Order Complaint No. 126 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 126 of 2024
Dated this 24th day of July 2025
Quorum:

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

M/s KSR Togethements Flat Owners Mutually Aided Co-operative Society
(Rep by President P.Jawardhan Reddy, Society office beside Sitara Grand Hotel, Miyapur,
…Complainant

Hyd- 500049)
Versus
M/s 2getherments Infra Private Ltd rep by Sri T Harinath Rao

(Rep by T-Harinathrao, Plot no.15,8-3-684/3-15, LIC Colony, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad,
Colony Hyderabad – 500073)
…Respondent
The present Complaint came up for hearing on 13.02.2025 before this Authority in the
presence of the Complainants, who appeared in person, and their Counsels S/Shri V. Laxmi
Narasimha Rao, K. Sunil Singh, and K. Dheeraj, and for the Respondent, Counsels Ms.
Jyothisri Vankina and Mr. Midhu Kumar Allu. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by both
sides and the matter having been reserved for consideration, this Authority now proceeds to
pronounce the present order on the Complaint.
ORDER
2.

The Complainant has filed complaint on hand under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and 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 "Rules"), alleging commission of violation and contravening of
the provisions of the said Act and Rules and sought for the appropriate reliefs against the
Respondent.
A.

The Brief facts of the case as per allegations/averments contained in the complaint

are as follows:
3.

The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant Association, a registered

society comprising residents of the project “KSR’s Togetherments,” which is a RERA1 of 17

---

The specific allegations raised by the Complainant are categorized and summarized as

follows:
I. Deviations from Sanctioned Plans:
a. The designated Open Space Reservation (OSR) area has been reduced from what was
originally approved.
b. Setbacks were reduced, resulting in an encroachment of approximately 6.4 meters into the
front driveway.
c. The entry and exit gates constructed on-site are not in accordance with the Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) approved plans.
d. There are inconsistencies between the built-up area as recorded in the registered sale deeds
and that shown in the GHMC approved drawings.
e. The building has not been constructed as per the GHMC-sanctioned drawings.
f. Water connections, as promised to the allottees, have not been provided.
g. The number of car parking slots was increased from 209 (as per approved plans) to 350
without requisite approvals, leading to unauthorized parking in driveway areas. Additionally,
Mechanical Car Parking Units were installed post-approval without obtaining fresh sanctions
from competent authorities.
II. Deviations from Construction Specifications:
a. The exterior was not painted with weatherproof emulsion as promised.
b. Transformers with On Load Tap Changers and Automatic Voltage Correction systems were
not installed.
c. Sub-meters for individual flats were not provided.
d. The installed solar power capacity is insufficient to meet the electricity requirements of
common areas.
e. Promised facilities such as Wi-Fi, internet, DTH, and intercom have not been made available.
f. Both water and electricity supply connections are either incomplete or absent.

2 of 17

---

---

DG Sets: Required capacity was 500 KVA + 250 KVA, but only 200 KVA was
provided.

ii.

Stack height does not conform to CPCB norms.

iii.

Acoustic enclosures for DG sets were not provided.

iv.

Solar water heating systems were not installed.

v.

Two-wheeler parking spaces were not developed.

vi.

First aid room has not been provided.

vii.

Rainwater harvesting pits not constructed.

viii.

Garbage house not provided.

VII. Fire Safety Violations:
a. Fire safety measures, as per applicable building and fire safety norms, were not provided.
b. Post-issuance of the GHMC Occupancy Certificate, the fire safety system was reportedly
damaged, and unauthorized Mechanical Car Parking Units were installed in the basement
without approval.
c. Fire NOC renewal was rejected by the Fire Department in May 2024.
VIII. Unjust Financial Demands and Irregularities:
a. An additional amount of ₹8,00,000/- was collected from each allottee toward mandatory
amenities, such as TSSPDCL infrastructure, HMWSSB connection, DG Sets, STP, and car
parking, over and above the sale consideration.
b. The developer availed a loan of ₹60 crore in April 2022 against the project land, including
already sold flats, which were also mortgaged to GHMC.
c. Advance maintenance charges for 24 months and corpus funds collected from the allottees
were not transferred to the Association’s bank account.
4 of 17

---

The complainant has sought the following reliefs:
(1) Direct the builder to complete all the pending works as listed under the facts of the case.
(2) If the builder fails to complete the works, direct them to pay Rs. 25 crore immediately.
(3) Direct the builder to correct deviations from the approved plans and obtain re-approvals.
(4) Compensate the society for the loss of time, efforts, and mental agony as deemed fit.

C. Respondent Reply:
6.

It is submitted that the above Complaint filed by the Complainant against the

Respondent is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. The
allegations which are not specifically admitted herein are hereby denied.
7.

The appropriate reply for every allegations point wise is as follows: a) Deviations against to GHMC approvals:
i.

GHMC verified and issued OC which makes it clears that there is no reduction in OSR
area.

ii.

There are few steps protruded into the front set back got removed as such there are no
encroachments

iii.

As per the approved plan there is a single entry and exit which were provided.

iv.

Mis-match of Built-up areas w.r.t sale deed & GHMC approved plans happened
because the Respondent has constructed lessor balcony area than the sanctioned plan
and all purchasers have reviewed the same and signed the agreements and thereafter
executed the sale deeds accordingly. Further no complaints has been received from any
of the purchaser till now and only the Petitioner herein is coming up with this
allegation which has no base with malafide intentions of claiming money from the
Respondent.

5 of 17

---

It is evident that the GHMC has issued the Occupancy Certificate which is done only
after thorough review and due verification of the project and thereafter released the
mortgaged portion of the property which was kept under lien at the of issuance of the
permission.

vi.

The Respondent herein has already paid entire required fees for the manjeera
connection and the same will be provided by HMWSSB to the building by following
due procedure.

vii.

it is settle position according to GO 168 of GHMC that a constructor/Developer must
provide 33% of the built-up of residential area including visitors parking and 44% of
the built-up of commercial area including visitors parking. Accordingly the Respondent
the same. Further the Respondent has optimized space to yield a greater number of
parking spaces without violating the relevant and existing GHMC GOs regarding the
drive ways etc,.and allotted it to the flat owners duly conducting a lottery by
transparent means and taken signatures on the allotment day which was recorded in
Minutes of Meeting.

viii.

It is false to say that Respondent has not provided it as the Respondent has provide the
top quality and top branded Weather proof emulsion painting texture and also applied
weather proof paint over it again for further safety.

ix.

The Respondent has provided the transformers as per the requirement and existing laws
of the TRANSCO

x.

The Respondent instead of sub meters which will result in escalating bill, has provided
all flats with separate TSSPDCL meters and the billing and payments are being done
accordingly for the past 2 years. Further there is no complaint from any of the
purchases in respect of the same till now.

xi.

The Respondent provided 96 kw as per the design and which constitutes 80% of the
total contracted load of 120 KVA as per existing norm. This information is also shared
through emails and has duly been explained. Further the Respondent on regular bases
communicated that the sanctioned load is 120 KVA, But according to government
norms, Respondent is allowed to install the plant with 80% of the contracted load
which Respondent has already did. The consumption is more than the designed
capacity of the plant. The consumption is to be balanced. The further complication of
increasing the contracted load and the consequences of that has already been explained
to the representative of the then EC. The Respondent has installed the plant only by
following the government norms duly. Therefore, the Respondent will not be held
6 of 17

---

All agreed features that are in scope are provided or for those which were not provided
the same were compensated with other amenity like Gas through pipe line and
informed the residents in the General Body meeting which was accepted and raised no
objections to the same.

xiii.

Meters are provided which operation is under Facility Management (FM) scope.

xiv.

The Respondent has provided Boom Barriers.

xv.

Required features as per the Fire department were provided and obtained the NOC
from the dept

xvi.

It is false to say that Cash wash provision is not provided as the respondent has
specifically provided with a place for car wash exclusively.

xvii.

The Respondent has provided a Grand Entrance Lounge i in the ground floor and the
same is also being used by the residents as celebration place for all kind of festivals.

xviii.

Marketing broacher is symbolic representation of the project which was mentioned in
the same sheet. The same cannot be legally looked into. The Respondents entered into
the agreements with the residents and provided all the agreed amenities and some extra
amenities which are not mentioned even in the agreements.

xix.

The GHMC had reviewed and issued OC duly verifying the project and released the
mortgaged portion of the property which was kept under lien at the of issuance of the
permission. If the said 10% provision is not complied with then the said GHMC would
not have issued the permission it had granted. As such the above allegation is false and
baseless.

xx.

TOT lot area is fenced and Respondent has provided as per the settled standards.

xxi.

The Respondent had proved as a Place for Garbage Collection which was designated.
The operations Team is using the same for the past 2 years. Thus the above claim
cannot sustain.

xxii.

The above allegation cannot legally sustain as the project/building is facing the national
highway. Thus, the non- provision of service road is not in the hands of this
Respondent.

xxiii.

Facilities to PH personnel have been provided as per the settled standards.

xxiv.

3 years insurance copy not provided allegation is false and denied as the GHMC only
after a thorough review and duly verifying the project has issued the OC and released
7 of 17

---

RWH units not being provided cannot sustain legally as the laws of GHMC makes it
clear that for RWH units to be provided the project in question has to be residential
building made in a land of or more than Ac. 2-00gts. in the present case, the residential
building was building in less than Ac. 2-00gts land as such the RWH units cannot be
provided.

xxvi.

There are 150 residential Flats in the project and 2 shops in the front side. Hence the
number of units in total is 152 including 2 commercial entities which are sanctioned.

xxvii.

The Respondent has not reduced any UDS.

xxviii.

The Respondent has already paid all the required fees and challans to the HMWSSB
and the same is delayed from the HMWSSB department and the same is in the hands of
the HMWSSB and this Respondent cannot be held liable for the same.

xxix.

Natural green is maintained in places where ever possible and soft landscape is
provided wherever there are structures like water tanks under it to avoid the future
seepage. Thus for the said reasons mentioned there is a usage of artificial grass in some
places.

xxx.

The Respondent has provided waste Collection and disposal process and the same have
been in operational for the past 2 years. The Complainant herein is making all false
allegations against this Respondent which is illegal and unlawful.

xxxi.

Waste water management process (STP) is provided where the water is being treated
and the same is being used for Flushing and Terrace Gardening. Rain water harvesting
pit is provided as per standards.

xxxii.

All Electrical Sub Station Works are properly done and inspected by authorities.

xxxiii.

All EB related works are done as per standards.

xxxiv.

All Recreational Open Spaces are provided as per the sanctioned plan.

xxxv.

The Respondent has handed over all the common areas and amenities which were done
as per the standards and the authorized Society EC Members had signed the
proceedings also to that effect.

xxxvi.

The Respondent has provided the Structural and Fire drawings. There were minor
changes in the plan as built electrical and plumbing circuits compared to the designed
plans which got done at the time of COVID pandemic. We have agreed to provide the
said plan as built drawings for Electrical and Plumbing lines, but couldn't do as the
entry is restricted for our staff, vendors and consultants for the past few months.
8 of 17

---

The Respondent herein has handed over all standar documents to the Complainant as
part of handover process. Further Respondent has also provided consultant and
Liaoning persons contact number with the EC of the complainant for any further
requirements.

xxxviii.

The Agreement of Sale template was submitted to RERA for reference.

xxxix.

The capacity of DG Set is designed for common areas and provided accordingly by this
Respondent.

xl.

Solar water heater provision is not in the scope of work of the Respondent. Thus the
same was not provided.

xli.

Designated Two Wheeler parking for Residents are provided in Ground, Basements 1
and Basement 2. These places are operational for the past 2 years.

xlii.

First Aid Kits are provided at Society Office, Security Gate. Operations Team has to
monitor the consumables regularly and this Respondent cannot check on regular basis
as the project has already been handed over to the Petitioners.

xliii.

Rain Water harvesting process is provided as per standards

xliv.

Waste Collection and disposal process has been in place. It is operational for the past 2
years.

xlv.

All Fire Safety measures taken care as per standards and accordingly the NOC were
obtained after the inspection by authorities. After obtaining the GHMC occupancy
certificate, builder damaged the Fire Safety System and installed the Mechanical Car
Parking units in the basement which does not have any approvals It was false and
baseless allegation. It was Society's Operations Team's responsibility to ensure the
condition of the fire safety system. It is pertinent mention here that the Fire NoC
Renewal was rejected in May-2024 when the building was under the control and
maintainance of the Petitioner and not the Respondent herein. It is Society's
responsibility to ensure the operational condition of fire safety systems as the hand over
happened in May 2023. The Respondent herein agreed to facilitate the process which
Respondent could not undertake as the entry for Respondent's staff, vendors and
consultants were restricted by the EC of the Complainant. Therefore, this Respondent
is not liable for the same.

xlvi.

Amounts were collected for the provisions of mandatory amenities, and the same were
provided, infact more than what was agreed by the Respondent.

xlvii.

The seepages and leakages (If any) were being addressed by us before handing over the
building to the and during our period of maintenance as and when the flat owners
9 of 17

---

Respondent addressed the issue faced by one of the residents as soon as Respondent
received the request. Later, the Respondent's staff's entry was restricted by EC due to
which the Respondent was unable to attend the issues in common areas.

xlix.

It was false and baseless allegation which the complainant is put to strict proof of the
same. The mortgage process was legitimately undertaken and the Financial Institution
who financed the project confirmed it. None of the sold flats are mortgaged.

l.

The Respondent has transferred the entire corpus amounts collected by it directly from
the flat owners until November 2023 (after which EC has collected the corpus fund
directly) to association account on 22.11.2023 and the same has been intimated to
Complainant vide email dated 26.01.2024 as well. With regard to the 24 months
maintenance charges collected from the 109 flat owners, Respondent has spent the
same for three months until the EC has taken the charge of maintenance and thereafter
for the 6 months, the Respondent has paid all the bills raised by the EC out of the said
maintenance amounts collected by it and from April 2024 onwards EC has stopped
collecting the payments and ceased using the leftover funds for the reasons mentioned
below. The Respondent has no intention of withholding the transfer of funds to the
association account. However, subject to following two conditions:
a) Despite multiple requests EC has not facilitated contact between their CA and
Respondent accountant to resolve the tax- related issues.
b) Respondent has requested consent from all 109 flat owners who transferred 24
months' maintenance into Respondent's account. Respondent could not receive the
same except from few flat owners.
The Respondent is open to continue with the same process of transferring the expenses
and as informed earlier as soon as the aforementioned issue is resolved Respondent will
transfer the balance amount lying with it immediately.

8.

It is further submitted that the Complainant has sought similar interim relief and final

relief which according to law is wrong. As such the relief sought cannot be maintainable and
the same is liable to be dismissed. Further it is clearly submitted above that there is no
incomplete or pending works which can be pointed out. This Respondent is prepared to follow
the directions of this Hon'ble Authority in case if any pending works are found by this
Authority and accordingly appropriate directions may be passed.
10 of 17

---

In view of the above submissions the alternate relief of depositing Rs. 25 crores which

is hypothetical may be dismissed. With regards to the prayer no. C it is submitted that all the
works as per approved plans are completed without any deviations and basing on which the
Occupancy Certificate is issued. Therefore, it is submitted that there need not be any further
directions in respect of the above relief.
10.

As per the relief of compensation is concerned it is the Respondent who is suffering in

the hands of the Petitioner inspite of completing the total building as per specifications and
obtaining Occupancy Certificate. The Respondent herein owned 2 commercial shops in the
project against such shops the Petitioners illegally tried to interfere and disturb the rights of the
Respondent herein causing him rental loss. Further after the Respondent sold such commercial
shops to prospective purchaser under Regd. Sale Deeds, such illegal and unlawful acts of the
Petitioner did not cease and continued to disturb and intervene the rights of the purchaser. The
purchasers against such acts of the Petitioner have sought injunction from a competent civil
court and such Hon'ble court has also passed temporary injunction against the Petitioners by
restraining them from disturbing the rights of the purchasers. Inspite of the same as the
Petitioner violating the orders contempt Petitioners are filed which are also pending. Therefore,
it is Respondent, purchasers who have to get compensation/damages against the deliberate acts
of the Petitioners in restraining the enjoyment of the portions belonged to Respondent and
presently belonging to the purchasers. The Petitioners are enjoying the property and on the
other hand unlawfully restraining the purchasers from enjoying their portion of property. The
Respondent reserves their right to claim damages in appropriate manner against the Petitioner
for making false allegations, causing disturbance and wasting time of the Respondent who is
presently staying in Bangalore. Therefore, the above relief also sought is not maintainable and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
11.

Therefore, it is prayed that this Authority that it may be pleased to dismiss the above

complainant with exemplary cost in the interest of justice and pass such other order and orders
as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
D. Observations of the Authority:
12.

Upon hearing both parties at length, and upon a comprehensive perusal of the material

placed on record including the written submissions, registered project documents, and relevant
correspondence between the parties, the Authority proceeds to examine the following key
issues raised in the present matter:
11 of 17

---

The Complainant Association has raised serious concerns regarding multiple deviations

from the sanctioned plan, inter alia alleging that (i) the Open Space Reservation (OSR) area has
been compromised, (ii) the entry and exit points differ from the sanctioned layout, and (iii) the
built-up area and internal configuration are inconsistent with the GHMC sanctioned drawings.
The Authority notes that the Respondent has placed reliance on the Occupancy Certificate (OC)
issued by the GHMC, dated 26.04.2023 bearing proceeding No. 1036/GHMC/SLP/2023-OC,
and denies all allegations of deviation.
14.

The Authority observes that an Occupancy Certificate issued by the Competent

Authority is a prima facie evidence that the construction has been completed in accordance
with the sanctioned building plans and prevailing norms. The Complainants have sought to
controvert the same by submitting an inspection report obtained from a private entity, which
lacks a clear date of inspection and was admittedly conducted unilaterally, without the presence
or participation of the Respondent.
15.

This Authority is of the considered opinion that such unilateral inspections, not jointly

conducted or endorsed by the Competent Authority, lack probative value. Therefore, the said
report cannot be relied upon to invalidate a duly issued Occupancy Certificate.
16.

Accordingly, in light of the subsistence of a valid OC, and in absence of credible

counter-evidence, the Authority is inclined to accept the Respondent’s contention that the
construction was in accordance with the sanctioned plan. However, the Complainant
Association, if still aggrieved by the alleged deviations, is advised to approach the planning
authority or the municipal authority with appropriate evidence to seek redressal
17.

The Complainants have alleged that various amenities showcased in the marketing

brochure have not been provided. The Respondent contends that the brochure was merely
symbolic and illustrative in nature, and the binding obligations flow only from the registered
Agreement for Sale executed with the respective allottees.
18.

This Authority is not persuaded by the Respondent’s submission. Section 12 of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter “the Act”) provides a clear remedy
for misrepresentation in advertisements and prospectuses. Section 12 reads as under:
Where any person makes an advance or a deposit on the basis of the information
contained in the notice, advertisement or prospectus, or on the basis of any model
apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, and sustains any loss or damage
by reason of any incorrect, false statement included therein, he shall be
compensated by the promoter in the manner as provided under this Act:….
12 of 17

---

Further, Section 2(zl) of the RE(R&D) Act defines a “prospectus” to include any

advertisement or document inviting offers from the public for sale of apartments or plots.
Therefore, it is evident that the marketing brochure forms part of the representations made by
the promoter and cannot be brushed aside as symbolic.
20.

The Authority finds that portraying amenities in brochures which are not implemented

in the sanctioned plan or the project execution constitutes an act of inducement and amounts to
violation of Section 12 of the RE(R&D) Act. The Respondent is accordingly held to be in
breach of statutory obligations under the RE(R&D) Act.
21.

The Authority accordingly cautions the Respondent from making unsubstantiated

representations in any future promotional material or marketing literature which may mislead
allottees or raise expectations inconsistent with sanctioned plans or deliverables. The Authority
reiterates that a “prospectus” cannot be treated as mere promotional literature; it creates a
binding expectation as per the legislative intent.
22.

The Complainant Association has alleged non-compliance with Section 17 of the

RE(R&D) Act, particularly with regard to the execution of a registered conveyance deed and
handover of common areas. The Respondent, however, has submitted that conveyance has been
effectuated and that the Executive Committee (EC) of the Association has acknowledged the
same.
23.

The Authority observes that Section 17(1) mandates that the promoter shall execute a

registered conveyance deed in favour of the Association of allottees or Competent Authority as
the case maybe.and hand over the physical possession of the common areas. A perusal of the
correspondence on record, specifically the letter dated 22.11.2023 from the Respondent
addressed to the President of the Association enclosing a cheque towards corpus fund
(acknowledged by the Association on the same date), indicates that certain aspects of handover
have been carried out.
24.

However, the real dispute lies in the management and refund of 24 months’ advance

maintenance charges collected by the Respondent. The Respondent asserts that it utilized these
funds during the interim maintenance period and thereafter reimbursed six months of expenses
incurred by the EC. The Respondent further states that it has not received collective consent
from all 109 flat owners for refund or adjustment of the balance.
13 of 17

---

This Authority holds that such a process requiring individual consents is impractical and

inconsistent with the collective nature of apartment ownership. The Association, being the
collective representative body, is competent to take a resolution in its General Body Meeting
(GBM) regarding the refund and adjustment of maintenance funds.
26.

Accordingly, the Complainant Association is directed to conduct a GBM and pass a

resolution regarding the utilization/refund of the balance maintenance funds. Upon receipt of
the said resolution, the Respondent shall deduct the validly incurred expenses with supporting
bills and refund the remaining balance within 30 days thereof.
27.

The Complainants allege that the Respondent is unjustifiably withholding possession of

two commercial shops, which, as per the sanctioned project design, form an integral part of the
residential amenities. Upon examination of the building permit obtained by the Respondent
vide Permit No. 53333/HO/WZ/Cir-12/1016 dated 09.09.2017, it is noted that permission was
accorded for the construction of a multi-storied Residential-cum-Commercial Building
comprising two basements for parking, a partly ground floor designated for amenities and
shops, and upper floors for residential flats. The sanctioned plan further indicates that the
amenity space in its entirety measures 924.93 sq. m
28.

The Occupancy Certificate dated 26.04.2023, obtained by the Respondent, similarly

records the structure as a Residential Building with Amenity Building consisting of 2 cellars +
Ground Floor + 14 upper floors. A conjoint reading of both the building permit and the
occupancy certificate reveals that the shops are subsumed within the total amenity space as
approved, and are not carved out as separate, independent commercial units. This structural and
functional integration of shops within the amenity block establishes their character as part of
the common amenities intended for the benefit of all allottees.
29.

Section 2(n)(vii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 clearly

includes “all community and commercial facilities as provided in the real estate project” within
the definition of common areas. This statutory definition leaves no ambiguity in holding that
where commercial spaces are designated as part of the amenity block in the sanctioned plan,
they assume the character of common facilities and are thus subject to the rights of allottees
collectively.
30.

Furthermore, Sections 11(4)(f) and 17(1) of the RE(R&D) Act cast a binding statutory

obligation upon the Promoter to transfer the undivided share in all common areas, including
commercial and community facilities, to the Association of Allottees or competent authority as
14 of 17

---

In this context, the Authority takes note of the proceedings issued by the GHMC vide

Letter No. 1017/CP/SLPZ/GHMC/2024 dated 02.12.2024, which unambiguously state that the
project is approved solely for residential purposes and that the shops form part of the common
assets. This official clarification from the authority reinforces the legal position that the said
commercial shops cannot be withheld or dealt with as exclusive property of the Promoter, and
must be handed over in accordance with the statutory scheme envisaged under the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016. Accordingly, the said shops shall be construed as “convenience stores” falling within
the ambit of common facilities.
32.

In view of the foregoing, it is hereby unequivocally declared that the aforesaid shops are

liable to be transferred and handed over by the Promoter/Developer to the respective
Association of Allottees of the project. However, as at the time of purchase of individual units,
the residents did not make any specific or proportionate payment towards these
commercial/common facilities, the Respondent shall be entitled to recover the corresponding
cost from the Association of Allottees prior to effecting such transfer.
33.

The transfer shall be effected upon realization of the proportionate cost, in a manner that

ensures full compliance with the statutory obligations under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, and other
applicable local regulations, and without further delay or obstruction. The Respondent is dutybound to complete this handover in good faith, in a time-bound manner, and in consonance
with the principles of transparency, accountability, and the applicable regulatory framework.
34.

The Complainants have raised an important concern regarding the rejection of Fire

NOC renewal in May 2024, allegedly due to mechanical car parking units being installed postOC and fire safety systems being rendered inoperative. The Respondent contends that posthandover, maintenance of the fire systems is the Association’s responsibility and that it was
unable to enter the premises due to restrictions imposed by the EC.

15 of 17

---

This Authority holds that fire safety compliance is a non-negotiable statutory obligation

and both the promoter and the Association must act jointly to ensure safety compliance and
renewal of Fire NOC. Accordingly, both parties are directed to cooperate in obtaining the
renewed Fire NOC. The Respondent shall undertake necessary rectifications at its cost, and the
Association shall permit entry of personnel and vendors for this limited purpose.
36.

On the issue of assured Manjeera water supply, the Respondent has placed on record

HMWSSB receipt bearing No. HDFCR520230922898207 dated 22.09.2023, evidencing
payment. The Authority directs the Respondent to take proactive steps to expedite the provision
of Manjeera water connection. The Complainant Association may accompany the Respondent
in approaching HMWSSB for timely resolution.
37.

The Complainants have alleged that the executed Agreements for Sale differ

substantially from the template uploaded on the RERA portal. The Respondent has claimed that
the uploaded template was only indicative and submitted for reference.
38.

This Authority is constrained to note that such a submission is wholly untenable.

Section 4(2)(g) of the Act clearly mandates that the proforma of the allotment letter, agreement
for sale, and the conveyance deed proposed to be signed with the allottees shall be submitted at
the time of registration. The legislative intention is unambiguous

that the proforma is not a

mere sample but a representation of the document to be executed. Any material deviation
without due disclosure constitutes regulatory non-compliance.
39.

The Authority, therefore, holds that the Respondent has contravened Section 4(2)(g) of

the Act by executing substantially different agreements with the allottees without revising or
disclosing the same at the time of project registration. The Authority issues a stern warning to
the Respondent to refrain from such practices in future projects and to ensure that only accurate
and finalised versions of proforma documents are uploaded on the RERA portal.
40.

As regards the Complainants’ prayer for compensation for construction deficiencies, the

Authority observes that such reliefs fall within the exclusive domain of the Adjudicating
Officer appointed under Section 71 of the Act, read with Rule 35(1) of the Telangana RERA
Rules, 2017. The Complainants are accordingly advised to approach the Adjudicating Officer
by filing a complaint in Form ‘N’ for adjudication of such claims.
E. Directions of the Authority:

16 of 17

---

In light of the foregoing observations and findings, and in exercise of the powers

conferred upon the Authority under Sections 37 & 38 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, the following directions are issued:
a) The Respondent is held liable for contravention of:
i.

Section 12 of the RE(R&D)Act, for misrepresenting amenities in the marketing
brochure which were not delivered as part of the project; and

ii.

Section 4(2)(g) of the RE(R&D) Act, by uploading a proforma Agreement for Sale on
the RERA portal that materially differs from the agreements actually executed with
the allottees.

iii.

Accordingly, the Authority imposes a penalty of Rs.18,09,185/-(Rupees eighteen
lakhs nine thousand one and eighty five only) for the above violations. The said
amount shall be paid within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order, in
favour of the TGRERA FUND, either through Demand Draft or online transfer to:
Account No. 50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036.

b) The Respondent is hereby warned against treating such proforma submissions as symbolic
or illustrative. In all future project registrations, the Respondent shall ensure that only
accurate, final versions of proforma documents intended to be executed with allottees are
uploaded on the RERA portal and adhered to in practice.
c) The Authority further directs that all future brochures, advertisements, or prospectuses
issued by the Respondent shall strictly conform to sanctioned layouts and binding project
deliverables.
d) With regard to the maintenance charges collected:
i.

The Complainant Association shall convene a General Body Meeting (GBM) and
pass a resolution authorising the adjustment/refund of the remaining balance of
maintenance fund collected by the Respondent. Upon receipt of the said resolution,
the Respondent shall deduct only those documented and verifiable expenses
incurred towards maintenance prior to handover.

ii.

The remaining balance, if any, shall be refunded to the Association within 30 (thirty)
days from the date of receipt of the GBM resolution.

e) The Respondent is hereby directed to transfer and hand over the shops situated on specific
portions of the Ground and First Floors, which have received due approval as per the
GHMC-sanctioned plans, endorsed proceedings, and occupation certificate, to the
Association of Allottees of the concerned project. These shops, forming part of the
17 of 17

---

The Respondent and the Complainant Association shall jointly cooperate to obtain
renewal of the Fire NOC from the Fire Department

ii.

The Association shall facilitate entry of Respondent’s staff and vendors and shall not
obstruct remedial works.

g) The Respondent is directed to actively pursue and take all necessary steps to expedite the
Manjeera water connection to the project by coordinating with the HMWSSB. The
Complainant Association may assist in this endeavour, if required
42.

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.
43.

The complaint accordingly stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdDr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

18 of 17

---