Order Complaint No. 131 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 131 of 2025
30th September 2025
Quorum:

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

Sasi Rekha Rani Patange
R/o-101, Meghna Enclave, Ciefl Colony,
East Anandbagh, Malkajgiri
Telangana 500047

…Complainant
AND

1. Bhuvanteza Infra Projects Pvt Ltd.
Rep. by Chekka Venkata Subramanyam (MD)
H. No. 201, 2nd floor, Lumbini Amrutha Chambers,
Nagarjuna Circle, Road No,3
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad,
Telangana 500082

2., Sri Laxmi Agro Farms & Projects, (formerly Devas Infra Ventures Private Ltd)
Rep. by N Suryanarayana Reddy
Tata Towers, Above South Indian Bank,
Opp. Metro Pillar No.1042
Srinivasa Colony West, Ameerpet
Hyderabad, Telangana 500038

3. Raj Kumar Jerripothula
R/o-1-1-401/1/1, Flat No.401, Sirish Enclave
Gandhi Nagar, Near Andhra Café
Secunderabad, Telangana 500080

…Respondent(s)

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on 26.06.2025
before this Authority in the presence of and Complainant in person, none appeared on behalf
of the Respondents despite service of notice, and therefore the Respondents was set ex-parte,
and after hearing the Complainant, this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
1

---

The Complainant submitted that She had initially booked a flat in the project known as

“Happy Home-II” after making the full payment of Rs. 27,72,000/- in two instalments. It was
further submitted that the Agreement of Sale executed in her favour explicitly confirmed that
no further payments were required from her under any head.
4.

The Complainant further submitted that the Respondent-company had assured him a

rental compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square foot per month until possession of the flat
was handed over. In accordance with this promise, the Complainant received a monthly rental
compensation of Rs. 15,400/- for a period of eight months. However, the Complainant alleged
that these payments were stopped abruptly and without any justification.
5.

The Complainant alleged that she was subsequently informed by the Respondents that

the requisite local body permissions for construction of apartment units at the project site had
not been obtained. The permissions obtained were allegedly only for the construction of duplex
units. The Complainant submitted that in lieu of this deficiency, the Respondents proposed two
alternatives: first, to purchase a duplex in the same project—Botanical Heights—at a cost of
approximately Rs. 1.3 crores, which would require the Complainant to pay nearly an additional
Rs. 1 crore; or secondly, to shift to a different project titled “Happy Homes,” which was
allegedly in the process of securing approvals.
6.

The Complainant further submitted that under pressure from the Respondents, she was

compelled to surrender the original Agreement of Sale dated 5th November 2021. In its place,
a new agreement was issued to her on 20th August 2022, allotting her Flat No. 201, measuring
1550 sq. ft., situated on the 2nd floor of Block D in the “Happy Home” project. It is submitted
that while the first page of the agreement continued to reflect the earlier date of 5th November
2021, the remaining pages were replaced, and the changes were executed by the Managing
Director, Mr. Subramanyam. The Complainant submits that upon inquiry, she was informed
that the content on the first page need not be altered, and therefore it was retained.
7.

The Complainant alleged that the Respondents had assured her that the flat would be

delivered within three years from the date of the agreement, with an additional grace period of
six months. However, despite having paid the entire sale consideration in full, there has been
no progress whatsoever in the construction of the flat. The Complainant submitted that the
Respondent company and its staff repeatedly delayed the matter by offering excuses, such as
pending permissions and complications relating to land registration, without taking any
concrete steps to commence or progress construction at the project site.

2

---

The Complainant further alleged that after prolonged delays and growing pressure from

aggrieved customers, the company convened a meeting at a registration office in Shamirpet,
purportedly for KYC procedures connected to land transactions. The Complainant submitted
that although it was initially promised that fully paid customers would be allotted one gunta of
land, the Respondents instead registered approximately 1200 square yards of undivided land
among 21 members. This significant reduction and the discrepancy between the sale deed of
the flat and the registered land documents have, according to the Complainant, raised serious
doubts about the legitimacy of the process. The Complainant further contended that the
Respondents falsely represented that a development agreement would shortly be entered into
with a builder; however, no such agreement has been executed to date.
9.

The Complainant submitted that the project has since been completely abandoned.

Despite repeated attempts to ascertain the status of the project or seek clarification, there have
been no efforts made by the Respondents to initiate construction or fulfil their obligation to
deliver possession within the stipulated time. The Complainant further alleged that when she
attempted to visit the corporate office of Bhuvanteza Infra Projects located at Banjara Hills,
she found the premises locked. Moreover, all contact numbers of the company staff and
officials were either switched off or rendered unreachable, thereby making the entire
management untraceable and confirming the Respondent’s intention to evade responsibility.
In light of the above, the Complainant has prayed that this Hon’ble Authority may be

10.

pleased to investigate the fraudulent practices perpetrated by the Respondents and take
necessary steps to hold the developers accountable.
B. Relief Sought
11.

In view of the facts and circumstances set out in the complaint, the Complainant

respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to:
I.

Ensure refund of the amount paid with interest at 2% per month or rightful possession
of the promised flat.

II.

Reinstate Rs.15400/ monthly payment, as promised, along with previous lapsed, also
until delivery of flat possession, within stipulated time frame.

III.

Compensation as appropriate, for the mental torture, due to their fraudulent scheme.

C. Points for Consideration
12.

In view of the facts and the reliefs sought, the following questions came up for

consideration before this Authority:
I.

Whether the Respondents have violated the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016?
3

---

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

D. Observation of the Authority
13.

Before getting into the observations, this Authority takes due note of the recurring

conduct of the Respondents herein, who have failed to appear before the Bench despite being
issued multiple notices and opportunities to appear. Therefore, have been set ex-parte and the
following observations have been made from the submissions of the Complainant, documents
and pleadings placed on record.
Point I
14.

This Authority observes that Respondent No. 2, having introduced the project and

facilitated the transaction by collecting initial amounts from the Complainant, clearly falls
within the ambit of a “real estate agent” as defined under Section 2(zm) of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016. From the submissions made by the Complainant and the documents placed on record, it
is evident that Respondent No. 2 was actively involved in the promotion, marketing, and
negotiation of the sale transaction. Despite discharging functions akin to those of a real estate
agent, Respondent No. 2 failed to obtain the mandatory registration under Section 9 of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
15.

The Authority further notes that in Complaint Case No. 286 of 2024, it has already

adjudicated upon the violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, in respect of the
subject project “Happy Homes,” and accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,45,750/(Rupees Six Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) upon
Respondent No. 1. It is also recorded that in the same proceedings, Respondent No. 2 was
found to have contravened the provisions of Section 9 by engaging in real estate transactions
without obtaining the requisite registration as a real estate agent, and was consequently directed
to pay a penalty of Rs. 1,08,800/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Eight Hundred
only). In view of the said findings, Point I stands answered in the affirmative and requires no
further deliberation in the present matter.
Point II
16.

Before proceeding to examine the merits of the transaction and reliefs claimed under

Point No. II, it is noted that the Complainant has submitted a copy of a sale deed dated
01.03.2025, executed with Respondent No. 3, wherein the said Respondent appears as the
vendor for land situated in Survey No. 685/H/2/1/1/1/1/1, located at Babaguda, H/o Shamirpet
4

---

Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the Complainant entered into an Agreement

of Sale with Respondent No.1, M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra projects Pvt. Ltd., through Respondent
No.2. As per the Agreement of Sale, M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra projects Pvt. Ltd. claimed
entitlement over the unit and undertook to develop a residential apartment project named
“Happy Homes.” The agreement fixed a total sale consideration of ₹27,72,000/- fully paid by
the Complainant.
18.

The Agreement of Sale originally stipulated that possession would be delivered within

36 months, with an additional grace period of 6 months, from the date of obtaining building
permission from HMDA and registration with RERA. Subsequently, by mutual consent of the
parties, the terms of the agreement were modified, wherein the project was changed from
“Happy Homes-II” to “Happy Homes,” and the date of the agreement was accordingly revised
from 05.11.2021 to 20.08.2022.
19.

The Respondent failed to appear before this Authority despite due notice and

opportunity. It is further noted that multiple complaints have been filed against the said
Respondent in respect of the present project. The Authority further records that, as per the
averments of the Complainant and also in view of the observations made by this Authority in
previously decided complaints concerning the same project, there is no visible construction
activity being carried out at the site. In light of the persistent defaults and repeated noncompliance by Respondent No. 1, the conduct of the promoter indicates a deliberate pattern of
disregard towards statutory obligations and willful evasion of regulatory proceedings under the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
20.

Furthermore, it is reiterated that M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra projects Private Limited, the

Respondent No. 1 herein, has already been adjudged a defaulter under the provisions of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, pursuant to the common order
rendered in Complaint Case Nos. 264 to 268 of 2024. As a result, all development activities
relating to the project in question, as well as any other projects undertaken, promoted, or
5

---

In the present case, the Complainant has sought, in the alternative, either registration of

the allotted flat or refund of the amount paid along with interest. However, this Authority is of
the view that the relief pertaining to registration of the said flat cannot be granted in light of
the prevailing circumstances The project remains entirely stalled, with no construction activity
having commenced at the site. The Respondent has failed to obtain any requisite permissions
or statutory approvals from the competent planning authority for the development of the
project. Further, as noted earlier, the Respondent has already been adjudged a defaulter under
the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, pursuant to the common order passed in Complaint Case Nos. 264 to
268 of 2024, and stands restrained from undertaking any development or promotional activity.
In light of these facts, registration of the subject flat is neither legally permissible nor practically
feasible.
22.

In view of the foregoing findings and the Respondent’s failure to fulfil its obligations

under the Agreement of Sale as well as its statutory duties, this Authority is of the considered
view that the present case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016 which reads as follows:
“If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of
an apartment, plot or building,
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the
case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account
of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for
any other reason,
he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee
wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other
remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of
that apartment, plot, building, with interest at such rate as may be
6

---

23.

In light of the facts discussed hereinabove, and considering the Complainant’s decision

to withdraw from the project, this Authority finds that the requirements under Section 18(1)(a)
stand fully satisfied. Accordingly, the Complainant becomes entitled to a refund of the amount
paid, along with interest at the rate prescribed under the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017.
24.

Insofar as the remaining reliefs sought by the Complainant are concerned, this

Authority proceeds to consider them individually in light of the statutory provision. With
respect to Relief No. 2, which pertains to the monthly payment of a certain amount, this
Authority observes that, as per the submissions made by the Complainant, the said monthly
payment was in the nature of rent being paid by the Respondent to the Complainant. However,
it is pertinent to note that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 does not
contemplate or provide any specific mechanism for adjudication of disputes relating to rental
payments. In view thereof, this Authority holds that it does not possess the jurisdiction to
entertain or decide this particular claim under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
25.

Similarly, with respect to Relief No. 3, which pertains to a claim for compensation, this

Authority is of the considered view that such a relief falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the adjudicating authority under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016. As per the procedural framework prescribed under the said Act, a claim for
compensation is required to be filed in Form N, and not in Form M. Since the present complaint
has been instituted in Form M, which does not encompass adjudication of compensation claims,
this Authority is not empowered to grant the relief sought under Relief No. 3.
E. Directions of the Authority:
26.

This Authority, vide the powers vested under Section 37 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016,

passes the following directions:
i.

The Respondent No.1-promoter, M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra projects Private Limited, is
hereby directed to refund the entire sale consideration amount of ₹27,72,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Lakh Seventy-Two Thousand Only) received from the Complainant towards

7

---

The above refund shall be made along with interest at the rate of State Bank of India’s
highest MCLR 8.75% + 2%, i.e., 10.75% interest, calculated from the date of final
payment made by the Complainant till the date of actual refund, strictly in terms of
Section 18(1)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with
Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.

27.

Accordingly, the complaint stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

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

8

---