot bypass RERA provisions by registering individual towers separately
and that the entire township must be registered as a single unit. Despite this, Paradigm Logistics
has registered the project under multiple RERA registrations, for reasons best known to them.
22.

Despite incomplete handover, residents have already encountered poor-quality assets,

including a frequently malfunctioning Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), non-functional Organic
Waste Converter (OWC), non-working solar panels, faulty home automation systems, reverse
drainage in bathrooms, and leaking basements, resulting in daily inconvenience and substantial
recurring financial losses.
23.

It is further stated that as per RERA guidelines, the builder is required to transfer the

corpus fund along with accrued interest to the maintenance society. However, the builder
retained the maintenance advance corpus funds in a current account, resulting in a loss of
approximately ₹30 Lakhs towards interest.
24.

It is alleged that a pillar in the 1-series building of F Tower is severely damaged. Instead

of carrying out structural repairs, the builder has merely covered it with a plastic sheet, posing a
serious safety hazard. Similar deficiencies exist in the repair of connecting corridors.
25.

Lastly, it is submitted that SELA levied charges amounting to ₹2,94,596/- (Rupees Two

Lakh Ninety-Four Thousand Five Hundred Ninety-Six only) pertaining to periods prior to the
completion and operationalisation of E and F Blocks. These charges have been unfairly
apportioned to the owners of E and F Blocks, despite assurances that such charges would be
applicable only post completion. This premature levy is stated to be arbitrary, unfair, and in
breach of trust.
B. Reliefs sought:
5 of 59

---

The Respondent has filed the present reply contesting the Complaint.All averments,

allegations, and statements made in the Complaint, save and except those expressly admitted
herein, are denied in toto. Any allegation not specifically traversed shall not be deemed to have
been admitted merely for want of specific denial. The Complaint has been filed with a mala fide
intention solely to harass the Respondent.
28.

It is submitted that the material allegations made in the Complaint are wholly false,

incorrect, and misleading. The Complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Authority with
6 of 59

---

At the outset, it is contended that the Complaint is bad in law, suffers from want of

authority, and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The alleged cause of action against the
Respondent is stated to be illusory, imaginary, and concocted.
30.

The Respondent submits that the Complaint is vexatious in nature, motivated by greed

and malice, and is an attempt to extort the Respondent into undertaking additional construction
and obligations beyond the scope of the approved project and contractual obligations.
31.

It is submitted that the Complainant has no locus standi to file the present Complaint. An

elected and statutorily registered body already exists under the Telangana Co-operative Societies
Act, 1964, namely: “The Raheja Vistas Tower D, E & F Flat Owners Cooperative Maintenance
Society Limited”, registered on 20.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the Registered Society”).
32.

The Registered Society has been formed by the resident community through a statutory

process and is the legally recognized body for maintenance, welfare, and representation of
Towers D, E & F. The Respondent submits that all coordination, negotiations, and handover
processes are being carried out exclusively with the Registered Society.
33.

It is alleged that the Complainant has fraudulently obtained a duplicate registration under

the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, despite the existence of the Registered Society
for the same project. The Respondent contends that the Complainant Society is bogus, sham, and
lacks credibility, having been formed by a few vexatious individuals with the sole intention of
harassment and extortion.
34.

The Respondent further submits that it had no knowledge of the formation of “RVE

Social Welfare Association”, nor was any notice or communication ever served upon the
Respondent prior to filing of the Complaint.
35.

It is contended that permitting such parallel and unauthorised societies to agitate

grievances would result in chaos, multiplicity of proceedings, and untenable obligations upon
promoters, as any group of individuals could claim to represent a project.

7 of 59

---

The Respondent submits that there is no privity of contract or relationship of any nature

between the Respondent and the Complainant Society. The Respondent has never interacted,
negotiated, or dealt with the Complainant at any point in time.
37.

In the absence of privity and any recognised legal relationship, the Complainant cannot

claim any cause of action against the Respondent. On this ground alone, the Complaint is liable
to be dismissed.
38.

The Respondent submits that the maintainability of the Complaint ought to be decided as

a preliminary issue on the following grounds:
a) Locus standi of the Complainant, in view of the existence of a Registered Society since
2022.
b) Want of authority, as the Complainant has failed to establish its representative capacity.
c) Absence of cause of action, as the Respondent has never dealt with the Complainant.
d) Whether the reliefs sought are legally grantable in the facts of the case.
e) Non-joinder of necessary parties, particularly the Registered Society.
f) Want of privity between the parties.
39.

The Respondent submits that one of the primary reliefs sought pertains to release of the

balance corpus. The Respondent states that the corpus is held in trust for the apartment owners
and cannot be released to an unauthorized and alleged society. The Respondent has serious
objections to vesting the corpus with the Complainant, which is stated to have fraudulently
obtained registration and lacks statutory recognition under the cooperative framework governing
the project. The Respondent submits that reconciliation of accounts is underway with the
Registered Society. Several meetings have been conducted, Minutes of Meetings recorded, and
email correspondence exchanged. A draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) has been
shared and is pending execution by the Registered Society. Upon execution of the MoU, the
Respondent is ready and willing to transfer the reconciled amounts.
40.

The Respondent submits that approximately 80% of the compound wall work is

completed. The remaining portion will be completed upon completion of the remaining towers,
as the project comprises nine towers and is being developed in phases.

8 of 59

---

The Respondent submits that this Hon’ble Authority has already rendered findings in

Complaint No.69 of 2024 regarding applicability of IRC 99/2018 to residential projects. The
project has been executed strictly as per approved plans, and the demand for a circular road is an
afterthought and not feasible at this stage.
42.

The Respondent denies the allegations and submits that all amenities as promised have

been provided. The Complainant has failed to produce documentary proof to substantiate its
claims.
43.

The Respondent submits that ducts are serviceable areas and are provided with removable

covers for maintenance access. Maintenance of Towers D, E & F is presently under the scope of
the Registered Society.
44.

Visitor parking has been provided as per approved plans and applicable norms,

constituting 10% of total parking, and is being utilised adequately.
45.

The Respondent submits that most fittings carry a limited warranty period of one year,

which has long expired. All long-term equipment warranties have been handed over to the
Registered Society. Smart devices have been serviced, and allegations to the contrary are denied.
46.

The original sanctioned plan did not mandate staff toilets. Nevertheless, the Respondent

offered to construct the same as a goodwill gesture, which was opposed by some residents. The
Respondent has offered reimbursement instead.
47.

The Respondent submits that the project has been developed in phases and registered in

accordance with Section 3(2) Explanation of the RERA Act, which explicitly permits phase-wise
registration.
48.

These assets are in common areas and were handed over in working condition.

Maintenance thereafter lies with the Registered Society.
49.

The corpus fund is non-interest bearing as clearly stipulated in the Agreement for Sale

and Sale Deeds. Hence, the claim for interest is untenable.
50.

As regards the relief sought by the Complainants for fair compensation to the residents on

account of any undue charges alleged to have been collected, and for implementation of
9 of 59

---

The Respondent reiterates that the Complaint is motivated by ulterior motives, lacks bona

fides, and is an abuse of the process of law. The Complainant has approached this Hon’ble
Authority with unclean hands.
52.

In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased

to dismiss the Complaint in limine, with costs, as being vexatious, false, and contrary to law.
D. Rejoinder:
53.

The Complainant submits that the objection raised by the Respondent on the issue of

locus standi and maintainability is wholly misconceived, untenable, and contrary to the express
provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
54.

At the very outset, the complainant herein humbly submits that deponent of the counter

filed by the respondent does not have any respect or sanctity, either to the Law or to the settled
legal position, as is evident from a perusal of the Counter filed by the respondent. Having gone
through counter filed on behalf of the respondent and having taken cognizance of the contents
therein, it is humbly submitted that the version in counter of the respondent is untenable and
unsustainable, particularly, on the point of locus-standi. The above complaint is maintainable,
before this authority, both as per Law and on facts. All the adverse allegations made against the
Complainant are specifically denied and the Respondent is called upon to prove the same strictly
according to law.
55.

It is further submitted that Section 31(1) of the RERA Act confers the right to file a

complaint upon “any aggrieved person”. The members of the Complainant Association, being
allottees affected by non-provision of amenities, incomplete common areas, and statutory noncompliances, are clearly “aggrieved persons” within the meaning of the Act.
56.

Merely because a Cooperative Maintenance Society exists for Towers D, E, and F, it

cannot be contended that the allottees, or an association formed by them, are divested of their
statutory right to approach this Hon’ble Authority. The Cooperative Society is primarily
10 of 59

---

The allegation that the Complainant Association is a “bogus” or “sham” entity is

categorically denied. The Complainant Association is validly registered under the Telangana
Societies Registration Act, 2001, and its registration certificate and membership records have
already been placed on record.
58.

It is submitted that there is a clear and well-recognised distinction between a society

registered under the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, and an association registered
under the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. Both can coexist, operate in different
domains, and serve distinct purposes without any conflict.
59.

The plea of the Respondent that there is no privity of contract with the Complainant

Association is misconceived. The Complainant Association is merely a collective body of
allottees, and the privity of contract exists directly between the Respondent and each individual
allottee who is a member of the Association.
60.

The Complainants submit that the Respondent cannot evade its statutory and contractual

obligations by contending that it has not interacted with the Association as a collective entity.
The cause of action arises from unlawful collection and continued retention of corpus deposits,
failure to provide promised amenities, arbitrary reduction of green spaces and park areas,
inadequacy of clubhouse facilities, and the existence of serious structural and safety-related
deficiencies in the project. These causes of action subsist independently in favour of the
individual allottees and, by extension, in favour of the Association representing their collective
welfare.
61.

The allegation that the complaint is vexatious, motivated by greed or malice, or intended

to extort the Respondent is emphatically denied. The Complainant has not sought any relief
relating to additional construction beyond the sanctioned scope.

11 of 59

---

The adverse and disparaging language employed in the counter against the Complainant

Association and its members is unwarranted, irrelevant, and unnecessary for adjudication of the
issues involved.
63.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has collected substantial amounts from the

allottees towards maintenance deposit and corpus fund, aggregating to approximately ₹1.6
Crores. Out of the said amount, only about ₹50 Lakhs has been handed over, while about ₹60
Lakhs has been unilaterally deducted. The remaining amounts continue to be retained by the
Respondent without justification.
64.

It is specifically contended that the corpus funds were kept in a current account, resulting

in loss of interest to the allottees, contrary to statutory norms and fiduciary principles. The
utilisation of such funds as working capital by the Respondent is impermissible in law. The
Cooperative Society has failed to question these deductions or the non-payment of interest,
compelling the Complainant Association to intervene in the interest of the allottees.
65.

The Respondent has failed to provide amenities as promised in the brochure and

advertisements, including adequate green spaces and parks, proper demarcation of common,
amenity, and commercial areas, and pollution-offset greenery in an industrial zone. As per
environmental norms, a minimum of 30–33% green belt is mandatory. The Respondent has
substantially reduced green spaces, particularly by constructing Tower-G on land originally
earmarked as park area, thereby adversely affecting residents’ health and environment. Many
allottees paid a premium of ₹50 per sq. ft. for “park view” flats, which is no longer available due
to the reduction of park areas.
66.

The clubhouse provided is grossly inadequate for a project comprising approximately 934

dwelling units housing over 3,500 residents. Despite collecting about ₹75,000 per flat towards
clubhouse charges, the facility is insufficient even for half of the residents.
67.

The compound wall was completed with a delay of nearly three years, exposing residents

to unauthorised entry, theft, stray animal attacks, and serious safety risks to women, children,
and senior citizens. The absence of CCTV surveillance in amenity areas further aggravates these
risks. The absence of a circular road poses serious safety hazards, particularly at blind corners
near Towers D and F. The existing driveway width is inadequate to handle two-way traffic and
12 of 59

---

The Complainant submits that the counter filed by the Respondent is a deliberate attempt

to evade statutory responsibilities by raising technical and artificial objections. The complaint is
fully maintainable in law and on facts, and the issues raised pertain to statutory violations, safety,
environmental compliance, and breach of representations.
69.

The Respondent ought to appreciate that the Complainant is an association of persons

comprising allottees of dwelling units who purchased their flats from the Respondent company.
Having purchased the flats upon payment of the entire sale consideration, and when serious
defects exist warranting compliance with statutory requirements as envisaged under the RERA
Act, the prevailing circumstances prevent the flat owners from residing in comfort in a manner
befitting a gated community as canvassed by the Respondent. The Complainant Association is
left with no alternative but to approach this Hon’ble Authority, particularly when the
Management Committee of the Raheja Vistas DEF Cooperative Maintenance Society has been
soft-pedalling with the Respondent.
70.

The Respondent is under a legal as well as moral obligation to provide the requisite

amenities as envisaged and canvassed in its brochure, including common areas, commercial
areas, clubhouse facilities, refundable corpus funds, adequate park area, and garden view,
particularly in respect of flats for which ₹50 per sq. ft. was charged as premium from several
residents of east-facing DEF Society dwelling units, as per the sanctioned layout plan obtained
by the Respondent. It is respectfully submitted that in the preliminary rejoinder filed by the
Complainant to the preliminary counter filed by the Respondent, it was specifically stated that
Section 2(d) of the RERA Act, 2016 clearly defines the term “allottee”. The members of the
Complainant Association are allottees of flats sold by the Respondent. As per the statutory
definition of “allottee” under the Act, it is prima facie evident that the members of the
Complainant Association are vested with the right to sustain the present complaint before this
Hon’ble Authority.

13 of 59

---

71.

The members of welfare associations, being aggrieved allottees, are entitled to maintain a
complaint before this Hon’ble Authority. The deponent of the counter ought to have perused and
taken cognisance of the legal position under the RERA Act before resorting to such unhealthy
and adverse allegations against the members of the Complainant welfare association, particularly
on the issue of maintainability and locus standi.
72.

At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the complaint is very much maintainable

under Section 2(d) and Section 31(1) of the RERA Act. This position was clearly stated in
paragraph 4 of the preliminary rejoinder filed by the Complainant. To avoid repetition, the
Complainant prays that this Hon’ble Authority may kindly read and treat the contents of
paragraph 4 thereof as part and parcel of the present rejoinder.
73.

There is absolutely no need or necessity for the Complainant or its members to adopt any

tactic to harass the Respondent. On the contrary, it is the Respondent who has been harassing and
humiliating the members of the Complainant Association. The members of the Complainant
Association are owners and allottees of dwelling units purchased from the Respondent. Any
grievance concerning such dwelling units can only be adjudicated by this Hon’ble Authority.
Having suffered numerous inconveniences due to the Respondent’s failure to provide amenities,
the members consolidated their grievances, formed an association, and registered the same with
the State Government. Accordingly, the present complaint is maintainable both in law and on
facts.
a) Since members of the complainant association are all owners of the dwelling units, the
deponent of the counter, who is only an auth. Signatory of the respondent company, is not
vested with any power or rights to mention that the complainant is just using another
tactic to harass the respondent.
b) The complainant association or its members have absolutely no need or necessity to
harass the respondent. On the contrary, the respondent, including the auth. Signatory is
guilty of harassing the members of the complainant on various aspects.
c) One of the biggest challenges to the members of complainant association is regarding
amenities required to be provided by the respondent, after the allotment of dwelling units
to members of complainant association. The amenities area is required to be bifurcated
14 of 59

---

It is specifically denied that the complaint is bad in law for want of necessary parties or

records. Several documents are available on the Respondent’s website, while some records are in
possession of the Complainant and others have been handed over to the DEF Society. Despite
repeated requests by the Complainant Association through emails, the DEF Society has failed to
furnish information regarding the records handed over by the Respondent. In several instances,
the DEF maintenance society responded stating that the issues were beyond its scope, indicating
clear soft-pedalling with the Respondent.
75.

Consequently, the Complainant Association was constrained to approach this Hon’ble

Authority. Since substantial records are in the custody of the Respondent, it cannot be contended
that the complaint is bad for want of necessary parties. If this Hon’ble Authority deems it
necessary, the Management Committee of the DEF Society may be impleaded as a party with
due permission for effective adjudication.
76.

Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the cause of action against the

Respondent is illusory or concocted, and the same is specifically denied.
77.

In view of the foregoing submissions, it can never be said that the complainant

association has no locus standi to file the above complaint.
15 of 59

---

It is further denied that the Complainant lacks locus standi merely because a Cooperative

Maintenance Society exists under the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. The
Complainant Association is independently registered under the Telangana Societies Registration
Act, 2001, and both entities coexist lawfully. The DEF flat owners are members of both bodies,
apart from members from ABC and GHI Towers who are also part of the Complainant
Association.
79.

Accordingly, it can never be contended that the Complainant Association lacks locus

standi to maintain the present complaint.
80.

It is specifically denied that the Complainant lacks bona fides. The Complainant has not

suppressed any material facts to further its cause. The facts and causes pleaded herein do not
defeat the object or purpose of the present complaint. It is also specifically denied that the
present complaint has been filed with any malice against the Respondent. On the contrary, the
complaint has been necessitated solely due to the Respondent’s repeated shortcomings and
failure to provide amenities in accordance with the RERA Act and the representations made in
its brochure and advertisements.
81.

It is specifically denied that the Complainant has fraudulently proclaimed a duplicate

registration certificate for the same project when a registered DEF Cooperative Maintenance
Society is subsisting. The DEF Maintenance Society is registered under the Telangana
Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, whereas the Complainant Association is registered under the
Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001. There is a vast and fundamental distinction between
registration under the Cooperative Societies Act and registration under the Societies Registration
Act.
82.

The Cooperative Maintenance Society has been formed primarily for maintenance of the

flats and common areas by collecting CAM charges from DEF block owners. The Complainant
Association, on the other hand, has a much broader mandate. Its membership extends not only to
DEF Towers but also includes members from ABC Towers, and several residents from GHI
Towers are also in the process of becoming members. The Respondent has erroneously treated
the Raheja Vistas Tower D, E, and F Flat Owners’ Cooperative Maintenance Society as the sole
representative body of all owners, conveniently ignoring the settled legal position that residents,
16 of 59

---

The Complainant Association is not restricted to DEF Towers alone but represents

owners from ABC, DEF, and GHI Towers. Under these circumstances, the deponent of the
counter is not vested with any power, right, title, or authority to make reckless allegations that
the Complainant Association has fraudulently obtained a duplicate registration. Such allegations
are false, unwarranted, and made with the intent to prejudice the mind of this Hon’ble Authority.
84.

The Respondent is called upon to withdraw these adverse allegations forthwith and tender

an unconditional written apology to the Complainant Association. Failing which, the members of
the Complainant Association would be constrained to initiate appropriate legal proceedings,
including proceedings for defamation, against the deponent of the counter for making baseless
and disparaging statements such as branding the Complainant Association as “bogus” and
“sham”, allegedly formed by vexatious individuals for extortion and harassment. Such
allegations are bad in law, unwarranted, and irrelevant for effective adjudication of the present
complaint.
85.

The deponent of the counter appears to be a paid employee or, at best, a person holding

insignificant shareholding in the Respondent company. In contrast, the members of the
Complainant Association are owners of dwelling units purchased for valuable consideration from
the Respondent company. The deponent of the counter affidavit is in no manner equivalent to the
members of the Complainant Association. The flats were purchased by the members at
prevailing market prices and not received as charity from the Respondent or its authorised
signatory.
86.

In such circumstances, it is wholly uncalled for on the part of the deponent of the counter

to resort to unwarranted and irresponsible allegations against the Complainant Association. The
Complainant Association strongly objects to such conduct and respectfully requests this Hon’ble
Authority to admonish the deponent and direct withdrawal of the offending statements. The
deponent has failed to disclose his designation, merely stating that he is an authorised signatory
of the Respondent company, without clarifying whether he is a Director or part of the

17 of 59

---

In view of the foregoing, it is humbly submitted that the present complaint is fully

maintainable and cannot be dismissed or result in any penal consequence against the
Complainant. The formation of the RVE Social Welfare Association is exclusively for the
welfare of owners and residents of dwelling units in the RVE Complex. The Respondent does
not retain any right, title, or interest in the dwelling units or common areas of the RVE Project.
The DEF Cooperative Maintenance Society is limited to collection of CAM charges and
maintenance of common areas and does not deal with welfare issues of the residents.
88.

The primary function of the complainant association is to look after the welfare of the

owners of the dwelling units in RVE complex, including the MC Committee members. For
example, the respondent is required to specify:
a) The amenities provided thereon, in consonance with the brochure and advertisement
made by the respondent.
b) Amenity areas and the commercial space and also the common areas, apart from the park
area and the greenery that is required to be provided in the complex as per the Lay-Out
sanctioned plan obtained by the respondent to commence construction. The park-area,
common areas, open spaces and greenery etc., should be as per the layout sanction
obtained by respondent in accordance with environmental clearance obtained by the
respondent company
c) Since the residential complex is developed in the Industrial area, as per MoEF 33% of the
area should be designated as green belt, this includes landscaping areas and areas that
will be converted into green spaces. The green belt should be developed by planting tall,
evergreen trees along the boundary. However as per the site layout provided, the above
minimum threshold green belt is not being maintained by the respondent company, which
has serious impact on the health of the members of this residential complex.
d) After bifurcation of the common areas, amenity areas and the commercial area, apart
from A, B, C another area where there is substantial dispute subsisting between the
complainant and respondent is regarding clubhouse. The clubhouse is part of amenities
provided for all the flat owners in RVE complex comprising of 9 towers that is A, B, C,
18 of 59

---

---

It is submitted that the complainant association 's duty is only welfare of its members not

the maintenance of society, and do not undertake the duties of a maintenance society.
Maintenance society had on occasions specified that it is out of their scope in several aspects,
when the matter is taken up with the co-operative society and the relevant material is enclosed
herewith.
90.

There are also occasions wherein the co-operative society has replied stating that it is out

of scope for the society to handle such situation or you can directly deal with the Raheja. The
said emails enclosed here with as documents number 4 and 5 on behalf of complainant
association. There is absolutely no reason to worry that maintaining the complainant of the
complainant association would ultimately result in Chao's causing multiplicity of negotiations for
the respondent company and the litigation for this Hon'ble Tribunal and judicial authorities. In
this context it is submitted that there is absolutely no occasion for multiplicity of negotiations for
the respondent company.
91.

The respondent company has to deal with the registered society and also complainant

association with the same correspondence, since there is no conflict of interest between the two.
The members of complainant association are all comprising of only the allottee's of the
respondent company. The respondent company is under legal obligation to provide the amenities
to the complainant association and its members, which would benefit all the DEF Society
members.
20 of 59

---

The coordination of the respondent with registered society on hand over, disbursing the

corpus fund partly and retaining a certain sum of corpus for the purpose of reconciliation, etc. is
also one of the points of dispute raised by the complainant association. For example, the
respondent company has deducted unilaterally an amount of Rs. 60 lakhs from the corpus of
around Rs. 1.6 crores, payable by the respondent to the DEF Society and the Society is not
questioning. The respondent company handed over only rupees 50 lakhs and sought to deduct
another Rs. 60 lakhs towards some deductions as per its choice, which is not agreeable to the
complainant association. The so-called negotiations said to have been taken up by the respondent
company with the cooperative society are specifically denied. Though the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs
were handed over about a year back and the deductions thereon are sought to be made and
intimated to the cooperative society about a year back. Till date, the cooperative society did not
question the respondent company about the reasons for deductions thereon and for non-payment
of interest on the corpus fund that was collected from the allottee's of the flats by the respondent
company. At the cost of reputation, it is again reiterated that the members of the complainant
association or none other than the allottees of the flats by the respondent company.
93.

On a perusal of the above submissions, it is prima-facie evident that it is not fair on the

part of the respondent company to state in their counter that the complainant is fraud etc., and it
cannot be dealt with, and it is leading to multiplicity of litigation.
94.

It is exclusively for the reason of soft pedaling by the DEF co-operative society with the

respondent company, particularly, regarding the corpus and the interest that is required to be paid
on the corpus and the deduction of about Rs. 60 lakhs made by the respondent society with the
amount which is payable to the cooperative society that does not pay. It is specifically denied
that the complainant has failed to establish its authority to file the present complaint as there is
no documentary evidence filed by the complainant to focus any kind of authority and by
extension of its credibility to represent the whole Raheja Vista's resident community. In this
context, it is submitted that the very allegation, the alleged society has come up from nowhere
and asserted rights while the registered society is in existence. This is absurd on the face of it, for
the simple reason that, as stated Supra, this is not a society, the complainant is not a society, the
complainant is an association of members who were none other than the allottees by the
respondent company.
21 of 59

---

The Complainant Association is concerned exclusively with the welfare of its members,

who are all allottees of the Respondent company. The allottees are vested with absolute rights to
question the Respondent regarding deposits collected from them, including clubhouse deposits
and maintenance deposits exceeding ₹1,00,000 per dwelling unit. These deposits are refundable
and accountable. Statutory norms mandate that such deposits be kept in a fixed or term deposit
account. Keeping such funds in a current account, which yields no interest, is impermissible.
96.

On one hand, the current account does not yield interest, resulting in financial loss to the

allottees. On the other hand, the Respondent has utilised these funds as working capital for its
business, thereby deriving unjust enrichment. Such utilisation of allottee funds is bad in law. The
Respondent is statutorily obligated to keep such funds in a separate interest-bearing account.
97.

The objection raised by the Respondent regarding alleged insufficiency of documentary

evidence is untenable. The documentary evidence in possession of the Complainant consists
primarily of registered sale deeds executed by the Respondent company through its authorised
signatory in favour of the members of the Complainant Association. To avoid voluminous filing,
only representative documents of one or two allottees have been placed on record.
98.

It is submitted that the Respondent’s claim of coordination with the registered society and

alleged handover is untenable without full discharge of its statutory obligations under the RERA
Act. The Respondent is under a legal and moral obligation to account for deposits collected from
allottees and to compensate for gains derived by utilising such funds as working capital. The
Complainant respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Authority may direct the Respondent to make
good such gains to the elected body.
99.

It is specifically denied that the Respondent has no privity of contract of any nature

whatsoever with the Complainant. The Complainant Association comprises its members, who
are none other than the allottees of dwelling units sold by the Respondent company. The allottees
paid corpus funds and deposits to the Respondent at the instance of the Respondent. Having
collected such amounts, it is wholly impermissible for the Respondent to contend that there is no
privity of contract with the Complainant. Merely because the Respondent claims to have had no
prior interaction with the Complainant Association cannot absolve it of its legal obligations once
a complaint is filed before this Hon’ble Authority.
22 of 59

---

The definition of “allottee” under the RERA Act clearly establishes that the complaint

filed by the Complainant Association is maintainable both in law and on facts. It is not open to
the Respondent to contend that there is no privity of contract or no cause of action. The causes of
action subsist against the Respondent in favour of the allottees, as elaborated hereinabove, and
therefore, the present complaint is fully maintainable.
101.

It is specifically denied that the Complainant has failed to establish its authority to

present the present complaint. The Complainant Association is not a cooperative society but an
association of members. It is not required to represent all 900-plus families in the residential
project. As already stated, the Complainant Association includes members from DEF Towers as
well as from ABC Towers, which itself demonstrates that the Complainant Association is an
independent welfare body. The DEF Cooperative Maintenance Society is confined to
maintenance functions, whereas welfare concerns are taken up by the Complainant Association.
102.

It is submitted that the cause of action clearly subsists against the Respondent due to its

continuous defaults in providing amenities and failure to complete the compound wall within a
reasonable time, as well as the absence of a proper road map for safe ingress and egress of school
buses, fire engines, and heavy vehicles. The Respondent allotted dwelling units to the members
of the Complainant Association, and therefore it is denied that the Complainant has not made out
any cause of action against the Respondent.
103.

It is further denied that the Complainant Association has failed to establish any loss

suffered or any independent cause of action. The Complainant Association represents the
collective welfare of owners of dwelling units in the RVE Complex. The Respondent has
arbitrarily retained and deducted corpus funds to the extent of approximately ₹60 Lakhs and has
failed to provide adequate amenities as promised in its brochure and advertisements. These acts
give rise to a continuing cause of action.
104.

It is specifically denied that the complaint is bad for want of necessary parties. The

cooperative society lacks the intent and willingness to question the Respondent on the issues
raised herein. The mere absence of prior interaction between the Respondent and the
Complainant Association cannot defeat the maintainability of the complaint.

23 of 59

---

The Respondent has remained conspicuously silent in its counter regarding the issue of a

damaged pillar in the 1-series flats of F Block. The said damaged pillar has been concealed with
a fibre sheet instead of being structurally rectified. This Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to
direct the Respondent to address this issue forthwith on a war footing to avert any future mishap
or damage
106.

It is respectfully submitted that the delay in the official handover of assets, premises,

financials, and statutory documentation is attributable primarily to the Respondent’s failure to
resolve the outstanding complaints raised by the flat owners, and not due to any lapse on the part
of the elected Management Committee. Despite repeated communications and follow-ups by the
Management Committee seeking a comprehensive resolution of these issues, the Respondent has
failed to address the same. The continued non-transfer of the remaining corpus funds has also
resulted in loss of interest to the society.
107.

While reconciliation of accounts is one component of the handover process, it is not the

sole criterion for determining readiness for a lawful and complete handover. Several material
issues remain unresolved, including incomplete amenities, defects in common areas, and delayed
handover of documents and statutory certifications. These issues must be fully resolved by the
Respondent before the handover process can be considered complete.
108.

It is submitted that certain grievances raised by the Complainant pertain directly to

statutory obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. These
unresolved compliance issues, which have been elaborately set out in earlier pleadings, directly
affect the rights of the allottees and the functionality of the residential complex. Any attempt to
proceed with handover without resolving these statutory violations would be premature and may
amount to a breach of the Respondent’s statutory obligations.
109.

The elected Management Committee has acted at all times in good faith and has

consistently engaged with the Respondent to facilitate the handover process. However, in the
absence of resolution of the outstanding issues, the Committee cannot, in good conscience,
accept the handover. Acceptance of handover in its present incomplete state would impose an
undue burden on the allottees and may result in the Respondent being absolved of its

24 of 59

---

Accordingly, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to direct

the Respondent to resolve the outstanding complaints within a time-bound manner and ensure
full compliance with all contractual and statutory obligations. Only upon satisfactory resolution
of these issues can the handover be deemed complete and in accordance with law.
111.

It is further submitted that the compound wall surrounding the project was completed

with a delay of no less than three years. This delay is in clear violation of the reasonable
expectations created at the time of sale and has exposed residents, particularly those residing in
DEF Towers, to grave security and safety risks. At no point in the sale deeds or related
agreements was it stated or implied that the DEF Towers would remain unsecured until the
construction of additional towers was completed.
112.

As detailed in the original complaint, the delayed completion of the compound wall has

resulted in multiple and recurring safety concerns, duly supported by photographic evidence.
These include unauthorised entry of outsiders into the premises, posing a serious threat to
personal safety and property security of residents.
a) The lack of a complete boundary wall has allowed unauthorized persons to enter the
premises, raising concerns about the personal safety of residents and the security of their
property.
b) Stray Animal Incidents: Due to inadequate boundary protections, stray animals,
particularly stray dogs, have been able to access the premises freely. This has resulted in
incidents where residents, including children and senior citizens, have been injured in
attacks by stray animals. Such incidents present an ongoing threat to the well-being and
peace of mind of all residents.
c) Theft and Loss of Property: The lack of adequate perimeter security has made the
community vulnerable to theft. There have been several reports of stolen personal
property, suspected to be due to unauthorized access by outsiders. There is no CCTV

25 of 59

---

The Complainant respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Authority may direct the

Respondent to implement immediate and effective security measures to address the ongoing
safety concerns. The Complainant further prays that the Respondent be directed to take
corrective steps to remedy the breach of its security obligations towards the residents.
114.

It is respectfully submitted that the necessity for a circular road within the project campus

has become increasingly critical due to persistent safety hazards arising from the existing road
layout. The present roadway infrastructure is wholly inadequate for safe vehicular and pedestrian
movement. This inadequacy has resulted in frequent accidents and near-miss incidents and has
severely restricted the residents’ ability to walk safely within the campus, thereby compromising
their basic right to safe and unhindered access.The current road design forces pedestrians,
including children, elderly residents, and families, to share congested and unsafe pathways with
vehicular traffic. This has resulted in multiple accidents and near- miss incidents, which continue
to pose a severe threat to the safety of all residents.
a) The absence of a designated circular road limits residents' ability to enjoy the common
areas and to move around the campus freely. The lack of safe walking paths discourages
26 of 59

---

The builder has not provided Amenities as per the brochure and Agreement of sale. The

club house is miniscule for 900+ flats with average of 30000 members may be living in this
society. Also, the builder is charging exorbitant price from each of the owners, treating the club
house as commercial establishment.
116.

Further, the approved layout plan promised a specific percentage of the total project area

to be reserved for open green spaces. However, residents of the nine towers are unable to access

27 of 59

---

It is further submitted that adequate parking spaces for visitors’ vehicles and for

residents’ two-wheelers have not been provided as mandated by the SEIAA guidelines.
118.

It is also submitted that no park view is presently available to several apartments for

which a premium amount was collected by the Respondent on the promise of such view.
119.

In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this

Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to allow the complaint as prayed for and appoint an
independent officer, as deemed fit by the Authority, to verify the veracity of the claims made by
the Complainant. The Complainant further prays that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to
issue appropriate directions to the Respondent to ensure full compliance with the provisions of
the RERA Act, including provision of requisite amenities, adequate greenery, and proper park
areas, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit and proper
in the interest of justice.
F. Interlocutory Applications Filed by the Complainants:
I.

IA No. 89 of 2024
120.

The Complainant Association filed IA No. 89 of 2024, submitting that the Association is

not only beneficial to its members but also serves as a welfare body for all owners of dwelling
units across all nine towers in the Raheja Vistas Residential Complex, who are similarly situated.
121.

It is submitted that the members of the Complainant Association are allottees of

residential flats developed by the Respondent. Upon allotment, the Respondent collected the
entire sale consideration and executed registered sale deeds in favour of the respective allottees.
123.

It is further contended that, while executing the sale deeds, the Respondent deliberately

attempted to dilute and frustrate certain amenities promised in the brochure. Additionally, the
Respondent divided the owners of the nine towers into three separate societies, while failing to

28 of 59

---

The Complainant submits that the amenities required to be provided fall squarely within

the definition of “amenities” under Section 2(n)(vii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
125.

It is asserted that under Section 2(d) read with Section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act, the

members of the Complainant Association, being allottees, fall within the definition of “person”
and “aggrieved person”. Consequently, the Respondent is not entitled to question the locus standi
of the Association or raise a plea of absence of privity of contract.Prayer in IA No. 89 of 2024
126.

The Complainant prayed that this Hon’ble Authority adjudicate the issues of locus standi

and privity of contract as preliminary issues, as raised by the Respondent in its Counter, for
effective adjudication of the main complaint.
Prayer in IA No. 89 of 2024:
127.

The Complainant prayed that this Hon’ble Authority adjudicate the issues of locus standi

and privity of contract as preliminary issues, as raised by the Respondent in its counter, for
effective adjudication of the main complaint.
II.

IA No. 90 of 2024
128.

The Complainant filed IA No. 90 of 2024 seeking appointment of a Court Commissioner

to conduct a local inspection of the Raheja Vistas Residential Complex. It was prayed that the
Commissioner inspect and document the physical features of the project, particularly the park
areas vis-à-vis the brochure and sanctioned layout plan, and video record the versions of
residents/owners, at the cost of the Complainant, to aid effective adjudication.
III.

IA No. 91 of 2024

129.

The Complainant filed IA No. 91 of 2024, submitting that repeated attempts were

made by members of the Association to obtain essential documents from the Managing
29 of 59

---

It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may:

a) Implead the MC Team of the DEF Maintenance Society as Complainant No. 2 in the
above complaint;
b) Direct the MC Team to appear before this Hon’ble Authority with all the requisite
documents (as mentioned in the emails annexed herewith) received from the Respondent
company;
c) Pass any other order(s) as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
IA: No.58 of 2025 filed by the complainants:
131.

The Complainant Association filed an Interlocutory Application seeking to implead the

residents of Towers A, B, and C, contending that they too are stakeholders in the maintenance
and management of the project. The proposed implead party, comprising approximately 276
residents, is organised as Raheja Vistas ABC Co-operative Residential Society. The principal
grievance raised by the Implead Party Petitioners is that, in the year 2012, the Respondent `v0
handed over a sketch map indicating the designated exit and entry pathway for residents of
Tower ‘A’, which has continued to exist in the same form till date. This internal pathway, used
for ingress and egress by residents of Tower ‘A’, was situated adjacent to the clubhouse on the
western side of the project.
132.

However, a contradiction arises inasmuch as the sanctioned layout plan uploaded on the

RERA website, as well as the present physical condition of the project on ground, do not reflect
this original pathway. Instead, the ramp shown in the 2023 sketch has recently been dismantled
and a compound wall has been constructed in its place, thereby effectively blocking the internal
30 of 59

---

Such unilateral action on the part of the Respondent, particularly Respondent No. 3, in

obstructing a long-established access pathway, is alleged to be prejudicial to the interests of the
Implead Party Petitioners and detrimental to their peaceful and rightful enjoyment of the
property.
G. Counter by the Respondent to IAs:

134.

That the Complainant has no locus standi to file the present application seeking to

implead the Raheja Vistas D, E & F Flat Owners Co-Operative Maintenance Society Ltd.
(“Society”) as Complainant No. 2. Such an application is the first of its kind in the judicial arena,
wherein a party is sought to be impleaded as Complainant No. 2. This itself demonstrates that the
Complainant is attempting to misguide this Hon’ble Authority and create a cause of action by
bringing the Society as a complainant.
135.

As a general practice, a party is impleaded as a respondent and not as a complainant. For

a person or party to be impleaded as Complainant No. 2, there must exist a cause of action in
favour of such party. Obviously, the Society has no cause of action against the Respondent.
However, the Complainant is adopting backdoor methods to bring the Society as Complainant
No. 2. On this ground alone, the application is liable to be dismissed in limine.
136.

The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (“CPC”) apply only to the limited extent

expressly provided under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (“Act”). The
provisions of the CPC in toto do not apply to the present case, as per Section 89 of the Act.
Hence, the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC does not apply to the present case. On this
ground also, the application is liable to be dismissed.
137.

That the Complainant has failed to demonstrate before this Hon’ble Authority the issues

that warrant appointment of a Commissioner. Firstly, the Complainant must clearly establish the
facts by which it claims to be aggrieved. The project consists of 920 dwelling apartments, and
the Complainant is interfering with the families residing in the project as well as with the
functioning of the respective societies.

31 of 59

---

The Complainant is attempting to create a community issue and make unlawful gains at

the cost of the Respondent, the families residing in the project, and the respective societies.
H. Observation for IA 89, 90 and 91 of 2024, and 58 of 2025 following are the observations of
the Authority:
IA No. 89 of 2024: Maintainability of the Complaint and locus standi of the Complainant
Association:
139.

The Respondent has strenuously contended in its reply that the Complaint is not

maintainable and ought to be dismissed in limine on the preliminary grounds that the
Complainant Association lacks locus standi, as a duly registered statutory body already exists,
namely “The Raheja Vistas Tower D, E & F Flat Owners Cooperative Maintenance Society
Limited” (registered on 20.09.2022 under the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964),
which is the legally recognized entity for maintenance, welfare, and representation of Towers D,
E & F.
140.

It is further alleged by the Respondent that the Complainant Association is a bogus,

sham, or fraudulently duplicate-registered entity under the Telangana Societies Registration Act,
2001, purportedly formed by a few vexatious individuals with an intention to harass and extort
the Respondent. The Respondent contends that there exists no privity of contract or legally
recognized relationship between itself and the Complainant Association, as it has never
interacted, negotiated, or dealt with the said Association. On this basis, objections are raised
regarding absence of cause of action, non-joinder of necessary parties particularly the Registered
Cooperative Society and that the Complaint is vexatious, motivated by malice and greed, and
constitutes an abuse of process. It is specifically contended that primary reliefs such as release of
balance corpus funds cannot be granted to an unauthorized entity, and that reconciliation and
handover processes are being undertaken exclusively with the Registered Cooperative Society.
141.

In rebuttal, the Complainant, in its rejoinder, has categorically refuted the aforesaid

objections. It is contended that under Section 31(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, any aggrieved person is entitled to file a complaint before this
Authority. The members of the Complainant Association, being allottees, are clearly “aggrieved

32 of 59

---

The grievances articulated include, inter alia: non-handover of finances and assets even

after more than one year from formation of the Maintenance Society resulting in alleged
financial loss of ₹8,27,064/-; withholding of approximately ₹1.12 Crores from maintenance
deposits with arbitrary deductions; failure to provide essential infrastructure such as compound
wall, CCTV surveillance, adequate security, circular internal roads, IRC-compliant speed
breakers and convex mirrors; inadequacy of clubhouse facilities for a project comprising over
900 flats; uncovered open-to-sky ducts posing health hazards; reduction and neglect of park and
green spaces allegedly below environmental norms; absence of staff toilets and water outlets;
defective and non-functional assets including STP, OWC, solar panels, smart devices;
concealment of a damaged structural pillar in Tower-F instead of proper rectification; flooding
risks arising from site slopes; and loss of interest on corpus funds amounting to approximately
₹30 Lakhs due to retention in a non-interest-bearing current account.
143.

It is further submitted that the Complainant Association is a validly registered body under

the Telangana Societies Registration Act, 2001, comprising allottees not only from Towers D, E
& F but also from ABC and GHI Towers, and that its objectives extend beyond day-to-day
maintenance to broader welfare concerns and enforcement of statutory and contractual
obligations of the promoter. The Complainant draws a distinction between a Cooperative Society
registered under the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 primarily intended for
maintenance and collection of CAM charges and an Association registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 2001, which is oriented towards collective welfare and representation. It is
contended that both entities can lawfully coexist without any legal conflict.
145.

It is also contended that privity of contract exists directly between the Respondent and

each individual allottee through their respective Agreements for Sale and registered Sale Deeds.
The Association merely acts as a collective representative of such allottees. The members
squarely fall within the definition of “allottees” under Section 2(d) of the RE(R&D) Act, and
collectively constitute an “association of allottees” within the meaning of Rule 2(b) of the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, which defines the same as “a
collective of the allottees of a real estate project, by whatever name called, registered under any
33 of 59

---

This Authority has given anxious consideration to the rival submissions. Section 31(1) of

the RE(R&D) Act provides that “any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority
or the Adjudicating Officer against any promoter alleging violation of his rights under this
RE(R&D) Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder.” The expression “aggrieved person”
has not been narrowly or exhaustively defined and has consistently been construed broadly in
RERA jurisprudence to include allottees whose statutory rights are affected by acts or omissions
of the promoter.
147.

In the present case, the members of the Complainant Association are undisputedly

allottees who have paid substantial consideration, executed registered Sale Deeds, and are
directly impacted by the alleged continuing violations. The grievances raised disclose a live and
subsisting cause of action under the RE(R&D) Act.
148.

As a collective, the Complainant Association clearly falls within the ambit of Rule 2(b)

of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. The mere existence of
a Cooperative Maintenance Society, primarily tasked with day-to-day maintenance and CAMrelated functions, does not extinguish or curtail the statutory right of individual allottees or their
collective associations to approach this Authority for redressal of promoter defaults, particularly
where issues of statutory compliance, safety, amenities, etc., are involved.
149.

The objection regarding lack of privity is misconceived. Privity exists between the

promoter and each allottee through the Agreement for Sale and Sale Deed. An association of
such allottees is entitled to collectively espouse their cause and seek enforcement of statutory
obligations. Further the reliefs sought do not seek vesting of the corpus fund or maintenance
functions in the Complainant no.1 Association itself, but rather seek directions to the Respondent
to discharge its statutory obligations, including transfer of funds to the duly elected Maintenance
Society, completion of promised amenities, rectification of defects, and transparency in accounts
matters which squarely fall within the promoter’s obligations under the RE(R&D) Act.
150.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Authority holds that the Complainant

Association possesses the requisite locus standi as an association of allottees, and its members
34 of 59

---

With respect to Interlocutory Application No. 90, the same was not allowed by this

Hon’ble Authority.
152.

Insofar as Interlocutory Application No. 91 is concerned, the Complainant sought the

following reliefs: (a) to implead the Managing Committee (MC Team) of the DEF Maintenance
Society as Complainant No. 2 in the present complaint; and (b) to direct the said MC Team to
appear before this Hon’ble Authority along with all requisite documents allegedly received from
the Respondent Company, as referred to in the emails annexed to the application.
152.

However, it is pertinent to note that the IA.No. 89 of 2024 was not for impleading the

DEF Maintenance Society or its Managing Committee as a Respondent, but specifically as
Complainant No. 2.
153.

In this regard, this Hon’ble Authority takes note of the communication dated 10.02.2025,

wherein the RVT CMS (Managing Committee), through an email addressed to this Authority,
categorically informed that they were not inclined to be impleaded in the present proceedings at
that stage, as they were attempting to resolve the issues through mutual discussions between the
parties.
154.

In view of the aforesaid express communication, this Hon’ble Authority observed that no

party can be compelled to be impleaded as a Complainant, particularly when such party has
clearly stated that it does not intend to raise any grievance or allegation against the Respondent at
that juncture.
155.

Accordingly, this Hon’ble Authority found no merit in the request to implead the DEF

Maintenance Society / RVT CMS as Complainant No. 2, and consequently, Interlocutory
Application No. 91 was rejected.
156.

The Complainant Association filed an Interlocutory Application no.58 of 2025 seeking to

implead the residents of Towers A, B, and C, contending that they are also stakeholders in the
maintenance and management of the project. The proposed Implead Party, comprising
35 of 59

---

The principal grievance raised by the proposed Implead Party is that, in the year 2012,

the Respondent had handed over a sketch map indicating a designated exit and entry pathway for
residents of Tower ‘A’, which, according to them, had continued to exist and be used
uninterruptedly till date. The said internal pathway was located adjacent to the clubhouse on the
western side of the project and was being used for ingress and egress by residents of Towers A,
B, and C.
158.

However, a contradiction arises inasmuch as the sanctioned layout plan uploaded on the

RERA website, as well as the existing physical condition of the project, do not reflect the
existence of such original pathway. Instead, it is observed that the ramp depicted in the 2023
sketch has since been dismantled, and a compound wall has been constructed in its place, thereby
obstructing the internal access route which, according to the Implead Party, had been in use for
over 12 years. The Implead Party has alleged that such unilateral action on the part of the
Respondent, particularly Respondent No. 3, in blocking the long-standing access pathway, is
prejudicial to their interests and adversely affects their peaceful and rightful enjoyment of the
property.
159.

Upon consideration, this Hon’ble Authority was of the view that the impleadment of the

ABC Society could be permitted only to a limited extent, namely, where the reliefs sought in the
main complaint by complainant no.1 pertain to or affect the project as a whole, including
common areas and common amenities.
160.

Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application seeking impleadment of the ABC Society was

partly allowed, strictly limited to issues concerning common areas or common amenities
affecting the entire project raised by Complainant no,1, and was rejected to the extent it sought
reliefs confined exclusively to Towers A, B, and C.
H. Points for consideration:
161. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and upon perusal of
the pleadings, written argument and material placed on record, the following issue arises for
36 of 59

---

The Complainant has sought a direction for the immediate transfer of all financials,

including the corpus fund and maintenance deposits collected from allottees, to the duly elected
Maintenance Society. The Respondent, while admitting the collection of such amounts, submits
that reconciliation of accounts is pending and that the balance corpus can be transferred only
upon execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the registered “Raheja Vistas
Towers D, E & F Flat Owners Cooperative Maintenance Society Limited” (hereinafter
“Registered Cooperative Society”), which was duly formed on 20.09.2022 under the Telangana
Cooperative Societies Act, 1964.
163.

This Authority has carefully considered the rival contentions. Section 17(1) of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 mandates that the promoter shall execute a
registered conveyance deed in respect of the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to
the association of allottees, and handover physical possession thereof. Section 17(2) further
provides that, after obtaining the occupancy certificate and handing over physical possession of
the units to the allottees, the promoter shall handover all necessary documents and plans,
including those relating to common areas, to the association of allottees
164. Section 11(4)(e) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 mandates
the promoter to enable the formation of an association of allottees. The said statutory mandate is
not merely formal in nature, but is integrally connected with the overall scheme of the Act,
which envisages the eventual transfer of management, maintenance and control of common areas
and facilities to the association of allottees upon completion of the project, as contemplated
under Sections 11(4)(f) and 17 of the RE(R&D) Act. Further, under Section 11(4)(a) of the
RE(R&D) Act, the promoter is obligated to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Agreement
for Sale entered into with the allottees. In the present case, one such contractual obligation
pertains to the handover of maintenance to the association of allottees and the deposit of the
corpus amount with the duly Registered Cooperative Society.
37 of 59

---

The Respondent has placed on record that coordination and meetings have been held with

the Registered Cooperative Society, a portion of the corpus has already been disbursed, and the
balance is retained pending reconciliation of accounts. The Complainant, however, alleges undue
delay in full handover, resulting in financial prejudice to allottees.
166.

This Authority observes that the Registered Cooperative Society, being the statutorily

recognized body under the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, is the appropriate entity
entitled to receive and manage the corpus fund and maintenance deposits pertaining to Towers
D, E & F. The Complainant Association (registered under the Telangana Societies Registration
Act, 2001) has been held to have locus standi to espouse the grievances of its allottee-members
under Section 31(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, but the actual transfer of funds and management rights
must vest with the Registered Cooperative Society in accordance with the statutory scheme and
the Agreement for Sale.
167.

Crucially, Clause 15 of the Agreement for Sale executed between the Respondent and the

individual allottees expressly stipulates that any amounts collected by the promoter towards
maintenance deposits and outgoings relating to common areas shall be paid over to the
association of allottees or the ad-hoc committee upon its formation. Having made such a clear
and unequivocal contractual representation, the Respondent is estopped from contending that
there is no privity of obligation or liability to transfer the said funds merely because the
grievance is raised through the Complainant Association.
168.

It is undisputed that the members of the Complainant Association are themselves allottees

who have paid maintenance deposits and corpus amounts on par with other allottees who are
members of the Registered Cooperative Maintenance Society. Merely because the Complainant
Association has questioned the delay or non-transfer of such funds to the Registered Cooperative
Society, it cannot be said that such grievance is illegitimate or beyond their locus.
169.

The statutory obligations cast upon the promoter under Sections 11 and 17 of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read in conjunction with the contractual
assurances contained in the Agreement for Sale, require the promoter to transfer the entire corpus
and maintenance deposits, strictly in accordance with the agreed terms, to the duly registered
Cooperative Maintenance Society. While legitimate reconciliation of accounts is permissible, the
38 of 59

---

Further, reconciliation of accounts is a legitimate step to ensure transparency and

accuracy, however the Respondent has not furnished sufficient details of the nature, scope, and
progress of such reconciliation, nor has it demonstrated any justifiable basis for prolonged
retention of the balance corpus. Continued delay in handover, even after more than a year from
the formation of the Registered Cooperative Society, is inconsistent with the promoter’s
obligations under the RE(R&D) Act and the Agreement for Sale.
171.

Therefore the Respondent is directed to Complete the reconciliation of accounts with the

Registered Cooperative Society within a period of 15(fifteen) days from the date of this Order
and Upon completion of reconciliation, transfer the entire balance corpus fund including any
legitimate interest, if applicable under the Agreement for Sale or proven misuse to the Registered
Cooperative Society within a further period of 30 (thirty) days.
b) Construction of compound wall and security measures:
172.

The Complainant has alleged prolonged delay in the completion of the compound wall

surrounding the project, which has allegedly resulted in serious security and safety risks to the
residents of Towers D, E & F. These risks include unauthorised entry of outsiders into the
premises, incidents of theft, frequent presence and attacks by stray animals, and consequent
threats to the safety of women, children, senior citizens, and other vulnerable residents.
Photographic evidence and representations in this regard have been placed on record by the
Complainant.
173.

The Respondent, in its reply, has admitted that the compound wall has been completed

only to the extent of approximately 80% and has contended that the remaining portion is linked
to the phased development of the project comprising nine towers in total. It is submitted that full
completion of the perimeter wall is feasible only upon completion of the remaining towers, as the
project is being developed in phases in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the provisions of
the RE(R&D) Act.

39 of 59

---

This Authority has given careful consideration to the rival contentions. The provision of a

secure and adequately constructed compound wall around the residential project constitutes an
integral and essential component of the common facilities and amenities promised in a gated
community residential project. Such a boundary wall is not merely an infrastructural element but
is directly linked to the safety, security and peaceful enjoyment of the dwelling units by the
allottees who have already taken possession.
175.

Once the promoter has executed registered sale deeds in favour of the allottees, handed

over physical possession of the individual units, and obtained occupancy certificate(s) in respect
of the completed towers D, E & F in the present case, the allottees acquire a legitimate and
immediate right to the safe and secure use of the premises. The promoter cannot indefinitely
defer or postpone the completion of basic security infrastructure such as a proper compound wall
on the sole ground that the project is being developed in phases or that additional towers are yet
to be constructed.
176.

Phased development is indeed permissible under the Explanation to Section 3(2) of the

RE(R&D) Act and under the sanctioned plan. However, such permissibility does not absolve the
promoter of the obligation to ensure reasonable safety and security for the allottees of the already
completed and occupied phases. Prolonged exposure of occupied towers to security
vulnerabilities, including unauthorised access and stray animal menace, constitutes a continuing
failure to provide the complete promised common facilities and amenities in a timely and
effective manner. This is particularly so when the promoter has already collected substantial
amounts towards maintenance deposits and corpus funds, which are intended, inter alia, to secure
and maintain the common areas.
177.

The sanctioned building plan and layout, as well as the representations made in the

brochure, Agreement of sale contemplate a fully secured gated community. The promoter is
bound under Section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act to adhere to the sanctioned plans and specifications
and to rectify any structural or functional deficiencies that affect the safety or usability of the
project. A secure boundary wall falls squarely within this obligation.
178.

In view of the admitted partial completion of the compound wall and the serious safety

concerns raised which are neither fanciful nor unsubstantiated, this Authority is of the considered
40 of 59

---

Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to complete the remaining portion of the

compound wall strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, ensuring that the wall fully
encloses the area pertaining to Towers D, E & F and such other completed portions of the project
as may be necessary to secure the occupied towers, within a period of one (1) month from the
date of this Order.
c) Circular internal road, ingress-egress, IRC compliance and Driveway issue.
180.

The Complainant has sought a direction to the Respondent to lay a circular internal road

with separate entry and exit routes, provision of speed breakers strictly in accordance with
IRC:99-2018 specifications, installation of convex mirrors at corners/turnabouts, and ensuring
adequate driveway widths for safe vehicular movement, including unobstructed access for
emergency vehicles such as fire tenders. It is contended that the existing layout provides for a
single entry/exit road, resulting in congestion, blind corners particularly at Towers D and F,
safety hazards for pedestrians and inadequate width for two-way traffic or emergency access.
The Complainant has further alleged that surface parking within the driveway/setback area
obstructs free movement and compromises fire safety.
181.

The Respondent has denied these allegations, submitting that the internal road layout,

driveway widths, and associated features have been executed strictly in accordance with the
approved building plans and sanctioned layout. It is contended that the project is a phased
development, and the existing configuration is feasible, adequate, and compliant with the
sanctioned approvals. Any demand for a circular road or modifications at this stage is stated to
be an afterthought, not contemplated in the Agreement for Sale or sanctioned plans, and hence
not contractually or statutorily mandated.
182.

The Complainant has placed before this Authority two sets of plans: (i) the overall

development site plan/master plan of the concerned project, and (ii) the detailed block-wise
approved building plan for Towers D, E & F under Proceedings No. 10/M&C/TSIICIALA/NRM/PL&DPL/BP/P-27(A)/R-12/2017-18 dated 03.11.2017. It is submitted by the
41 of 59

---

To resolve the apparent confusion regarding the technical aspects of the sanctioned plans

and to ensure fair adjudication, this Authority, in exercise of its powers under Section 35(1) of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, sought clarification from the
competent authority (Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited / IALA
Nacharam) vide communication dated 18.07.2025.
184.

The competent authority, vide its letter No. TGIIC/IALA/IP-NRM/RERA/Raheja/2025-

26/ dated 02.12.2025, has furnished a detailed response, the relevant portions of which are
extracted below:
i.

The

approved

building

plans

under

Proceedings

No.

10/M&C/TSIIC-

IALA/NRM/PL&DPL/BP/P-27(A)/R-12/2017-18 dated 03.11.2017 show a minimum
side setback of 14.00 meters, which is available on site as verified by physical
inspection.
ii.

The overall width of the driveway in the approved plan is 9.00 meters, but the
detailed cross-section of the 14.00-meter setback comprises: 7.00 meters clear
driveway + 5.00 meters surface parking + 2.00 meters green strip.

iii.

Surface parking is permitted within the side setback area as per G.O. Ms. No. 168
MA&UD dated 07.04.2012, Clause 13(C), sub-clauses (vii) & (xii), which allow
usage of setbacks for visitor/surface parking after leaving a clear driveway of 7.00
meters for movement of fire tender vehicles.

iv.

The detailed block-wise plan showing 9.00 meters driveway is to be read in
correlation with the cross-section of the 14.00-meter setback in the overall
development plan.

v.

The approved drawing with 7.00 meters clear driveway + 5.00 meters surface parking
+ 2.00 meters green strip is considered final and authoritative.

vi.

On physical verification, the site matches the approved cross-section.
42 of 59

---

Clear driveway width of 7.00 meters is indicated in all approved master plans
(Towers A to F) and is available on ground.

185.

We have perused the aforesaid clarification and the enclosed approved drawings. The

report from the competent sanctioning authority is authoritative and binding on the interpretation
of the sanctioned plans. The apparent discrepancy highlighted by the Complainant stands
clarified, the 9.00-meter driveway indication in the block-wise plan must be read harmoniously
with the detailed cross-section of the setback area, which provides for a clear driveway of 7.00
meters adequate for fire tender movement as per G.O. 168, with the balance utilised for
permissible surface parking and green strip.
186.

We fully appreciates and acknowledges the genuine concerns raised by the Complainant

Association regarding traffic flow, safety at blind corners, pedestrian hazards, congestion during
peak hours, and the desirability of a circular internal road with separate ingress/egress for better
ventilation, emergency access, and overall livability of the community. These are legitimate
issues that affect the quality of life of residents in an occupied gated community. However, the
promoter is statutorily bound under Section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act to adhere to the sanctioned
plans and specifications approved by the competent authority. The sanctioned plans are
sacrosanct and cannot be deviated from post-approval without due process and revised sanction.
The competent authority has confirmed that the as-built configuration matches the approved
cross-section and complies with applicable building rules, including provisions for fire tender
access 7.00-meter clear driveway and permissible surface parking in setbacks.
187.

As regards the applicability of IRC:99-2018 (Guidelines for Traffic Calming Measures),

this Authority has already held in Complaint No. 69 of 2024 involving the same project that IRC
specifications are primarily intended for public highways and major roads, and do not
mandatorily apply to internal driveways of private residential projects. The existing humps/speed
breakers, even if not strictly IRC-compliant, are permissible if they serve the purpose of traffic
calming without rendering the driveway unsafe or unusable.
188.

In view of the authoritative clarification from the sanctioning authority and the

mandatory adherence to sanctioned plans under Section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act, we are
constrained to hold that no direction can be issued for modification of the road layout, provision
43 of 59

---

Accordingly, the reliefs sought for provision of a circular internal road, separate entry

and exit routes, IRC-compliant speed breakers, and modification of driveway widths are not
considered in view of the sanction plan. However, having regard to the safety concerns expressed
by the residents, this Authority deems it appropriate to direct the Respondent to ensure
installation of convex mirrors at identified blind corners, if not already provided, so as to
enhance visibility and vehicular safety, strictly subject to and without deviation from the
sanctioned plans.
190.

If the Complainant Association is of the view that the sanctioned plans themselves suffer

from any infirmity or that modifications are essential for public safety and fire norms compliance
beyond what has been clarified by the competent authority, they may agitate such grievances
before the appropriate forum. This Authority’s jurisdiction under the RE(R&D) Act is limited to
enforcement of statutory obligations of the promoter vis-à-vis sanctioned plans and does not
extend to directing alterations to approved layouts.
191. Observation of Hon'ble Member Sri Srinivasa Rao: In my opinion, and with utmost
respect to the views of the Hon'ble Chairperson and the other Hon'ble Member, I hold a differing
perspective on this specific aspect of the driveway width issue. The Complainants' concerns
regarding the driveway width are genuine. Based on my experience, I believe that where the
approved road/driveway width is indicated as 9 meters in the plans, and if 2 meters (or part
thereof) is proposed/utilized for surface parking within that width, the effective clear
carriageway would be reduced to 7 meters. In such a scenario, this 7-meter width should ideally
be treated and regulated as a one-way driveway only, to ensure better easement, smoother traffic
flow, reduced congestion, and enhanced safety for the residents of the project. This observation
is made in the interest of resident convenience and practical traffic management within the
internal layout, though it does not alter the binding nature of the sanctioned plans as clarified by
the competent authority or the majority decision on non-interference with the approved
configuration.
44 of 59

---

The Complainant has sought a direction to the Respondent to provide all amenities as

promised in the brochure, advertisements, and Agreement for Sale, specifically including
adequate green cover, well-maintained parks, a designated pet area, and a sufficiently sized
clubhouse commensurate with the scale of the project comprising approximately 934 dwelling
units across nine towers.
193.

It is alleged that the Respondent has failed to deliver these amenities in full, that green

open spaces and park areas have been reduced(including by construction of Tower G on land
originally earmarked as park area, that certain designated green/open spaces remain inaccessible
to residents as they fall outside the boundary wall, that the park is neglected, broken play
equipment, asbestos sheets, dog excreta, no demarcated pet area, and that the clubhouse is
grossly inadequate for a community of over 900 flats and approximately 1,800–3,500 residents,
despite collection of substantial clubhouse charges approximately ₹75,000 per flat from many
owners.
194.

The Respondent has denied any shortfall or deviation, submitting that all promised

amenities have been provided strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plans, approvals, and
Agreement for Sale. It is contended that the clubhouse and other common facilities were handed
over to the Registered Cooperative Maintenance Society, that maintenance thereafter is the
responsibility of the Society, and that any perceived inadequacy of size or scale does not
constitute a breach of statutory or contractual obligation.
195.

At the outset, it must be noted that under Section 14(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016, the promoter is obligated to adhere to the sanctioned plans, layout
plans, and specifications as approved by the competent authority, and to the commitments made
in the Agreement for Sale. Further, Section 14(3) requires the promoter to rectify any structural
defects or any other defect in workmanship, quality, or provision of services within five years
from the date of handing over possession. Representations made in the brochure and promotional
materials, to the extent they form part of the Agreement for Sale are binding on promoter.

45 of 59

---

However, the Complainant has not placed on record specific, itemised details of

amenities that were expressly promised in the brochure or Agreement for Sale but have been
completely omitted or not provided at all. The grievance primarily appears to centre on:
i.

Perceived inadequacy in the size/scale of the clubhouse relative to the total number of
dwelling units and residents;

ii.

Alleged reduction or shrinkage of park/green open spaces due to construction of
additional towers (e.g., Tower G);

iii.

Lack of maintenance of the park area broken equipment, unhygienic conditions, absence
of a demarcated pet area;

iv.

Inaccessibility of certain green/open spaces lying outside the boundary wall.

197.

With respect to the clubhouse, this Authority observes that the size, design, and capacity

of common amenities such as the clubhouse are governed by the sanctioned building plan and
layout approved by the competent authority. The Complainants were aware of the overall project
configuration and the amenities proposed therein at the time of purchase, as reflected in the
sanctioned master plan for the concerned project and subsequent block wise approvals for
additional towers. The RE(R&D) Act does not empower this Authority to direct enlargement or
expansion of an already constructed and sanctioned clubhouse facility merely on the ground that
it appears “miniscule” or insufficient for the eventual population of the entire project, in the
absence of proof that the facility deviates from the approved plan or that the promoter made a
specific, quantifiable promise of a larger clubhouse which has been breached.
198.

As regards green spaces and parks, the extent, location and percentage of open/green

areas are fixed under the sanctioned layout plan and environmental clearance granted by the
competent authority. Which the Respondent is directed to adhere and comply.
199.

Construction of additional towers, including Tower ‘G’, can only be undertaken pursuant

to fresh or revised sanctions from the competent authority. Unless it is demonstrated that such
construction violates the minimum green/open space requirements mandated under
environmental clearance or building rules, or encroaches upon areas specifically designated as
exclusive park space in the sanctioned plan relied upon at the time of sale, this Authority cannot
interfere with such development.
46 of 59

---

The grievances relating to poor maintenance of park areas, broken play equipment,

unhygienic conditions, dog excreta, and absence of a demarcated pet area pertain primarily to
maintenance and management of common areas. Once common amenities have been handed
over to the Registered Cooperative Maintenance Society, the responsibility for upkeep,
cleanliness, maintenance of play equipment, and framing of internal arrangements vests with the
Society, to be regulated through its bye-laws, general body decisions and maintenance
arrangements. RERA is not intended to function as a forum for adjudication of routine
maintenance issues post-handover.
e) Covering of ducts, land gradient correction, and demarcation:
201.

The Complainant has sought specific directions to the Respondent to:

(i) Provide permanent roofing/covering over open-to-sky duct areas to prevent accumulation
of pigeon droppings, release of harmful gases, and creation of unhygienic and healthhazardous conditions;
(ii) Correct the adverse land inclination/gradient multi-layered slopes of approximately two
feet from G, H & I Blocks towards E & F Blocks which allegedly causes flooding risk in the
stilt and basement areas of Towers D, E & F during heavy rainfall;
(iii) Carry out proper physical demarcation of the built-up areas of all nine towers,
apex/common areas, driveways, open spaces, garden areas, service areas, and commercial
zones in accordance with the approved drawings, so as to prevent future disputes and ensure
transparency.
202.

The Authority notes that these grievances broadly relate to health and hygiene in

common areas, safety and functionality of common infrastructure, and transparency and certainty
in identification of common/exclusive areas, all of which have a direct bearing on the peaceful
enjoyment and welfare of the allottees.
203.

The Respondent has not specifically traversed these allegations in detail. Its reply

proceeds on a general denial, asserting that the project has been developed strictly as per
approved plans, that ducts are serviceable areas provided with removable covers for maintenance
access, and that post-handover maintenance of Towers D, E and F lies with the Registered
Cooperative Maintenance Society.
47 of 59

---

Section 14(3) of the RE(R&D) Act obligates the promoter to rectify any structural defect

or any other defect in workmanship, quality, or provision of services within five years from the
date of handing over possession. While “structural defect” is narrowly construed, defects in
workmanship or provision of services include functional deficiencies in common areas which
render them unsafe, unhygienic, or hazardous.
205.

The Complainant has specifically alleged that uncovered duct areas in common spaces

have resulted in accumulation of pigeon droppings, foul odour, emission of harmful gases, and
severe unhygienic conditions, posing health risks particularly to children, senior citizens and
residents with respiratory ailments. These allegations, if established, fall within the ambit of
defects in provision of services during the stipulated period as mandated.
206.

Merely describing ducts as “serviceable areas” does not absolve the promoter of

responsibility if their design or condition creates continuing health hazards. The promoter cannot
shift the entire responsibility to the Maintenance Society when the initial provision itself is
alleged to be deficient.
207.

Accordingly, this Authority finds it appropriate to direct a technical assessment rather

than issue a blanket direction. The Respondent is therefore directed to cause an inspection of the
open-to-sky duct areas by a qualified civil/structural engineer within 30 days, to assess whether
permanent or semi-permanent protective measures can be provided without compromising
ventilation or maintenance access.
208.

If such measures are found to be technically feasible and necessary to eliminate health

hazards, the Respondent shall implement the same within a further period of 60 days.
209.

The Complainant has raised a legitimate concern regarding absence of clear physical

demarcation of common areas, open spaces, driveways, service zones, amenity areas and
commercial pockets within the project.
210.

Section 17 read with Section 11(4)(f) of the RE(R&D) Act casts a statutory obligation

upon the promoter to hand over necessary plans, documents and common areas in a manner that
clearly identifies and distinguishes common areas from exclusive areas. Lack of physical

48 of 59

---

This Authority finds merit in the said grievance. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed,

within 60 days, to:
(i) carry out physical demarcation of common areas, open spaces, driveways, service zones
and commercial/amenity areas in accordance with the sanctioned layout/master plan and,
(ii) prepare and hand over to the Registered Cooperative Maintenance Society a certified site
plan clearly depicting the demarcated zones.
212.

The Complainant has further alleged that Towers G, H and I have been constructed at a

significantly higher ground level than Towers D, E and F, resulting in multi-layered slopes
inclining towards the latter and creating a risk of flooding in the stilt and basement areas during
heavy rainfall.
213.

While the Respondent has not specifically denied the existence of level differences, the

determination of whether the site grading, land levels and slope design are technically adequate,
or whether the gradient is sufficient or excessive, would require detailed civil engineering
evaluation. This Authority is a regulatory and adjudicatory body under the RE(R&D) Act and is
not equipped to undertake or adjudicate upon disputes relating to land levels, grading
sufficiency. The Complainants are advised to approach the appropriate forum for the this said
relief.
f) Visitor parking:
215.

Under this relief, the Complainant has sought a direction to the Respondent to provide

adequate visitor parking slots commensurate with the size of the project comprising
approximately 934 dwelling units across nine towers. It is alleged that the Respondent has
altered visitor parking slots and sold several such slots at a premium, thereby depriving residents
of adequate common visitor parking facilities. It is further alleged that sufficient common
parking, including visitor parking and parking for residents’ two-wheelers, has not been provided
as mandated under SEIAA guidelines and other applicable building norms.

49 of 59

---

The Respondent, in its reply, has categorically denied the aforesaid allegations. It has

submitted that visitor parking has been provided strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plans
and applicable building rules, constituting 10% of the total parking, and that the same is being
adequately utilised. It is further contended that no visitor or common parking area has been sold,
allotted exclusively, or otherwise alienated, and that all parking provisions conform to the
approved layout plan.
217.

This Authority notes that Section 2(n) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)

Act, 2016 defines “common areas” to include open parking areas. Section 11(4)(a) obligates the
promoter to adhere strictly to sanctioned plans and specifications, while Section 17 mandates
transfer of common areas to the association or society of allottees. Visitor parking spaces, being
integral to common facilities, cannot be sold, allotted exclusively, or converted into saleable
units. Any such act, if established, would constitute a violation of Sections 2(n), 11(4)(a), and 17
of the RE(R&D)Act.
218.

However, in the present case, the Complainants have not placed on record specific

documentary material such as sale deeds evidencing sale of visitor parking slots, approved versus
as-built parking layout comparisons, or photographic evidence demonstrating alteration or
conversion of visitor parking areas to substantiate the allegation of actual sale or alienation.
219.

This Authority observes that adequacy of visitor parking is to be assessed primarily with

reference to the sanctioned plans and applicable building rules prevailing at the time of approval,
and not solely on post-occupancy perceptions of demand.
220.

In the absence of cogent material evidence establishing sale, alienation, or impermissible

alteration of visitor parking spaces, this Authority is unable to grant the relief sought under this
head. Accordingly, the relief seeking provision of additional visitor parking and rectification of
alleged alterations or sale is declined.
221.

Nevertheless, it is made clear that the Respondent shall strictly comply with the

provisions of the RE(R&D) Act and shall not alienate, convert, or permit exclusive use of any
visitor or common parking spaces contrary to the sanctioned plans. Any future deviation or

50 of 59

---

ii.

223.

Under this relief, the Complainant has sought directions to the Respondent to:
furnish all warranty documents, bills, invoices and vendor certificates relating to unitlevel fittings and fixtures, including windows, balcony glass doors, locks, sanitary
fittings, electrical fittings and smart home automation systems installed in the apartments;
and
rectify malfunctioning smart devices/systems which are alleged to be causing daily
inconvenience to the residents.
The Respondent, in its reply, has submitted that most unit-level fittings carry a limited

warranty period of one year, which had already expired by the time the present complaint was
filed. It is further contended that all long-term equipment warranty documents, wherever
applicable, have already been handed over to the Registered Cooperative Maintenance Society,
and that smart devices have been serviced and are functioning properly. The allegations of
continued malfunction are denied.
224.

This Authority notes that Section 17(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)

Act, 2016 mandates the promoter, after obtaining the occupancy certificate and handing over
physical possession, to hand over all necessary documents and plans relating to the project and
common areas to the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be.
225.

Warranty certificates, operation manuals, vendor invoices and allied documents relating

to common systems and installed equipment form part of the essential documentation required
for future operation, maintenance, repairs and invocation of warranty claims. To that extent, the
promoter is statutorily obligated to ensure that such documents are handed over to the duly
registered association or maintenance society.
226.

However, insofar as unit-level fittings and fixtures are concerned, this Authority notes

that warranties are contractually limited in duration. Once such warranty periods have expired,
the promoter cannot be directed under RERA to indefinitely service or replace unit-level fittings,

51 of 59

---

With respect to smart home automation systems, the obligation of the promoter is limited

to rectification of defects attributable to installation or workmanship during the stipulated period
as mandated. In the absence of cogent technical evidence demonstrating subsisting defects within
such period, a general direction for rectification cannot be issued.
228.

Accordingly, this Authority directs the Respondent to ensure handover of all available

and relevant warranty documents, manuals, invoices and vendor details relating to common
systems and equipment, and such unit-level equipment where warranty subsists, to the
Registered Cooperative Maintenance Society of Towers D, E and F, within 30 days from date of
this Order, so as to enable the Society to effectively undertake maintenance and, where
applicable, pursue warranty claims. The relief seeking blanket rectification or replacement of
malfunctioning smart devices at the unit level is declined.
h) Staff toilets and water outlets:
229.

Under this relief, the Complainants have sought directions to the Respondent to:

(i) construct dedicated toilets for housekeeping and maintenance staff, particularly for female
workers, contending that absence of such facilities amounts to a violation of basic human
dignity; and
(ii) provide appropriate water outlets or collection points for housekeeping staff, alleging that
they are compelled to draw water from fire extinguishers or hydrants, thereby posing serious fire
safety risks.
230.

The Respondent, in its counter, has submitted that the original sanctioned plans did not

mandate construction of separate staff toilets. It is further stated that, notwithstanding the
absence of any such requirement, the Respondent had offered to construct staff toilets as a
goodwill measure, which was opposed by certain residents, and that alternative arrangements or
reimbursement were offered. This Authority has given anxious consideration to the submissions
52 of 59

---

In the absence of a statutory requirement under the sanctioned plans or a contractual

obligation under the Agreements for Sale, this Authority is constrained to hold that the promoter
cannot be directed to create new facilities or amenities which were not part of the approved
project specifications. RE(R&D) Act does not empower this Authority to compel additions or
alterations beyond the sanctioned scope of development.
232.

With regard to the allegation that housekeeping staff are drawing water from fire

hydrants or fire safety systems, this Authority considers this to be serious and concerning,
however, once common areas, including fire safety systems, have been handed over to the
Registered Cooperative Maintenance Society, the responsibility for day-to-day management,
regulation of use, and provision of basic facilities for staff within such common areas vests with
the Society. Issues relating to installation of dedicated water taps or collection points for
housekeeping staff fall within the scope of maintenance and management, to be addressed by the
Society through its bye-laws, general body resolutions, and maintenance arrangements.
233.

This Authority observes that post-handover, RERA is not intended to function as a forum

for adjudication of routine maintenance or staff-welfare issues, which are expected to be
governed by self-regulation through allottee associations.
234.

Accordingly, the relief seeking directions to the Respondent for construction of staff

toilets and provision of water outlets is declined. Nevertheless, the Registered Cooperative
Maintenance Society is expected to ensure that fire safety infrastructure is not misused and that
appropriate arrangements are made for provision of water to housekeeping staff in compliance
with safety norms.

53 of 59

---

Under this relief, the Complainant has sought directions to the Respondent for immediate

rejuvenation and rectification of certain common assets, namely:
i.
ii.
iii.

a frequently malfunctioning Sewage Treatment Plant (STP);
a non-functional Organic Waste Converter (OWC); and
non-working solar panels.

236.

It is contended that these deficiencies have resulted in unhygienic conditions,

environmental non-compliance, daily inconvenience to residents, and recurring financial losses.
237.

The Respondent has denied the allegations in toto and has submitted that all such assets,

forming part of the common areas, were handed over to the Registered Cooperative Maintenance
Society in working condition. It is contended that any subsequent malfunction or nonfunctioning is attributable to improper operation, inadequate maintenance, or misuse after
handover, and that responsibility for upkeep thereafter lies exclusively with the Maintenance
Society.
238.

This Authority notes that under Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016, the promoter is statutorily liable to rectify any structural defect or any
other defect in workmanship, quality, or provision of services brought to its notice within five
years from the date of handing over possession. Common-area infrastructure such as STPs,
OWCs, solar panels and allied systems, where provided as part of the project specifications and
promised amenities, would fall within the ambit of “provision of services” and
“workmanship/quality” under the said provision.
239.

The Complainant has alleged that the aforesaid assets were either handed over in a

defective or non-functional condition, or developed serious malfunctions shortly thereafter due to
poor quality, improper installation, or inherent defects. The Respondent, however, maintains that
the assets were functional at the time of handover and that present issues, if any, are purely
operational and maintenance-related.

54 of 59

---

Crucially, this Authority finds that neither party has placed on record objective technical

material such as any defect reports, maintenance records, or expert opinions, photographs to
conclusively establish whether the alleged malfunctions are attributable to defects in
workmanship, quality, or initial provision of services by the promoter, or whether they are the
result of post-handover operation and maintenance deficiencies.
241.

In the absence of such cogent and technical evidence, this Authority is unable to arrive at

a definitive factual finding that the alleged deficiencies squarely fall within the scope of Section
14(3) so as to fasten liability upon the promoter at this stage.
242.

It is well settled that mere assertions in pleadings, without supporting documentary or

technical evidence, are insufficient to warrant a direction for large-scale rejuvenation or
rectification of common assets at the promoter’s cost, particularly where such assets are already
under the custody and management of the Maintenance Society.
243.

Accordingly, the relief seeking immediate rejuvenation or rectification of the STP, OWC,

solar panels and allied systems at the cost of the Respondent is declined at this stage.
244.

It is clarified that issues relating to deposit or transfer of the corpus fund stand separately

dealt with and conclusively addressed in the preceding paragraphs of this Order, and the
Respondent shall ensure deposit of the entire corpus fund strictly in accordance with the
Agreement for Sale in favour of the duly registered Maintenance Society, as already directed.
j) Single RERA registration for the entire project:
245.

Under this relief, the Complainant has sought a direction that the entire Raheja Vistas

residential project, comprising Towers A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, be treated as a single,
unified real estate project under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and
that the Respondent be restrained from registering or treating individual towers, blocks or phases
separately.
246.

In support of this prayer, the Complainants have placed reliance on an order dated

08.03.2023 passed by the Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, contending that the

55 of 59

---

The Authority placing reliance on the Explanation to Section 3(2) of the RE(R&D) Act,

2016, which expressly provides that “where the real estate project is to be developed in phases,
every such phase shall be considered a stand-alone real estate project, and the promoter shall
obtain registration under this Act for each phase separately.” It is contended that the statutory
scheme itself contemplates and legitimises phase-wise registration, provided the project is
planned, approved and executed in phases.
248.

Further this Authority has perused the order dated 08.03.2023 of the Telangana Real

Estate Appellate Tribunal relied upon by the Complainant. The Tribunal, while emphasising a
project with the sole intent of circumventing statutory obligations under RERA is impermissible,
and has not laid down a blanket prohibition against phase-wise registration in all cases.
249.

The ratio of the said decision is that phase-wise registration is impermissible only where

such phasing adopted as a device to defeat the rights of allottees or evade statutory obligations,
and not where the phasing is genuine, reflected in the sanctioned master plan or layout, approved
by the competent planning authority, and duly disclosed to the allottees at the time of sale.
250.

In the present case, this Authority notes that Raheja Vistas is a large-scale development

approved and executed in phases by the competent authority. The registration obtained for
Towers D, E and F itself is a separate tower-wise registration, and the allottees were aware of the
phased nature of construction and registration at the time of purchase. No material has been
placed on record to demonstrate that the phase-wise registrations were undertaken with any mala
fide intent to defeat allottee rights or to evade statutory obligations under the RE(R&D) Act.
251.

In the absence of cogent material establishing that the phase-wise registration adopted by

the Respondent is artificial, sham, or contrary to the sanctioned approvals, this Authority finds
no legal basis to direct that the entire Raheja Vistas project be treated as a single RERA
registration, particularly when a substantial number of phases are already completed and
occupied. Accordingly, the relief seeking a direction to treat the entire Raheja Vistas project as a
56 of 59

---

k) Refund and compensation for undue charges:
252.

The Complainant seeks refund and compensation for alleged arbitrary charges including

SELA levies and other deductions. The Respondent has contended that Towers D, E and F have
been handed over and that such relief no longer survives. As regards claims of compensation,
this Authority notes that jurisdiction for adjudicating compensation lies with the Adjudicating
Officer under Section 71 of RE(R&D) Act with Form ‘N’. The Complainant is at liberty to
pursue such remedy separately.
J. Directions of the Authority:
253.

In view of the detailed findings and observations recorded hereinabove, and in exercise of

the powers conferred under Sections 34 and 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, this Authority hereby issues the following directions:
1.) The Respondent shall complete reconciliation of accounts relating to the corpus fund and
maintenance deposits collected from the allottees of Towers D, E and F with the
Registered Cooperative Maintenance Society within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the
date of this Order. Upon completion of such reconciliation, the Respondent shall transfer
the entire balance corpus fund and maintenance deposits, strictly in accordance with the
terms of the Agreement for Sale, to the Raheja Vistas Towers D, E & F Flat Owners
Cooperative Maintenance Society Limited within a further period of 30 (thirty) days. The
Respondent shall not retain any portion of the corpus fund or maintenance deposits
beyond the aforesaid period, nor effect any unilateral deductions except those duly
reconciled, justified, and transparently communicated to the Registered Cooperative
Society.
2.) The Respondent is directed to complete the remaining portion of the compound wall,
strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan, so as to ensure adequate enclosure and
57 of 59

---

---

Failure to comply with above said directions by the Respondent shall attract penalty in

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
255.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

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

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu, Hon’ble
Member
TG RERA

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

59 of 59

---