Order Complaint No. 1325 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.1325 OF 2023
31st day of May, 2024
Corum:

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

Sri Kanimahanthi Ram Nikhil
SmtKanimahanthi Sunita Patnaik
…Complainants(s)
Versus
M/s Cybercity Infrastructures Pvt.Ltd. rep MD Sri VenuVedra
Mr. KamashrettySuarabh
…Respondent(s)
The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for final
hearing

on

18.04.2024

before

this

Authority

in

the

presence

of

Complainants’s authorised representative Vasanth K and K .Kiran Kumar
Reddy authorised representative on behalf of the Respondent and upon
hearing the arguments of the parties, this Authority passes the following
ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed 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”) seeking directions from this Authority to take action against the
Respondent.

A. Brief Facts on behalf of the complainants:
3.

The complainantss made a provisional booking for flat 2710, Tower 3,

in Project Cybercity

West Brook on August 14th, 2023.Booking advance
1 of 13

amount paid: Rs. 1,00,000/- Complainantss' interest in the flat has been
hindered due to deficiencies in documentation provided by M/S Cybercity
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Respondent (a).
4.

Mr. Kamshetty Saurabh, Respondent (b), has executed various

agreements, mortgages, and gift deeds using names not consistent with the
title deeds.Lack of clarification from M/S Cybercity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.,
Respondent (a), regarding the authority under which these transactions
were conducted.
5.

Difficulty in establishing a clear flow of title from Mr. K. Eshan alias

Saurabh to Mr. Kamshetty Saurabh, Respondent (b), due to discrepancies in
documentation.
6.

Temporary water connection approval obtained, but no approval for

permanent water connection after project completion.
7.

Temporary electricity connection approval obtained, but no approval

for permanent electricity connection after project completion.
8.

Application for approval/NOC pending examination and issuance by

the committee.
9.

Lack of official approval/seal on stormwater pipe plan and sewage

treatment plan.
10.

Approval for land conversion obtained for part of the project, but

clearance for the remaining portion pending, possibly due to its location in
the buffer zone.

B. Relief(s) Sought:
11.

The complainantss sought for the following reliefs:

a. Clarification and establishment of the authority behind transactions
conducted by Mr. Kamshetty Saurabh, Respondent (b), has executed
his liberty to execute such Agreements, Mortgages, gift deeds etc for
land title belonging to Mr.K.Eshan alias Saurabh and to reconcile

2 of 13

agreements, mortgages, gift deeds etc wherever required, after the
establishment of this Auhtority to execute such documents.
b. Establishment of a clear flow of title from Mr. K. Eshan alias Saurabh
to

Mr.

Kamshetty

Saurabh,

Respondent

(b)

with

legitimate

documentation like name change or through a court or through your
Hon’ble regulatory authority Order.
c. To clarify the requirement of approval or NOC from HMWSSB for
providing Permanent Water connection to the project Cybercity
Westbrook, as approval for only a temporary water connection is
obtained.
d. To clarify the requirement of approval or NOC from Central Power
distribution co.ltd or electricity department for providing Permenanat
Electricity to the project cybercity westbrook, as approval for only a
temporary Electricity connection is obtained.
e. To clarify the requirement of Approval/NOC from the irrigation and
Revenue department as it is observed that application for same has
been placed before a committee for examining and issue of
Approval/NOC. But NOC has not yet obtained.
f. To clarify the requirement of Approved/Sanctioned Storm Water Pipe
Plan, with the Official Seal/ Sign of HMDA or the approving authority,
to indicate that the same has been approved, as the Storm Water Plan
sent to me is as designed/proposed and submitted to authorities. It
does not have the Official Seal/ Sign of HMDA or the approving
authority, to indicate that the same has been approved.
g. To clarify the requirement of Approved/Sanctioned Sewage Treatment
Plan, with the Official Seal/ Sign of HMDA or the approving authority,
to indicate that the same has been approved. The Sewage Treatment
Plan sent to me is as designed/proposed and submitted to
authorities.It does not have the Official Seal/ Sign of HMDA or the
approving authority, to indicate that the same has been approved.
h. To clarify the requirement of NALA Clearance from RDO for conversion
from Agricultural to Non Agricultural Land, for the remaining 1 Ac22Gts of the 7Ac-36Gts for the Project.
3 of 13

i. Approval for Land Conversion to Non Agricultural Land has been
obtained for total 6Ac-14Gts.Possibly, since it falls in Buffer Zone, it
may not be required.
j. Praying this Authorityto kindly clarify same.
k. It is also prayed to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble
Authority deem fit and proper in the interests of justice and fair play,
to direct M/S Cybercity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to proceed with our
signing the Agreement ofSale for Flat No. 2710, in Tower 3, as per the
agreed Application no. 1915, dated 14th August 2023, in the event
that we decide to continue with the Application No.1915, or Refund
the Full Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid as Booking Amount in the
event that it is decided to cancel the application due to deficient
documentation, as we have already paid the booking advance amount
of Rs. 1,00,000/-, (Rupees One Lakh Only), in the Residential
Apartments

in

Project

Cybercity

WestBrook,

T.S.

RERA

No.P02400003031, that is being built by M/S Cybercity Infrastructure
Pvt. Ltd., Respondent (a).

C. Interim Relief Sought:
12.

The complainantss sought for the following interim reliefs:

a. Clarification on the authority behind transactions by Mr. Kamshetty

Saurabh, Respondent (b).
b. Establishment of a clear flow of title from Mr. K. Eshan alias Saurabh

to Mr. Kamshetty Saurabh, Respondent (b).
c. Clarification on necessary approvals for water, electricity, and other

infrastructure requirements.

D. Respondent Reply:
13.

The Respondent has submitted a detailed reply addressing the

concerns raised by the Complainants regarding the title of a piece of land, as
4 of 13

well as various other issues related to approvals and proceedings. The
Respondent asserts that all necessary clarifications and documentation have
been provided to substantiate the ownership of the land and compliance
with regulatory requirements.
14.

The land was originally purchased in the name of Master Eshan, who

later changed his name to K.Saurabh. However, official documents such as
Aadhaar card, PAN card, and Passport have been obtained with the name
"Kamshetty Saurabh."
15.

The Respondent argues that the mentioning of the nick/pet name

alongside the official/registered name does not affect the title of the
property. Sworn affidavits and declarations from the parents and the
landowner have been provided to clarify this issue.
16.

The Respondent provides a point-by-point response to the deficiencies

raised by the Complainants:
I.

Concerns regarding the name change and title clarification have been
addressed through sworn affidavits and declarations.

II.

The Respondent asserts that no other individual or authority has
questioned the land title based on the name issue.

III.

Assurance is given regarding the provision of necessary NOCs and
certificates upon completion of the project.

IV.

Approval for stormwater pipeline and sewerage treatment plan is
claimed to be included in the approved building permit.

V.

NALA proceedings have been provided for the project land, but no
separate proceedings will be provided for FTL/buffer zone.

VI.

The Respondent expresses willingness to cancel the application if the
Complainants is not convinced with the explanation provided.

17.

The Respondent states that the Complainants's application has been

cancelled due to non-payment within the stipulated timeframe.

5 of 13

18.

Despite informing the Complainants to provide account details for

refund, no response was received.
19.

The Respondent argues that the complaint is frivolous and litigative in

nature, aimed at tarnishing their image and reputation.
20.

The Respondent prays for the dismissal of the complaint, citing the

comprehensive response provided to address all concerns raised by the
Complainants. They argue that the complaint lacks merit and is an attempt
to waste the time of the Hon'ble Authority.
E. Rejoinder
21.

The submission of the Title Flow, in the reply filed by the Respondent,

M/s Cybercity Infrastructure Private Limited, is convincing and reassuring,
but it only reinforces the assumptions and interpretations regarding the
Title of the said Landowner, Mr. Kamishetty Saurabh, and his authority to
sign and execute various Mortgages, Gift Deeds, Agreements, etc. However,
it is important to note that these are only assurances.
22.

The filing of the Affidavit-cum-Declaration-cum-Undertaking by his

Parents, in the reply filed by the Respondent, further reassures and
reinforces these assumptions and interpretations regarding the Title of Mr.
Kamishetty Saurabh and his authority to sign and execute various
Mortgages, Gift Deeds, Agreements, etc. Yet, it is essential to note that this
is only a sworn statement.
23.

The Title is in the name of Mr. K. Eshan as per the Title Documents

(Page 14 of this Rejoinder) and K. Eshan alias Saurabh as per The Lok
Adalat O.S. No. 364 of 2013 and the Award passed in terms of the
compromise (pg 66 of 84 of Complaint no. 1325 of 2023).
24.

Mr. Kamshetty Saurabh, Respondent (b), Aadhar No. 343311442557,

PAN No. ASVPK4801V (pg 34 of Complaint no. 1325 of 2023), has executed
various Agreements, Mortgages, Gift Deeds, etc., in the Name of Mr.
K.Eshan @ Saurabh, for Land Title belonging to Mr. K. Eshan alias Saurabh,
without establishing or reconciling the Title.
6 of 13

25.

The submission of the Title Flow as well as the Affidavit-cum-

Declaration cum-Undertaking by his Parents, in the reply filed by the
Respondent, does not establish the Title of the Landowner Mr. Kamishetty
Saurabh nor the Authority of the Landowner Mr. Kamishetty Saurabh to
sign and execute various Mortgages, Gift Deeds, Agreements, etc.
26.

The submission of the Title Flow as well as the Affidavit -cum-

Declaration cum-Undertaking by his Parents, in the reply filed by the
Respondent, does not reconcile the various Mortgages, Gift Deeds,
Agreements, etc. executed by Landowner Mr. Kamishetty Saurabh.
27.

Since there is a Name Change from Master Eshan to K. Saurabh and

Kamishetty Saurabh, and he has used multiple other names like K.Eshan @
Saurabh and K. Eshan alias Saurabh, the Name Change can only be
established through legitimate documentation of the Name Change by a
Competent Authority at the Department of Publication, Government Gazette
Office, after following the due procedure as set out by the Competent
Authority. The Affidavit-cum-Declaration-cum-Undertaking by his Parents
constitutes a very important document in the Name Change Procedure by a
Competent Authority, but does not, by itself, establish the Name Change.
28.

It is prayed to the Hon'ble Authority to direct the Respondent, Mr.

Kamishetty Saurabh, to carry out the Name Change by a Competent
Authority at the Department of Publication, Government Gazette Office and
establish the name change for the multiple names used and identities. The
Title of Mr. Kamishetty Saurabh can then and only then be registered as the
Landowner, in the Land and Revenue Records, after getting the Name
Change from the Competent Authority.
29.

It is prayed to the Hon'ble Authority to direct the Respondent, Mr.

Kamishetty Saurabh, to carry out the registration of the Name Change in
the Land and Revenue Records. This would establish the Title to said Land
through a legally valid document as per Chapter II, Clause 3, Sub Clause 1
(d) of RERA Act. The various Mortgages, Gift Deeds, Agreements, etc.
7 of 13

executed by Landowner Mr. Kamishetty Saurabh can then be Reconciled,
due to the Name Change. It is prayed to the Hon'ble Authority to direct the
Respondent, Mr. Kamishetty Saurabh, to carry out and reconcile all the
various Mortgages, Gift Deeds, Agreements, etc. executed by Landowner Mr.
Kamishetty Saurabh, with regard to the Name Change.
30.

The explanation and clarification provided by the Respondent, M/s

Cybercity Infrastructure Private Limited, Represented by its Authorized
Signatory: Mr. K. Kiran Kumar Reddy, on 03rd April 2024, in his reply,
states that the "Permanent NOC from HMWSSB for potable water will be
provided only after completion of the entire project and upon obtaining the
Occupancy Certificate from the concerned authorities".
31.

The Building Permit Order, Office of NarsingiMuncipality File No.

G1/495/2021 Dts 27.04.2021, Pg 2, Point no. 8 states that Public
Amenities such as Water Supply, Electricity Connections will be provided
only on production of Occupancy Certificate. Hence, this explanation and
clarification are found to be satisfactory by us, the Complainantss.
32.

The NOC from the Irrigation and Revenue Department is already

obtained. However, the Respondent has not submitted this NOC. As per the
documents provided to us by the Respondent, it is observed that the
application for the same has been placed before a committee for examining
and issuing Approval/NOC. But the NOC from the committee has not yet
been obtained. It is prayed to the Hon'ble Authority to direct the
Respondents to submit/provide the NOC from the Irrigation and Revenue
Department.
33.

"No separate Approval for the Storm Water Pipeline is provided by the

Authorities since the same is shown in the plans and drawings which are
submitted to the authorities and which are duly approved also (already
provided approved building permit)".
34.

The

approved

HMDA/19112020,

6

drawings

(File

Number:

Sheets),

that

have

been

040632/ZOA/R1
provided

to

us,

/U6/
the

Complainantss, have been scrutinized and observed that it does not show
8 of 13

any Storm Water Pipeline. The Storm Water Pipe Plan, (SANCTION
DRAWING,

SITE

PLAN

STORM

WATER

DRAINAGE

LAYOUT

AND

SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM DUAL PIPING SYSTEM, I SHEET, DTD 21.01.2021,
pg 76 in Complaint 1325 of 2023), that has been provided to us, the
Complainantss, does not have the Official Seal/Sign of HMDA or the
approving authority, to indicate that the same has been approved. Also, by
naming this drawing "SANCTION DRAWING", it does not become a
sanctioned or approved drawing. It requires an attestation of approval with
the Official Seal/Sign of HMDA or the approving authority, to indicate that
the same has been approved. It is prayed to the Hon'ble Authority to direct
the Respondents to submit/provide the approved plans and drawings
showing the Storm Water Pipeline.
35.

"Sewerage Water Treatment Plan: No separate Approval for the

Sewerage Water Treatment Plan is provided by the Authorities since the
same is shown in the plans and drawings which are submitted to the
authorities and which are duly approved also (already provided approved
building permit)".
36.

The

Approved

drawings

(File

Number:

040632/ZOA/R1/U6/HMDA/19112020, 6 Sheets), that have been provided
to us, the Complainantss, have been scrutinized and observed that it does
not show any Sewerage Water Treatment Plan. Instead, Point No.21 in the
Legend

of

the

Approved

drawings

(File

Number:

040632/ZOA/R1/06/HMDA/19112020, 6 Sheets), states: "To provide
Sewerage Treatment Plant for recycling of sewage water for usage of recycled
water for gardening etc. As per APPCB". The Sewerage Water Treatment
Plan, (SANCTION DRAWING, SITE PLAN STORM WATER DRAINAGE
LAYOUT AND SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM DUAL PIPING SYSTEM, I SHEET,
DTD 21.01.2021, pg 76 in Complaint 1325 of 2023), that has been provided
to us, the Complainantss, does not have the Official Seal/Sign of HMDA or
the approving authority, to indicate that the same has been approved. Also,
by naming this drawing "SANCTION DRAWING", it does not become a
sanctioned or approved drawing. It requires an attestation of approval with
9 of 13

the Official Seal/Sign of HMDA or the approving authority, to indicate that
the same has been approved. It is prayed to the Hon'ble Authority to direct
the Respondents to submit/provide the approved plans and drawings
showing the Sewerage Water Treatment Plan.
37.

"NALA proceedings are already provided for the project land and

however in respect of FTL/buffer zone, no separate NALA proceedings will be
provided".
38.

This explanation and clarification are found to be only partially

satisfactory by us, the Complainantss. The approved drawings (File Number:
040632/ZOA/R1/U6/HMDA/19112020, 6 Sheets), states that the Area of
Plot and Net Area Of Plot, and the Building Permit Order, Office of
NarsingiMuncipality File No. G1/495/2021 Dts 27.04.2021, Pg 2, Point no.
11 states that this sanction is accorded on surrendering of Road affected
portion of the site to NarsingiMuncipality free of cost without claiming any
compensation at any time as per the undertaking submitted. It is assumed
that the difference in Area and Net Area is the Road Affected Area and Gifted
to The Commissioner, NarsingiMuncipality, through Ratification Deed, Doct
No. 4697/2020, Dtd 28.05.2020 (for 905 Sq. Yds/757.12 Sq.M),. The
Supplementary Cum Area Sharing Agreement Doct No. 8614 of 2021, dated
03.05.2021, states that land admeasuring 3 Acres-6.4 Gts (3.16 Acres) is
the Corrected Schedule "C" Property, and that land admeasuring 7 Acres33.6 Gts (7.84 Acres) is the Corrected Schedule "B" Property, that is being
developed as Westbrook at Kokapet, TS RERA No.: P024 0000 3031.
However, if the Road Affected Area (that has been gifted) is deducted from
the Corrected Schedule "B" Property, then the Land earmarked from the
Schedule "B" Property, that is being developed as Westbrook at Kokapet, TS
RERA No. P024 0000 3031, is 7.65 Acres or 7 Acres-26Gts. It appears that
the Gifted Road Affected Area is being monetized at the cost of the Flat
owners, although gifted by the Landowners. It has been observed, that the
Brochure, by the Respondent, M/s Cybercity, for Westbrook at Kokapet, TS
RERA No. P024 0000 3031, states that the project Westbrook has 3 Towers
in 7.8 Acres, on Page 01,. This is about 0.188 Acres more than the area as
10 of 13

calculated above, It is prayed to the Hon'ble Authority to direct the
Respondents, to submit/provide the clarification for the discrepancies in the
Areas of the Project Westbrook at Kokapet, TS RERA No. P024 0000 3031,
and also, to clarify the UDS for the Flat Owners.
39.

We would like to convey our continued interest in a Flat no.2710 in

Tower 3, in Westbrook, to the Respondent, M/s Cybercity Infrastructure
Private Limited. This has already been mentioned on lines 16, 17 on pg 5 of
84 of the Complaint No.1325 of 2023. And appreciate the reply filed by the
Respondent, M/s Cybercity Infrastructure Private Limited, Represented by
its Authorized Signatory: Mr. K. Kiran Kumar Reddy, on 03rd April 2024. TS
RERA was informed regarding the Cancellation along with a request for fast
tracking the Complaint No.1325 of 2023 as well as a request for Clarification
of the position of TS RERA with regard to the Cancellation, was made
through our letter to The Registrar, TS RERA, dated 18th Dec. 2023.
However, since the matter is presently with TS RERA since 9th October
2023 in Complaint No.1325 of 2023, and your cancellation was received on
15th December 2023, the cancellation can be deemed as invalid and we
shall have to wait for the order of the Hon'ble TS RERA. Yourselves should
be aware of this, being a RERA registered Builder/Promoter.
40.

It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Authority may be pleased to

call for the records and direct the respondents to clarify, establish, and
reconcile the deficiencies described above and pass such other order or
orders as this Hon'ble Authority deems fit and proper in the interests of
justice and fair play.

F. Hearing Conducted:
41.

The complainants submitted to the Authority that he is willing to

purchase a flat in the concerned project. However, during his diligence for
the said project, there were a few discrepancies that he came across. Hence,
he is requesting this Authority to direct the Respondent to give the
complainants access to the relevant documents. No one appeared on behalf
11 of 13

of the Respondent on the last date of the hearing; however, the Respondent
filed a letter previously, seeking an adjournment. Hence, the matter is
posted for hearing on 03.04.2024
42.

On the Subsequent date of hearing, the Respondent submitted that

the concerned flat had been cancelled due to non-adherence to the payment
schedule, and the token amount would be returned to the complainants.
However, the complainantss informed the bench that they are willing to
continue with the project if the said documents are provided by the
Respondent or would like to proceed with the cancellation of the concerned
unit.

G. Observation and Directions by the Authority:
43.

Having considered the contentions advanced by both parties and the

reliefs claimed, it must be stated that the complainant is obligated to verify
the documents before entering into the alleged transactions and making
payment. After entering into the transaction and making the payment, the
complainant cannot allege and plead for reliefs as made in the present case.
44.

The reliefs sought, in the considered view of this Authority, are

peculiar and cannot be entertained. In one way, it can be said that the
reliefs claimed are vague and cannot be considered. The complainant cannot
seek reliefs as provided under the Act. In the facts and circumstances, and
subject to what was observed above in earlier paragraphs, it must be said
that the present complaint has to be dismissed as not tenable. However, the
complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps and seek reliefs tenable
under the law by initiating separate proceedings as advised.
46.

Subject to the observations made above, the complaint is dismissed as

not tenable.
47.

In lieu of the above findings and directions, the present complaint

stands disposed off. The parties shall bear their own cost. The parties are
hereby informed that failure to comply with this order shall attract section
63 of the Act.

12 of 13

48.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real

Estate Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Dt.11-01-2018, the Telangana
State Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real
Estate Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act till the regular
Tribunal is established) as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

Sd/-.

Sd/-.

Sd/-.

Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,

Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson

TG RERA

TG RERA

Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

13 of 13