Order Complaint No. 1376 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.1376 OF 2023
18th day of April, 2024
Corum:

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

E. Padma
Srimatha
Sabitha
Ch.Buchireddy
Rani
Saritha
K Swetha

…Complainant(s)

Versus
M/s Greenwoods Venchor
M/s Raja Infra Ventures Pvt Ltd.

…Respondent(s)

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for final
hearing

on

27.02.2024

before

this

Authority

in

the

presence

of

Complainants present in person, Counsel Bokaro Sapna Reddy on behalf of
Respondent 1 and Mr. Raja on behalf of M/s Raja Infra 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
Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the complaint:
3. The complainants purchased plots within the Green World Ventures
project situated in Inmulner Village, identified by Survey Numbers 135,
136, 147, 148, and 155, within Kothur, Rangareddy District – 509228.
4. They have remitted the requisite funds for the aforementioned plots to
the Marketing agent, M/s Raja Infra Developers Private Ltd. The said firm
has duly executed the Agreement of Sale, facilitating the acquisition of
1 of 10

their respective parcels through Agent S. Sharada Devi and Marketer G.
Raja Prasad. The landowner, G. Sudhakar, initially assented to the
registration of the parcels on 12.04.2023, a date subsequently deferred
by them. A revised registration date of 04.09.2023 was communicated,
prompting the summoning of all complainants to the Shadnagar
Registration Office. Despite their presence and an 8-hour wait, no
representative from the Respondent party appeared. Following several
months, a subsequent notification instructed them to revisit the
registration office on 21.09.2023, wherein a repetition of events ensued,
with no representation from their counterparts.
5. The

registration

process

for

the

aforementioned

plots

remains

outstanding.
S.no Name

Amount paid

1.

E. Padma

18,00,000/-

2.

Srimatha

24,00,000/-

3.

Sabitha

21,00,000/-

4.

Ch.Buchireddy

26,00,000/-

5.

Rani

31,40,000/-

6.

Saritha

7,50,000/-

7.

K Swetha

5,00,000/-

B. Relief(s) sought:
6. Refund of the total amount paid to the Respondents.
C. Respondent's Reply:
7. Respondent 2 has filed a counter, denying all allegations and averments
made in the Complaint against this Respondent as false, incorrect, and
misleading, purportedly created for the purpose of the frivolous and
vexatious Complaint against this Respondent herein. The complainant
may be put to strict proof of all those allegations and averments not
specifically or necessarily admitted by this Respondent herein.
8. That the complainants herein filed the above complaint suppressing the
real facts and approached this Hon'ble Authority with unclean hands to
seek the relief of equity, impermissible under law. The complainants filed
2 of 10

the above complaint based on false, vexatious, and baseless allegations,
rendering the complaint neither maintainable in law nor supported by
facts. As such, the same is liable to be dismissed forthwith. The above
complaint was filed by the Complainant with an ulterior motive to
blackmail and harass the Respondent.
9. It is respectfully submitted that Vamshi Green Avenues, represented by
Mr. G Sudakar, is developing the residential layout under the name of
"Green Woods lands situated in Survey No 135, 136, 147, 148, 155 of
Inmulnarva Village Kothur Mandal, Rangareddy District. Furthermore,
M/s. Falcon Infra, represented by Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, and M/s V
INFINI, represented by Mr. Veera Vallabh Chowdary, are the Marketers of
the above said Project, and this respondent was engaged by the above
marketers to advertise and sell plots in the "Green Woods" project. It is
submitted that during the marketing process of the above project, this
respondent invested its own manpower, resources, and finances to
advertise the project.
10.

The complainants approached this respondent and booked plots in

the aforementioned venture, paying advance amounts. The details of the
same are as follows:
S.no

Name

Plot no:

Total
consideration

1.

E.Padma

Plot no:11 Rs.
31,50,000/-

2.

A Sreematha

Plot no. 8

Rs.
34,20,000/-

3.

P.Sabita

Plot 13

Rs. 29,70,000

4.

Ch. Buchi Reddy

Plot no.
12

Rs.
36,00,000/-

Amount
received

Balance
amount &
due date
Rs.18,00,000/- 13,50,000/due date
from
03.04.2023
Rs.
Rs.
24,00,000/10,20,000/due date
from
24.11.2022
Rs.
Rs.
17,00,000/12,70,000/Due from
22.05.2023
Rs.
Rs.
31,40,000/4,60,000/Due from
26.11.2022
3 of 10

11.

5.

Vangala Rani

6.

P.Saritha

7.

K. Swetha

Plot no.
62
Plot no.
09

Rs.
36,00,000/Rs.
33,30,000/-

Rs.
31,40,000/Rs. 7,50,000/-

Rs.
32,58,000/-

Rs. 5,00,000/-

Rs.
4,60,000/Rs.
25,80,000/Due from
11.05.2023
Rs.
27,58,000/Due from
13.03.2023

As per the agreement, the complainants were required to pay the

balance amount on or before the aforementioned dates, which they had
agreed upon to complete the registration in their names. However, the
complainants did not fulfil this obligation within the specified time
frames as agreed. Subsequently, despite multiple follow-ups by the
respondents with the complainants to complete the registration process
by paying the balance amount, they did not respond.
12.

Later, the complainants expressed readiness for registration. However,

the registration process could not be completed due to disputes between
the developer and the aforementioned marketers. Subsequently, this
respondent made every effort to facilitate the registration of the
aforementioned plots by negotiating with the developer and marketers.
Eventually, the developer agreed to register the plots in favour of the
complainants. Furthermore, on 22-01-2024, the developer provided a
written undertaking to register the aforementioned plots in favour of the
complainants.
13.

In view of the aforementioned

facts

and circumstances, this

respondent is prepared to register the plots in favour of the complainants
through the Developer upon receipt of the remaining balance of the sale
consideration.
D. Hearing Conducted:
14. During the hearing, the Complainants reiterated the contentions
raised in the complaint. Furthermore, they submitted that they were
approached by LIC agents, namely, Sri A. Ramesh and Smt. S. Sharada
Devi, who were in their employ. These agents introduced M/s Raja Infra
4 of 10

as marketing agents to the Complainants, enticing them to purchase
plots. Additionally, they clarified that they had never met the
Landowners/Builder of the project, as M/s Raja Infra, Respondent 2,
acted as the intermediary. They emphasized that all payments for the
purchase of plots were made exclusively to Respondent 2. However, as
no representative appeared on behalf of the Respondents, the Authority
directed a fresh notice to be issued. The Authority also resolved to
summon Sri A. Ramesh and Smt. S. Sharada Devi for the next hearing
under Section 35 of the RE(R&D) Act to attain a clearer understanding
of the transactions.
15. On the subsequent hearing date, Respondent 1 asserted that he is the
landowner of the concerned project, which holds RERA Registration vide
number P02400006641. He affirmed that he had never directly
communicated with the complainants, nor had any dealings with M/s
Raja Infra. Moreover, Respondent 1 disclosed that an agreement had
been reached with M/s Falcon Infra for marketing the project.
Subsequently, M/s Falcon Infra entered into a sub-contract with M/s
Raja Infra, herein Respondent No. 2, for project marketing. The
Authority directed the respondents to serve notice on M/s Falcon Infra
for the next hearing date. Respondent 1, however, informed the
Authority of his willingness to register the plots if the complainants
settle the outstanding balance.
16. Conversely, the complainants expressed their lack of awareness
regarding M/s Falcon Infra, asserting that they had only interacted with
Respondent No. 2 since the inception of the purchase. Respondent No. 2
acknowledged to the Authority that they were indeed marketing agents
for the project and had entered into a sub-contract with M/s Falcon
Infra for this purpose. They further clarified that all payments had been
collected by Respondent No. 2 and transferred in full to Respondent No.
1 and M/s Falcon Infra. Both Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2
expressed their willingness to register the plots upon receipt of full
payment from the complainants.

5 of 10

17. M/s Raja Infra informed this Authority that payments from the
complainants had been overdue for a year, attributing the delay in plot
registration to this factor. Regarding Smt. Sharada Devi and A. Ramesh,
M/s Raja Infra stated to the bench that they were also purchasers of the
project in question and had merely provided information about it,
having no involvement in the registration process for the plots. However,
the complainants refuted the statements made by Smt. Sharada Devi
and A. Ramesh, asserting that they had indeed received payments from
them, and all outstanding payments had been settled by the
complainants.
18. Further, the complainants submitted that they are not willing to pay
the remaining balance amount to the Respondents as they have lost all
hopes in the Project. Further, that they are not willing to continue in the
project and they pray that Authority direct for Refund along with
interest as there was delay performed by the Respondents.
E. Findings on the relief sought by the complainants:
F.1 Direct the Respondents to refund the entire amount paid by the
complainants.
19. Considering that the allottees/complainants wish to withdraw from
the project and are demanding the return of the amount received by the
promoter, along with interest, due to the promoter's failure or inability
to provide possession of the plot in accordance with the sale agreement
or within the specified timeline, the matter falls under Section 18(1) of
the RE(R&D) Act of 2016.
20. The Authority observes that Respondent 1, despite being directed to
file a written statement during the conducted hearing, has failed to do
so. However, during the hearings, both Respondent 1 and Respondent 2
did not contest the fact that the complainants had approached them to
purchase plots and had paid a certain amount as sale consideration.
21. Furthermore, Respondent 2, in their written statement, stated that
the registration did not take place due to a dispute between the
developer and marketers.
6 of 10

22. It is noted that neither Respondent No. 1 nor Respondent No. 2 denied
their liability regarding the registration of the plots. Regarding M/s
Falcon Infra, neither party submitted any substantiated evidence or
implicated M/s Falcon Infra's involvement in the present transactions
related to the aforementioned plots.
23. The Authority notes a delay in achieving due possession as per the
sale agreement mentioned below:
S.no Complainant
1. A.Sreematha
2.
P.Sabita
3.
C.Buchi Reddy
4.
V.Rani
5.
P.Sartiha
6.
K.Swetha
7.
E.Padma

Due date of registration
24.11.2022
22.05.2023
26.11.2022
22.05.2023
10.05.2023
13.03.2023
03.04.2023

24. Additionally, it is observed that the complainants were repeatedly
called to the Registration department without any representation made
on behalf of the respondents. This allegation was neither denied nor
disputed; instead, Respondent 1,

acknowledged that due to an

emergency, they could not appear. The Authority believes that the
allottees cannot be expected to indefinitely wait for possession of the
unit for which they have paid a considerable amount as sale
consideration.
25. Also, the submission made by the Respondent no.2 that the delay in
registration also undertook due to the non-payment of balance sale
consideration, is rejected by this Authority as Respondent no.2 failed to
prove the authority that Complainants were not willing to pay the
balance amount.
26. The Authority observes that an Agreement of Sale was entered into
between Respondent 2 and the complainants. Furthermore, Respondent
2 stated that the amount was credited to Respondent 1, which was
neither denied nor disputed, and no substantiated evidence was
submitted by Respondent 1/Landowner to refute the contentions made
by Respondent 2. Hence, the Authority opines that both Respondent 1,
7 of 10

the landowner, and Respondent 2, the marketing agent, are liable to
repay the complainants' amount. As both the promoter and agent failed
to give possession of the plot by delaying in registration. The
Respondents are responsible for all obligations, responsibilities, and
functions under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act of 2016 or the rules
and regulations made thereunder or to the allottee as per agreement for
sale under section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act. The respondents have
failed to complete or unable to give the possession of the plot in
accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or duly completed by
the date specified therein. Accordingly, the respondents are liable to
repay the amount, as allottees wish to withdraw from the project,
without prejudice to any other remedy available.
27. The Authority hereby directs the promoter to return the amount
received by them along with interest at the rate of 8.65% (the State
Bank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) applicable as
on date + 2%) as prescribed under Rule 15 of Telangana State
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 from date of due date
mentioned in the agreement and also in aforementioned table till actual
date of refund of the amount within the timelines provided in Rule 16 of
the TS RE(R&D) Rules 2017.
28. Furthermore, the Authority observes that M/s Raja Infra, herein
referred to as respondent 2, has consistently identified itself as a
marketing agent rather than a Real Estate Agent. However, the
Authority notes that a plain reading of section 2(zm) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, clearly stipulates that any individual
who negotiates or acts on behalf of another party in a transaction
involving the transfer of plots, apartments, or buildings, whether by sale
or otherwise, and receives compensation, fees, or any other form of
remuneration for such services, including commissions, is deemed a
real

estate

agent.

This

definition

encompasses

individuals

who

introduce prospective buyers and sellers to each other for the purpose
of negotiation or purchase/sale of plots, apartments, or buildings, and

8 of 10

includes property dealers, brokers, and intermediaries under any
nomenclature.
29. Taking into account the fact that M/s Raja Infra engaged in the
selling/marketing of plots and entered into sales agreements with the
complainants, it shall be deemed a Real Estate Agent. Furthermore, in
accordance with section 9 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, it is mandatory for every real estate agent to register
themselves. Therefore, the Authority concludes that M/s Raja Infra,
respondent 2 herein, has contravened section 9 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act by facilitating plot sales without
registering as a Real Estate agent.
Directions of the Authority:
30. Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following
directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of
obligations cast upon the promoter as per entrusted to the authority
under section 34(f):
1. The Respondent 1 and Respondent 2 are directed to refund the
entire amount paid by the complainants along with prescribed rate
of interest of 10.65% as prescribed under the Rule 15 of the TS
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 from the
date of due date mentioned in each agreement of sale till the actual
date of refund of the deposited amount.
2. A period of 90 days is given to the respondent to comply with the
directions

given

in

this

order

and

failing

to

which

legal

consequences would follow.
3. The Authority, exercising its power under Section 62 of the
RE(R&D) Act, imposes a penalty of Rs. 4,66,560/4. , for contravening Section 9 of the RE(R&D) Act of 2016.
Additionally, the Respondent no.2 is directed to strictly comply
with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and
refrain from engaging in any marketing or selling activities of any
Real Estate projects

without registering itself under section 9 of

the RE(R&D) Act as a Real Estate Agent. The penalty shall be
9 of 10

payable in favour of TS RERA FUNDS through a Demand Draft or
online payment to A/c No.50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC
Code: HDFC0007036, within a period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of this order.
29.

In lieu of the above-mentioned directions, the present complaint

stands disposed of. Upon the failure of the Respondent Builder to comply
with the present Order, appropriate action, including imposition of a
penalty, will be taken as per provisions under Section 63 of the Act, 2016.
30.

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/-

Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/-

Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/-

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

10 of 10