Order Complaint No. 16 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.16 OF 2024
17th Day of July 2025
Quorum:

1.

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

Tumpi Shome
R/o Villa No.26, Westend Greens,
Mokila, Hyderabad 501203

2.

Sailaja Nukala
R/o Villa No.100, Westend Greens,
Mokila, Hyderabad 501203

3.

Monika Singh
R/o Villa No.32, Westend Greens,
Mokila, Hyderabad 501203

4.

Tarun Dhar
R/o Villa No.15, Westend Greens,
Mokila, Hyderabad 501203

5.

Sandeep Josyula
R/o Villa No.16, Westend Greens,
Mokila, Hyderabad 501203

…Complainants

Versus
M/s Countryside Realtors India Pvt. Ltd.
(Represented through its Director, Sri Mohd. Masood Ul Hasan
&Sri SimhaKvinarasimham and Sri Saurabh Pandey
Office at Plot No.3, 2nd floor, Amar Co-Operative Society,
Kavuri Hills Phase – II, Guttala Begumpet, Madhapur,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500081)

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing on
14.02.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for Complainants, Sri A.
Chandra Shaker & Sri G. Venugopal and the Counsel for the Respondent, Sri Drupad
Sangwan and after hearing the arguments, this Authority passes the following ORDER:

2.

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

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

1 of 28

---

The Complainants submitted that they invested in the HMDA-approved layout known

as “Westend Greens”, located in Sy.No.100 (Part) and 107 (Part) of Mokila Village,
Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad 501203. That according to the initial
plan outlined in marketing materials and the agreement of sale, Respondent represented that
the Westend Greens projects obtained approval from HMDA in 2011 under LP No.
1140/LO/ZO-SKP/HMDA/2011 with an initial plan of building 117 villas.
4.

Accordingly, Complainants paid all the dues as outlined in the Agreement of Sale

which includes:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
5.

Cost of construction as mentioned in the Agreement of Sale
Taxes in the form of GST
Amount demanded as part of developing amenities such as Club House
Monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs 7500/month per villa

That pursuant to the satisfactory receipt of payment, Respondent duly issued a "No

Objection & No Dues" Certificate to the Complainants, signifying the settlement of all
outstanding financial obligations. That despite the commencement of the Westend Greens
Villa project in 2011, after 12 years, only 20 out of the initial 117 villas have been deemed fit
for possession. It was submitted that the project is ongoing, with a mere 30% completion
achieved thus far.
6.

The Complainants further submitted that Respondent approached the Hyderabad

Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) for revalidation of the layout, once in
28.02.2017 and then in 20.12.2019. That however, the Complainants have not been
communicated if revalidation has been approved. But while Respondent had applied for
revalidation, the Westend Greens website continued to depict the HMDA approved status
with LP Number LP No. 1140/LO/ZO-SKP/HMDA/2011, which is misleading and in direct
contravention to Section 12 of the Act, 2016 which imposes obligations on promoters
regarding information provided to buyers. They further highlighted that Section 11(2) of the
Act, 2016, which states that advertisements for marketing plots or flats in a real estate project
must include the TG RERA registration number, but Respondent failed to do so.
7.

It was submitted that as of February 2024, (i) only around 30% of the project is

complete and, (ii) Respondent doesn't possess the Completion Certificate making Westend
Greens an "ongoing project". However, Westend Greens Villa project doesn't have the
mandatory RERA registration which is a violation under Section 3 of the Act, 2016 that for
projects that are ongoing on the date of the Act and for which the Occupation certificate has

2 of 28

---

It was further submitted that while the Complainants have been staying in their

respective villas since 2-3 years, the project lacks basic facilities which have been promised
in respective Agreement of Sale, the marketing brochures as well as website.
i.

There is no Sewage Tank or Sewage Treatment facility in Westend Greens (area size
12 acres) even though the project is 11 years old. Human waste is just dumped into an
open pit. This is a clear violation of the directive from National Green Tribunal for
mandatory fitment of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for residential areas exceeding
10,000 square meters

ii.

Missing compound wall and high tension electrical lines that are lying in the open is
posing as a significant threat to the safety of the residents

iii.

Erratic water supply as there is no proper water piping done with non-functioning
pneumatic pumps and sumps even though these were promised as Amenities.

9.

It was submitted that the Complainants have duly fulfilled their financial obligations

by remitting complete payments for various amenities such as the clubhouse, compound wall,
power backup generator, and other associated services, as per the stipulated demands set forth
by Respondent and have obtained 'No Dues' certificates from it. Starting February 2024,
Respondent has initiated requests for residents to remit outstanding maintenance dues to SM
Financial Services. They added that this firm specializes in liquidation and wind-down
management solutions, thereby instilling justifiable apprehension among residents regarding
the project's viability and financial condition of Respondent to complete the pending
amenities and construction.

B. Relief(s) sought:
10.

Therefore, aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent, Complainants prayed as

under:
i.

Complainants implore the authorities to enforce the mandatory registration of
Westend Greens under RERA. The statutory requirement for registration applies
particularly to ongoing projects lacking a completion certificate at the
commencement of the act. Given that Westend Greens, with a completion rate of less
than 30% and spanning 12 acres, falls squarely within the ambit of ongoing projects.

3 of 28

---

Re-instatement of the lapsed HMDA approval (via LP No. 1140/LO/ZOSKP/HMDA/2011). This renewal is imperative to safeguard the interests of the
residents and rectify the non-compliance issues currently plaguing the development.

iii.

In furtherance of securing the rights of the buyers, the Complainants implores that
RERA disposes of the twenty HMDA mortgaged plots, with the intent of utilizing the
proceeds for the completion of pending amenities and villas. This strategic course of
action will help ensure the fulfillment of contractual obligations and safeguard the
interests of the purchasers.

iv.

Development of infrastructure within a reasonable time. Infrastructure includes STP,
Water Pneumatic Pump, functional drainage in all lanes, power backup, dual meter,
street lights in all lanes, jogging track, club house, swimming pool, indoor badminton
court etc inline with promised amenities as per sale deed

v.

Expedited completion of under construction villas including timeline commitment for
open plots construction using same elevation as other villas

vi.

The Complainants earnestly request the RERA authorities to take prompt measures to
address the persistent occurrences of intimidation directed at residents by
Countryside Realtors Pvt Ltd. This Intimidation is evidenced by the deployment of
bouncers and security personnel, as well as unjustified and unlawful actions,
including the sudden termination of water, electricity supply and maintenance.
Additionally, there have been threats of filing Defamation suits with the apparent aim
of stifling the voice of the customers. The initiation of corrective actions is sought to
rectify these grievances and ensure the protection of the rights of the affected parties.

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondents:
11.

Counter has been filed on behalf of the Respondent in the matter submitting that the

present Complainants have deliberately not provided the correct factual background of this
case. Putting forward its case, Respondent submitted that the Respondent was the peaceful
co-owner, co-possessor, and Developer of land admeasuring Ac. 11-28.60 gts. in Sy. Nos.
100 (Part) and 107 (Part), situated in Mokila Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District. That he obtained layout permission through Hyderabad Metropolitan Development
Authority (HMDA) Permit No. 1140/LO/ZO-SKP/HMDA/2011 dated 03.11.2011 for the
development of the said property and construction of villas under the name and style of
'Westend Greens', located in Sy. Nos. 100 (Part) and 107 (Part) of Mokila Village,
Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. (Hereinafter to be referred to as
"Project").
4 of 28

---

That the Complainants expressed their interest in purchasing villas in the 'Westend

Greens' Project, specifically in Plot Nos. 26, 100, 32, and 16. After due deliberation, the
Respondent agreed to their requests. Consequently, the Respondent executed the following
Agreements of Sales i.e., Agreement of Sale dated 09.05.2014 for the Villa in Plot No. 26,
Agreement of Sale dated 20.12.2011 for the Villa in Plot No. 100, Agreement of Sale dated
19.11.2014 for the Villa in Plot No. 32, and Agreement of Sale dated 10.01.2012 for the Villa
in Plot No. 16, in favour of the respective Complainants. Thereafter, the Respondent executed
Registered Sale Deeds, vide Doc. No. 1347 of 2014 dated 14.05.2014, Doc. No. 52 of 2013
dated 03.01.2013, Doc. No. 2967 of 2014 dated 21.11.2014, and Doc. No. 489 of 2012 dated
11.02.2012, in relation to the villas situated in Plot Nos. 26, 100, 32, and 16 of the Project.
13.

It was further submitted that the Respondent had completed the construction of the

villas and duly handed over possession of the individual villas to each of the Complainants.
That the Complainants themselves admitted that under the Registered Sale Deeds they had
already taken possession. Respondent submitted that, this demonstrates that the Respondent
has fulfilled the obligations to the Complainants in accordance with the terms of the
registered Sale Deeds. That the Complainants in their respective sale deeds had also agreed to
pay the charges towards the cost of amenities agreed upon as per the Agreement of Sale.
14.

That the respective Complainants subsequently executed declarations on 27.04.2018,

18.10.2018, 01.03.2019 and 01.08.2021 affirming their possession of the respective villas and
acknowledging that the construction of the villas was carried out in accordance with the
agreed-upon norms and specifications. Respondent further submitted that in these
declarations, the Complainants expressly affirmed that the materials and fixtures used in the
construction were of the highest quality. They also confirmed that they had thoroughly
inspected all aspects of the villas and had no objections or grievances against the builder.
After the above-said declarations, the Complainants are estopped by their own acts from
agitating the present grievances. Despite this clear and unequivocal acceptance, Complainants
now seek to challenge the very same construction, attempting to contradict their prior
affirmations.
15.

It was further submitted that Respondent had requested the Complainants to clear

outstanding dues and address other payment defaults on their part. Instead of fulfilling their
obligations,

the

Complainants

began

spreading

unwarranted

negativity

and

defaming/maligning the project. In September 2018, the Complainants formed various
WhatsApp groups, one of which came to the attention of the Respondent. This defamatory
conduct by the Complainants resulted in significant losses for the Respondent, as several
5 of 28

---

It was further submitted that despite numerous defamatory actions, including the

dissemination of false information by the Complainants to tarnish the project's reputation and
the project, the Respondent consistently endeavored to safeguard the interests and maintain
harmony among the allottees. The Complainants acting with malafide intent, sought to
damage the Respondent's reputation as they were habitual defaulters in the payment of
monthly maintenance fees and have yet to remit the full consideration amounts as agreed.
The Complainants engaged in these defamatory acts with the deliberate intention of causing
irreparable harm to the Respondent, which resulted in significant financial losses and delays
in the project's completion. Despite these unjust actions, the Respondent refrained from
initiating legal proceedings, prioritizing the development of the project and project is almost
complete contrary to the submission of the Complainants. In fact, when the same was
highlighted to the Complainants, one of the complainants even sent an apology letter to the
Respondent.
17.

It was also submitted that a notice dated 11.03.2024 was subsequently issued to the

Respondent informing that a villa owners society, namely the 'Westend Greens Villas Owners
Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd.” (WGMACS) had been formed and
expressed its intention to assume the management of the monthly maintenance of the
'Westend Greens' project. That in furtherance of the above, a subsequent notice dated
12.03.2024 was issued just one day after the previous notice which was served upon the
Respondent stating that the WGMACS intended to assume the management and maintenance
of the 'Westend Greens' project effective from 01.04.2024. Upon review, it was discovered
that the Society i.e., WGMACS had been formed overnight without adhering to the due
process and in complete violation of the Agreement of Sale and bye- laws governing
'Westend Greens'.
18.

That during this period, the Respondent made considerable efforts to resolve various

issues that arose in the project due to the disruption caused by the Complainants through
WGMACS. That the leadership and management of the WGMACS were being handled by
the Complainants themselves, i.e., individuals who had persistently defaulted on payments,
including monthly maintenance fees and consideration amounts such as taxes, property cost,
villa cost, amenities cost etc. The entire process of establishing and operating the society was
6 of 28

---

That the Respondent being aggrieved by the actions of the Complainants issued a

legal notice dated 16.03.2024 formally challenging the Complainant's conduct. Specifically,
the notice contested the formation of a society in violation of numerous laws as well as the
abrupt and unwarranted demand to take over the management of maintenance and other
operational functions from the Respondent to the alleged society. These actions constituted a
breach of the undertaking previously given by the Complainants and a blatant violation of the
project's bylaws.
20.

That, in response to the legal notice dated 16.03.2024, the majority of the other

residents i.e., other villa owners replied stating that they were unaware of the formation of the
society known as WGMACS. They asserted that their signatures had been used without their
knowledge or consent for the purposes of the society and explicitly demanded that their
signatures no longer be associated with WGMACS in any capacity. These residents further
expressed that they had no desire to be affiliated with WGMACS and instead preferred to be
part of a society formed directly by the Respondent. They acknowledged the Respondent's
consistent efforts in completing and maintaining the project and highlighted the
Complainants' lack of transparency throughout the process of forming WGMACS. The
residents of 'Westend Greens' also emphasized that WGMACS appeared to have been formed
with the sole intention of causing disruption to the Respondent, noting that the Complainants
acted with malice to damage the Respondent's reputation. Particularly as they were chronic
defaulters in the payment of monthly maintenance and other dues including the total sale
consideration.
21.

That the Respondent ensured that the amenities of 'Westend Greens' remained up to

the promised standard. The property was consistently guarded by dedicated security
personnel, featured well-constructed roads, proper electrical fittings, and was maintained as a
lush, green community with an efficient sewage system and a properly functioning water
sump. That the Respondent exerted his best efforts to ensure that the residents of 'Westend
Greens' would enjoy the quality lifestyle that was originally proposed to them.
22.

That, despite the Respondent having already executed registered sale deeds in favour

of the Complainants and handed over possession of the said villas, it is evident that the
present complaint has been filed with malafide intent and ulterior motive.
23.

Respondent raised the following grounds:

7 of 28

---

That the Complainants failed to specify the provision or section under which the
reliefs have been claimed/prayed.

ii.

That the Complainants formed the Westend Greens Villas Owners Mutually
Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd. (WGMACS) without adhering to the
requisite procedures, with the intent of assuming control over the management of
the project, particularly in overseeing all activities, including the collection of
maintenance fees. Notably, many allottees along with one of the Complainants
have been chronic defaulters in the payment of dues and have yet to pay the
consideration agreed upon.

iii.

Complainants without authorization used the signatures of the majority of the
other residents of 'Westend Greens' for the purpose of establishing WGMACS.
These residents have explicitly expressed their desire to join the society formed
directly by the Builder/Respondent and have stated that the Complainants acted
with malafide intent to tarnish the Respondent's reputation. The Complainants
intentionally concealed this crucial information, demonstrating that the formation
of the society was for their personal gain rather than in the best interests of the
residents of 'Westend Greens. Such concealment is indicative of the Complainant's
Mens Rea, aimed at exploiting the situation and filing a frivolous complaint. The
majority of the other residents have clearly indicated their intention to maintain a
cordial relationship with the Respondent, who has consistently sought to fulfil his
duties and deliver the best possible outcome for the allottees. Hence, there is a
serious concealment of facts by the Complainants.

iv.

The Complainants have breached multiple clauses of the Bylaws governing
'Westend Greens. By forming and operating the Westend Greens Villas Owners
Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd. (WGMACS), the
Complainants have demonstrated their intent not only to defame the Respondent
but also to act without transparency. The Complainants procured the signatures of
the majority of residents without prior notice or consent, raising serious doubts
about the legitimacy of WGMACS's formation and highlighting their clear
violation of the Bylaws governing 'Westend Greens.

v.

That the Complainants themselves have previously executed an undertaking
affirming that the materials and fixtures used in the Villa are of the best quality as
per the standards. The Complainants clearly acknowledged their satisfaction with
the Villa and expressly stated that they had no issues concerning the quality
8 of 28

---

That the Complainants have approached this Authority with unclean hands, having
engaged in the malpractice of forum shopping. The Complainants, being fully
aware that their rights are extinguished before various authorities and tribunals,
including consumer forums and civil courts, and that their right to institute further
cases has expired under the limitation act, have mischievously approached the
Authority to harass the Respondent herein.

vii.

That the reliefs prayed by the Complainants are reliefs that can be claimed by an
association and the reliefs are not individual reliefs that can be claimed
individually as the Complainants do not represent the allottees of the project.

24.

Respondent further submitted that the HMDA Layout Permit was obtained in the year

2011, and since the commencement of the project, the Respondent has completed various
villas, including the villas bought and possessed by the Complainant, who have been living in
their respective villas for the last couple of years. That the Respondent has completed a
substantial part of the project and completion of the rest of the project was attributed to the
market fluctuations in the years 2016-18 due to state bifurcation, note ban and thereafter
followed by the Covid-19 outbreak in the years 2019-2022 followed by political dynamics so
far which affected the manpower and requisite permissions/clearances. That even after
several backlashes the Respondent was able to complete the Project work.
25.

With respect to the allegation that Respondent has violated Section 11(2) & 12 of the

Act, 2016, Respondent submitted that it has not advertised any false information and none of
the prospective buyers of the Respondent's Project have incurred loss as such there is no
violation of section 12. That apart from complainants there have been no complaints filed by
any prospective buyer seeking for relief under section 12, hence this proves that the
Respondent has not committed any violation or breach which triggers liability under section
12. That the Respondent has not committed any violation of section 11(2) of the Act, as the
project is not an ongoing project as per Rule 2(j) of the Rules, 2017.
26.

That the Respondent has meticulously ensured the installation of necessary water

piping, pumps, and sumps, taking all required measures to fulfil the promised obligations to

9 of 28

---

While denying that the complainants have duly fulfilled their financial obligations by

remitting complete payments for various amenities such as the clubhouse, compound wall,
power backup generator, and other associated services, as per the stipulated demands set forth
by Countryside Realtors and have obtained 'No Dues' certificated from Respondent,
Respondent submitted that the Complainants requested the Respondent to issue No Due
Certificate upon mutual trust and confidence solely for the purpose of getting the sale deed
executed.
28.

The Respondent denied the allegation that the disposal of twenty HMDA mortgaged

plots is necessary to secure the rights of the buyers or to complete pending amenities and
villas and submitted that it has consistently acted in the best interests of the purchasers and
has made every effort to complete the project in a timely and efficient manner. It was
submitted that the Respondent remains committed to the prompt completion of the project in
accordance with all contractual obligations.
29.

It was further submitted that the Respondent has consistently worked diligently

towards the development of the project and has made every effort to fulfil all commitments as
outlined in the sale deed. All promised amenities have been provided, and the Respondent
remains steadfast in their dedication to the continued benefit and satisfaction of the residents.
The Respondent is committed to maintaining and enhancing the quality of infrastructure and
amenities in line with the promises made.
Respondent challenging maintainability:
30.

Respondent filed an interlocutory application challenging the very maintainability of

the complaint submitting that the project is not on-going in accordance with the Rules, 2017
and therefore, this Authority does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present
matter. The Complainants also filed a reply to the said application and accordingly, a wellreasoned order dated 25.07.2024 was issued by this Authority dismissing the said application
filed by the Respondent holding as under:
“8. Therefore, a careful perusal of the judgement would clearly stipulate that the
intention of the Parliament is unambiguous to include all projects for which a
completion certificate has not been obtained, so as to protect the interests of the
allottees through this beneficial legislation. In the facts of the present case, the
Complainants have been awaiting their villas and amenities for the last 12 years but
the Respondent, apparently, has taken no pain to complete such works to the
10 of 28

---

The Respondent challenged this very order before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal and

by way of Order dated 03.01.2025, the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal held as under:
“1. The project “Westend Greens” qualifies as an “on-going project” under the
RERA Act and the Telangana RERA Rules, 2017.
2. The complaint filed by the respondents before the Telangana RERA Authority is
maintainable and falls within the jurisdiction of the Authority.
3. The appellant’s appeal challenging the maintainability of the complaint is not
maintainable.
The RERA Authority’s order dated 25.07.2024 is upheld.”
32.

Subsequently, the matter was proceeded before this Authority.

D. Rejoinder on behalf of the Complainants:
33.

The Complainants submitted a rejoinder to the Counter Affidavit by submitting that

the Respondent filed certain documents before the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal amongst
which is a counter affidavit dated 25.02.2020, submitted by Mr. K. Srinivas, Director,
Planning-1, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), Tarnaka, before the
Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition No. 29045 of 2019. That HMDA, acting
suo motu, had impleaded itself as a party to the said writ petition, which was instituted by the
Respondent against the District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District to challenge the
demolition activity undertaken at the Westend Greens project site on 18.12.2019. It was
submitted that the counter affidavit filed by Mr. K. Srinivas on behalf of the Hyderabad
11 of 28

---

Complainants submitted that following facts come to light from the above-mentioned

counter affidavit:
“3.In reply to the averments made un para-No.3 of the affidavit, it is humbly
submitted that Md Ahmed & others have applied for approval of open plotted layout
with three model houses in Sy. Nos. 100/Part and 107/Part situated at Mokila (V),
Shankarpally (M), Ranga Reddy District, to an extent of 47,404.42 Sq.m, vide
application No. 1140/LO/ZO-SKP/HMDA/2011. The same has been examined by this
answering respondent duly verifying the prima facie title, and the same was approved
by the Metropolitan Commissioner on 26.05.2011. Intimation letter was issued to the
applicant on 06.06.2011 for payment of development charges and other charges
applicable for the layout and three (3) model houses, and for compliance with
precedent conditions."
Condition Nos.


The Executive Authority shall not approve and release any building
permissions or allow any unauthorised developments in the area under
mortgage to HMDA in particular, and in other plot in general until and unless
the applicant has completed the development works and then got released the
mortgaged land from HMDA and release of final layout.



The applicant shall not construct the building in any plots. The local body also
shall not allow any construction in plots till the final layout is issued by
HMDA.

4. In reply to the averment made in paragraph 4 to 6 of the affidavit it is humbly
submitted that, the answering respondent approved the layout with (3) Model Houses
only wherein the applicant has constructed the model houses in more than (3) plots in
contrary to approved layout plan"

12 of 28

---

That this counter affidavit filed by HMDA on 25.02.2020 brings to light the

following:
i.

Westend Greens is an "open plotted layout": Contrary to the respondent
misrepresentation in the marketing brochure that Westend Greens is a "HMDA
approved Villa Gated Community", it is just an open plotted layout

ii.

There is No Building Permission: HMDA has not granted any Building Permission
for this open plotted layout. The draft permission was limited to the development of
the layout with three (3) model houses only. However, flouting this very condition,
Countryside Realtors India Pvt Ltd in their affidavit dated 10.12.2024 has admitted in
Appeal No 28 of 2024 filed with the honourable authorities of RERA Appellate
Tribunal that villa construction has been carried out in 42 plots. Meaning 39 villas
have been constructed without having any building permission from HMDA

iii.

There is no construction permission: Construction was explicitly permitted only
after the issuance of the Final Layout Approval. However, Countryside Realtors
unlawfully proceeded with construction activities.

36.

It was further submitted that the lack of Building Permission for the Westend Greens

project is supplemented by HMDA's letter to the Executive Authority, Mokila Gram
Panchayat dated 03.11.2011 that imposed the condition that "12. The Executive Authority
shall not approve and release any building permission or allow any unauthorized
development in the area under mortgage to HMDA in particular and in other plots in general
until and unless the applicant has completed the development works and got released the
mortgaged land from HMDA".
37.

Considering the following:

i.

The draft approval expired over seven years ago on 03.11.2017

ii.

The mortgaged plots have not been released.

iii.

The final layout approval plan has not been issued.

38.

Complainants submitted that it appears that the Westend Greens project currently

lacks the requisite building permissions to undertake construction beyond the initially
approved three plots. The fact that the Westend Greens project doesn't possess any Building
Permission is also highlighted by the Notice sent by Panchayat Secretary, Mokila Village to
District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District dated 15.11.2019 wherein it is stated that
Countryside Realtors "not obtained the G.P. Permission from local body for construction
approval"
13 of 28

---

It was submitted that a conjoint reading of(i) Counter affidavit dated 25.02.2020,

submitted by Mr. K. Srinivas, Director, Planning-I, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development
Authority (HMDA), Tarnaka, before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition
No. 29045 of 2019 and, (ii) HMDA's letter to the Executive Authority, Mokila Gram
Panchayat dated 3.11.2011 and, (iii) Notice sent by Panchayat Secretary, Mokila Village to
District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District dated 15.11.2019, leads to the inescapable
conclusion that the Westend Greens project does not possess any valid Building Permission
beyond the construction of three model villas on three designated plots. Consequently, 39 out
of the 42 villas constructed so far by the Respondents at the Westend Green layout have been
developed without the requisite Building Permissions, constituting a blatant violation of
applicable laws and regulations.
40.

It was submitted that the Respondent through its acts of misrepresentation have

caused severe prejudice to the Complainants, who have invested their life savings in the
project based on the Respondents' assurances of regulatory compliance and the promise of
premium-quality residential development. That the Complainants now find themselves in a
dire situation, burdened by the following:
i.

The draft layout permission for the Westend Greens project expired over 7 years back
(on 03.11.2017), rendering the layout unauthorized.

ii.

The villas occupied by the Complainants lack valid building permissions, exposing
them to legal and safety risks. Notably there was demolition activity that was carried
out on 18.12.2019 by the District Panchayat, Ranga Reddy district and the
respondents were forced to file writ petition WP No.29045 of 2019 at the Hon'ble
High Court of Telangana on 30.12.2019 to halt this demolition activity.

iii.

The Westend Greens project offers absolutely no amenities, despite the Complainants
having fully paid for such facilities as part of their contractual obligations.

iv.

The Complainants are saddled with high EMIS, while the market value of their
properties has plummeted to virtually zero due to the absence of an Occupancy
Certificate/ Completion Certificate. (v) Aggravating the already precarious situation,
the Respondents have continued to exploit the Complainants by coercing them to pay
exorbitant monthly maintenance fees of Rs 8,850 per villa by threats of disconnection
of electricity and water supply for villas that lack requisite building permissions,
situated in a layout that has no valid approval and absolute zero amenities.

14 of 28

---

Complainants submitted that the Respondent’s sweeping and uncorroborated assertion

that the Complainants are guilty of "suppressioveri et suggestiofalsi" is a desperate and
transparent attempt to deflect attention from their own flagrant misconduct, which includes
but is not limited to:
a. Violation of Section 4 read with Section 12 of the RERA Act: Misrepresenting
an open-plotted layout as a HMDA-approved gated community in marketing
brochures, thereby misleading prospective buyers.
b. Violation of Section 14 of the RERA Act: Engaging in unauthorized
construction activities in blatant contravention of building permission and
sanctioned plans from HMDA.
c. Section 60 of the Act, 2016: The Respondent provided misleading and false
information regarding possession Building Permission both in their marketing
communications and in proceedings before the hon'ble High Court of
Telangana, RERA Tribunal as well as this Authority.
42.

That the Complainants, in contrast, have approached this Hon'ble Authority with

clean hands, full disclosure of all material facts, and comprehensive documentary evidence,
demonstrating utmost good faith.
43.

The Complainants refuted the Respondents' claim that they are the "peaceful co-

owner, co-possessor, and Developer" of the Westend Greens Villa project. Contrary to this
assertion, the project has been plagued by legal and regulatory violations, as evidenced by
multiple notices issued by the Gram Panchayat, Mokila, warning the Respondents against
undertaking illegal construction prior to obtaining final layout approval, which include Notice
dated 18.12.2018, 12.11.2019, 15.11.2019 and10.01.2020.
44.

It was further submitted that in their letter to the District Panchayat Officer dated

22.12.2019, the Respondent itself acknowledged that on 18.12.2019, "50 persons
unauthorizedly entered our project Westend Greens at Mokila village, with 2 JCBs and 1
tractor cum dozer" and "partly demolished two under-construction structures." This
admission, coupled with their filing of Writ Petition No. 29045 of 2019 before the Hon'ble
High Court of Telangana on 30.12.2019 to halt the demolition activities, directly contradicts
their claim of being "peaceful co-owners and co-possessors" of the project land.
45.

It was further submitted that the HMDA, vide Letter No. 1140/LO/ZO-

SKP/HMDA/2011 dated June 6, 2011, granted approval for the development of an open
plotted layout only subject to strict conditions, including:
i. Completion of layout development works.
15 of 28

---

However, current reality of the project is starkly different and underscores the

Respondents' deliberate flouting of regulatory norms:
i.

Lack of Final Layout Approval: As of now, the Westend Greens project does not
possess final layout approval from HMDA with draft layout expiring on 03.11.2017

ii.

Absence of Building Permissions: A total of 39 villas, including those purchased by
the Complainants, lack any building permission, rendering the constructions
unauthorized and illegal. The fact that these villas doesn't possess building permission
is also highlighted in Annexure 19 wherein the Executive Officer of Mokila Gram
Panchayat addressed a letter to The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District
on 15.11.2017 saying that the respondents of this complaint "not obtained the GP
permission from local body construction approval."

iii.

Lack of Occupancy Certificate: Consequently, as a result of the Respondents' blatant
disregard for legal norms, none of the residents at Westend Greens possess the
requisite Occupancy Certificate, which is a critical and mandatory requirement under
applicable law.

47.

Complainants also submitted that mere act of handing over physical possession does

not equate to lawful possession under the Act, 2016. Section 11(4)(b) explicitly mandates that
the promoter must obtain an Occupancy Certificate before offering possession to the
allottees. The absence of this critical document renders the possession illegal and
demonstrates a clear violation of the Act.
48.

That the Respondent has failed to provide essential amenities as explicitly promised in

the promotional materials, Agreements of Sale, and Sale Deeds. These include, but are not
limited to:







49.

Clubhouse
Power back-up through Generator
Flood-water Drainage
Landscaped gardens
Swimming Pool
Hydro-pneumatic water supply systems
Sewage treatment plant
It was submitted that this failure constitutes a breach of contractual obligations and

violates Section 11(4)(a), which obligates the promoter to develop the project in accordance
with the sanctioned plans, specifications, and the brochure as specified in the Agreement of
16 of 28

---

It was submitted that the core grievance of the Complainants pertains to the

Respondent’s failure to complete the amenities as promised in the respective Agreement of
Sale and Sale Deed in spite of the Westend Greens project running for over 12 years. The
expiration of the HMDA layout approval, coupled with the Respondent’s failure to register
the Westend Greens project before this Authority, has rendered the project non- compliant
with statutory requirements and significantly diminished its marketability. Further,
Complainant raised issues with respect to sub-par and substandard maintenance and
imposition and forceful collection of Exorbitant monthly maintenance of Rs 8850 from each
villa.
51.

It was further submitted that while the Complainants have not lodged a formal

complaint concerning the quality of construction, the mere signing of a Declaration, which
has no legal sanctity, does not and cannot absolve the Respondent of its statutory
responsibility under Section 14(3). This provision unequivocally holds that any structural
defects, if discovered subsequently, shall still be the liability of the Respondents,
notwithstanding any prior declarations or assurances.
52.

That the Respondent employed coercive 4-step "Toolkit" to suppress dissent and

intimidate residents who assert their legitimate rights to a clean and dignified living
environment which include intimidation through security personnel and bouncers under the
guise of security measures, mysterious and unaccounted-for fires have been reported within
the project premises, raising serious concerns of negligence, basic necessities such as water
and electricity supply have been arbitrarily disconnected to exert undue pressure on the
residents and the Respondent has repeatedly resorted to sending legal notices to silence and
intimidate aggrieved property buyers.
53.

It was submitted that the assertions that the Complainants acted with malafide intent

or failed to remit maintenance fees and consideration amounts are entirely unfounded,
unsupported by evidence, and an apparent attempt to divert attention from the Respondents'
non-compliance with statutory obligations and contractual promises. Despite the project
suffering from glaring deficiencies not possessing any building permission as well as layout
permission with the draft layout expiring 7 years back on 03.11.2017, complete absence of
essential amenities, substandard maintenance services, and the lack of an Occupancy
17 of 28

---

54.

That the Respondent’s claims of financial losses are unsubstantiated. In fact, in their

own correspondence with HMDA dated 17.12.2020, the Respondents admitted that:
“Though we have applied for revalidation on 22.03.2017 and 20.12.2019 and have
been following up with your office you are yet to revalidate our permit which has put
us to lot of inconvenience and hardship as we are unable to proceed with the
construction and development works and so also some of our customers are not
releasing our payments on the premise that their Banks are insisting on revalidation
of our permit”

55.

The Respondents' non-compliance caused banks to withhold mortgage payments,

directly impacting on their financial standing not any actions on the part of the Complainants.
56.

Complainants submitted that it is the fundamental right of the community to have an

organization for its collective welfare. Accordingly, the residents of Westend Greens have
formed the Westend Greens Villas Owners Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society
Ltd. (WGMACS) under Section 5 of the Telangana Mutually Aided Co-operative Societies
Act, 1995, as a direct response to the deprivation of fundamental necessities, including safety
and security, which are owed to every resident by Countryside Realtors India Pvt. Ltd.
57.

That the Respondent, in its affidavit submitted to the Hon'ble Real Estate Appellate

Tribunal in Appeal No. 28 of 2024, dated 10.12.2024, have explicitly admitted that out of 117
plots under development, 18 plots have been mortgaged to HMDA, and 66 plots have already
been sold from the remaining 99 plots which establishes that more than 50% of the plots in
the project have been sold couple of years back by the Respondent. That as per Section
11(4)(e), it is the statutory obligation of the promoter to facilitate the formation of an
association of allottees within three months of the majority of allottees booking their plot,
apartment, or building in the project. Despite this clear legal mandate, the Respondent has
failed to form the association despite passage of 12 long years, thereby disregarding the rights
and interests of the allottees.

18 of 28

---

The Complainants refuted the Respondent’s claim that its demand to take over

maintenance was “abrupt and unwarranted”. Repeated requests and communications were
made to the Respondent, spanning several months and years to address the deteriorating
maintenance and management of the project. The Respondent’s consistent inaction and
neglect necessitated the transition of these responsibilities to WGMACS to prevent further
decline in living conditions.
59.

With respect to the assertion that Complainants used signatures of other villa owners

without their knowledge or consent for the purposes of the society, the Complainants
submitted documentary evidence in the form of emails from the same group of owners which
demonstrate that

the

Respondent

coerced the owners

into

sending

derogatory

communications regarding the WGMACS association, which was legally and democratically
established by the residents of Westend Greens. The evidence further implicates that villa
owners, still awaiting possession of their respective units, were pressured by Mr. Saurabh
Pandey, Manager at Countryside Realtors India Pvt Ltd., into sending defamatory and
baseless emails against WGMACS. These actions were deliberately intended to compel
purchasers, who were anxiously awaiting possession of their properties for more than a
decade, into writing disparaging messages about the association in exchange for the promise
of expedited possession of their villas.
60.

While denying the contention made by the Respondent that the “amenities of

'Westend Greens' remained up to the promised standard” as wholly false and misleading and
relied upon the affidavit dated 10.12.2024 filed before the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal
whereunder, Respondent admitted as follows:
"4.2 However, the connection of the clubhouse and Swimming Pool remains
incomplete in view of non-payment of consideration of amenities by the other owners.
Although the Landscaped Garden has been fully developed, the remaining common
areas are yet to be finalized."
61.

Further, the Complainants are in possession of the field report from SHO, Mokila

Police bearing No-60/MISC/MKL/2024 dated 15.04.2024 addressed to the Commissioner,
HMDA, Tarnaka, Hyderabad wherein it is stated as under:
“Out of 117 villas some of sold out, some under construction. They completed around
30 villas in that 20 villas handed over to the owners which they were residing in their
respective villas. The Builder is charging maintenance Rs 7500 per month and GST
since 2018 even without occupancy certificate and no amenities. There have been
several lapses in the maintenance by the developers. Basic amenities such as water
19 of 28

---

The Complainants denied the allegations made by the Respondent regarding any

default in payments. That all Complainants have fulfilled their financial obligations as per the
terms of the Agreement of Sale, including the payment of the principal consideration and
maintenance charges and have obtained "No Dues Certificates" from the Respondents. That
the Complainants have been paying a monthly maintenance charge of Rs 8,850/- despite the
absence of promised amenities, No valid Layout Permissions as well as No Building
permissions. This demonstrates the Complainants' commitment to the upkeep of the project
and their adherence to financial obligations, even under conditions of gross non-compliance
and misrepresentation by the Respondent.
63.

It was further submitted that the issuance of the "No Objection & No Dues"

Certificate was not based on any conditional trust or confidence but was a formal
acknowledgment of the Complainants' full and satisfactory settlement of all financial
obligations.
64.

That the Respondent's claim that the project is "almost completed" is entirely false

and devoid of evidence. As of February 2024, around 20 odd villas out of 117 villas have
been handed over. Final Layout is not released and consequently there is no Building
Permission for the entire project, Layout Permission expired over 7 years ago on 3.11.2017,
the absence of an Occupancy Certificate (OC) or Completion Certificate (CC) issued by the
relevant authorities, which is a statutory requirement for project completion has not been
obtained by the Respondent.

E. Points for consideration:
65.

After deliberating upon the contentions of the parties and the documents filed by

them, the following issues sprout for consideration:
I.

Whether the Respondent has violated Sections 3 & 4 of the Act, 2016 by not
registering the Project with this Authority? If yes, whether they are liable for
penalty under Sections 59 & 60 of the Act, 2016?

II.

Whether Respondent is in violation of Sections 11& 14 of the Act, 2016 as
alleged by the Complainants? If yes, whether they are liable for penalty?

III.

Whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? If yes, to
what extent?
20 of 28

---

This Authority, vide Order dated 25.07.2024 already issued a reasoned order duly

holding that the present Complaint is maintainable, and the project falls well within the
jurisdiction of this Authority in line of proviso to Section 3 and the same has also been
upheld by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal vide Order dated 03.01.2025 in T.A. No.28 of
2025. The Respondent, during the course of hearing submitted that an appeal to the said
Order dated 03.01.2025 has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court but no orders have
been issued till date and therefore, this Authority is proceeding with the matter.
67.

As it is now upheld that the project falls within the jurisdiction of this Authority, the

Respondent is held to be in violation of Sections 3 & 4 by failing to comply with proviso to
Section 3 and making an application for registration within three months from the date of
commencement of the RE(R&D)Act, 2016 in accordance with Section 4 of the RE(R&D)Act,
2016.
68.

However, taking into account the prevailing interpretation of Rule 2(1)(j) at the

relevant time and the resultant ambiguity surrounding the requirement of registration, the
Authority is inclined to take a lenient view with respect to the imposition of penalty under
Section 59 & 60 of the RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly, while the Authority holds that the
project ought to have been registered, it refrains from invoking penal provisions under
Section 59 & 60 of the RE(R&D) Act at this stage. Nonetheless, the Respondents are strictly
restrained from undertaking any further acts of advertising, marketing, booking, selling,
offering for sale, or inviting persons to purchase any plot or villa in the said project without
obtaining registration under the Act. Any future violation shall attract appropriate action
under Sections 59, 60, and 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Point II
69.

Complainants vehemently argued that Respondent violated Section 11(2) by not

including RERA registration number on its advertisements, Section 11(4)(b) by failing to
provide occupancy certificate to the residence of the project that have entered possession of
their villas, Section 12 by providing misleading information to buyers by continuing to show
the project as HMDA approved gated community while failing to disclose that it is an open
plotted layout and the layout permission expired on 03.11.2017, Section 11(4)(a)by failing to
provide amenities as listed in the agreement of sale, sale deed, brochure and the website,
Section 11(4)(e) by failing to establish residents welfare association, Section 4(2)(l)(D) by
21 of 28

---

Respondent, on the other hand, did not submit any specific averment with respect to

such violation but only emphasised on the specific point that the Complainants formed the
Westend Greens Villas Owners Mutually Aided Cooperative Maintenance Society Ltd.
(WGMACS) without adhering to the requisite procedures, with the intent of assuming control
over the management of the project, particularly in overseeing all activities, including the
collection of maintenance fees and that many allottees along with one of the Complainants
have been chronic defaulters in the payment of dues. The Respondent also submitted that
Complainants without authorization used the signatures of the majority of the other residents
of 'Westend Greens' for the purpose of establishing WGMACS who have explicitly expressed
their desire to join the society formed directly by the Builder/Respondent and have stated that
the Complainants acted with malafide intent to tarnish the Respondent's reputation.
71.

With respect to these specific submissions made by the Respondent, this Authority is

of the considered opinion that as per Section 11(4)(e), Respondent Promoter has the duty
enabling the formation of an association which has to be formed within a period of three
months of the majority of allottees having booked their plots. However, admittedly, the
Respondent failed to form such an association and, in such event, aggrieved by the
Respondent not forming an association, residents/allottees were compelled to form their own
association which is no violation by the Complainants and other allottees. In the event the
Respondent is aggrieved by the formation of the maintenance society, this Authority is not
the appropriate forum for adjudication of such grievances, as the principal issue for
consideration pertains to the Respondent's abandonment of the project without completing the
same.
72.

During the course of arguments, the Respondent categorically submitted that the

Complainants cannot “force” them to complete the project and it is up to the Respondent to
complete it or not. This very argument made by the Respondent is not only inadmissible but
also deplorable. This entire legislation has been established to protect the rights of the
allottees against promoters like the present Respondent who have no intention to complete
the project to the detriment of the innocent allottees. Not only is this act of Respondent in
violation of the provisions under the HMDA Act, 2008 but also of Section 14(1) which
mandates the promoter develop and complete the project in accordance with the sanctioned
plans, layout plans and specifications as approved by the competent authorities. Section 34(f)
22 of 28

---

While so, Respondent, in the same breath, it submitted that the Complainants

themselves have previously executed an undertaking affirming that the materials and fixtures
used in the Villa are of the best quality as per the standards. The Complainants clearly
acknowledged their satisfaction with the Villa and expressly stated that they had no issues
concerning the quality provided by the Builder. Complainants also submitted that they have
no issue with respect to the quality of construction but are aggrieved at how the Respondent
abandoned the project without completing the same.
74.

Respondent, in its counter affidavit, categorically submitted that Complainants have

been living in their respective villas since the last couple of years and that the Respondent has
completed a substantial part of the project and completion of the rest of the project was
attributed to the market fluctuations in the years 2016-18 due to state bifurcation, note ban
and thereafter followed by the Covid-19 outbreak in the years 2019-2022 followed by
political dynamics so far which affected the manpower and requisite permissions/clearances.
Respondent further submitted that it remains committed to the prompt completion of the
project in accordance with all contractual obligations. In accordance thereof, Respondent is
liable to complete the project as per its own submission in all respects as alleged and
75.

Now the question is whether the Respondent has violated the provisions as mentioned

in Para 69 above, and whether Respondent is liable for penalty. As has been settled above
that the subject Project falls well within the jurisdiction of this Authority, that goes to mean
that remaining provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 shall also apply on the Respondent
promoter, more specifically, Section 11(4)(a) which stipulates that “be responsible for all
obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and
regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the
association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or
buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the association of
allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be.
Provided that the responsibility of the promoter, with respect to the structural defect or any
other defect for such period as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 14, shall continue

23 of 28

---

In line of the same, it can be seen, from the material on record that Respondent has

failed to complete the project and admittedly had failed to obtain a completion certificate for
the project. In this regard, the Complainant submitted Respondent applied for revalidation of
the competent authority permission on 28.02.2017 and then on 20.12.2019, however,
Respondent could not secure the revalidation and as per the provisions of the HMDA Act,
2008, the permission is valid only until 03.11.2017, which has duly expired.
77.

Complainants brought to the notice of this Authority, through the counter filed by the

HMDA in WP No.29045/2019, that Westend Greens is an "open plotted layout contrary to
the Respondent’s misrepresentation in the marketing brochure that the Project is a "HMDA
approved Villa Gated Community". While quoting the words of the HMDA in the counter
affidavit so filed by HMDA in the said writ petition, they submitted that HMDA has not
granted any Building Permission for this open plotted layout whereas the draft permission
was limited to the development of the layout with three (3) model houses only. However,
flouting this very condition, the Respondent in their affidavit dated 10.12.2024 has admitted
in Appeal No 28 of 2024 filed with the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal that villa construction has
been carried out in 42 plots. Meaning 39 villas have been constructed without having any
building permission from HMDA.
78.

The act of the Respondent in constructing villas without securing the necessary

approvals from the competent authority and appropriate local body, and subsequently selling
them to third parties, i.e., the Complainants under the false pretence that all requisite
permissions had been obtained, is highly condemnable and reflects a serious lapse in duty on
the part of the Respondent Promoter. This conduct is in blatant violation of the HMDA Act,
2008 read with local laws, which requires prior sanction & approval for any development
within its purview. Further, the false assurances given to the allottees amount to deliberate
misrepresentation, attracting the rigours of Section 60 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Such
deceptive practices undermine the integrity of the real estate sector and warrant the
imposition of a substantial penalty upon the Respondent Promoter under the said provision.
79.

Coming to violations under Sections 11(4)(b) by failing to provide occupancy

certificate to the residence of the project that have entered possession of their villas,
Respondent has itself admitted that the Project could not be completed on account of several
reasons and undertook the complete the same, therefore, appropriate directions in this regard
shall be given. Regarding, violation of Section 12 by providing misleading information to
24 of 28

---

Therefore, Point II is answered accordingly and Respondent is in violation of

Sections 11 & 14 as discussed above and is liable for penalty under Section 60 & 61 of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Point III
81.

Complainants have prayed for the following:
i.

ii.

iii.

iv.

v.
vi.

82.

Complainants implore the authorities to enforce the mandatory registration of Westend
Greens under RERA. The statutory requirement for registration applies particularly to
ongoing projects lacking a completion certificate at the commencement of the act. Given
that Westend Greens, with a completion rate of less than 30% and spanning 12 acres,
falls squarely within the ambit of ongoing projects.
Re-instatement of the lapsed HMDA approval (via LP No. 1140/LO/ZOSKP/HMDA/2011). This renewal is imperative to safeguard the interests of the residents
and rectify the non-compliance issues currently plaguing the development.
In furtherance of securing the rights of the buyers, the Complainants implores that
RERA disposes of the twenty HMDA mortgaged plots, with the intent of utilizing the
proceeds for the completion of pending amenities and villas. This strategic course of
action will help ensure the fulfillment of contractual obligations and safeguard the
interests of the purchasers.
Development of infrastructure within a reasonable time. Infrastructure includes STP,
Water Pneumatic Pump, functional drainage in all lanes, power backup, dual meter,
street lights in all lanes, jogging track, club house, swimming pool, indoor badminton
court etc inline with promised amenities as per sale deed
Expedited completion of under construction villas including timeline commitment for
open plots construction using same elevation as other villas
The Complainants earnestly request the RERA authorities to take prompt measures to
address the persistent occurrences of intimidation directed at residents by Countryside
Realtors Pvt Ltd. This Intimidation is evidenced by the deployment of bouncers and
security personnel, as well as unjustified and unlawful actions, including the sudden
termination of water, electricity supply and maintenance. Additionally, there have been
threats of filing Defamation suits with the apparent aim of stifling the voice of the
customers. The initiation of corrective actions is sought to rectify these grievances and
ensure the protection of the rights of the affected parties.

Regarding reliefs (i) & (ii), (iv) & (v) with respect to registration of the Project, it is

already held in Point I above that project falls well within the jurisdiction of this Authority

25 of 28

---

Regarding relief (iii)& (vi), Complainants may approach the HMDA for the said relief

as this Authority is not the appropriate authority to grant such reliefs.
84.

Accordingly, Point III is answered as above.

85.

This Authority places the Respondent on strict and unequivocal notice that any further

engagement in activities such as advertising, marketing, booking, selling, or offering for sale
any units in the subject project without obtaining requisite approvals from the competent
authority and without securing registration under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016 shall attract immediate and severe regulatory consequences.
Should it come to the Authority's attention that the Respondent continues to indulge in such
impermissible acts, this Authority shall not hesitate to declare the Respondent as a defaulter
under the Act, and initiate stringent proceedings including penalties.
86.

It is observed that the Respondent has already committed a grave violation of the

statutory framework by misrepresenting the nature and extent of approvals obtained
specifically by presenting the project as comprising sanctioned residential villas, whereas, in
reality, only a model villa approval had been obtained. Such misrepresentations strike at the
core of the objectives of the RE(R&D) Act, which was enacted to protect allottees from
precisely such instances of misinformation, non-completion, abandonment, and deviation
from sanctioned plans.
87.

This Authority is of the firm view that such conduct is entirely unacceptable and

cannot be condoned. However, bearing in mind the interests of the existing allottees in the
project who stand to suffer disproportionately from a project collapse this Authority, in its
26 of 28

---

In light of the discussions made above, this Authority, vide its powers under Section

37 and 38 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, issues the following directions:
i.

The Respondent is directed to pay a penalty of Rs.38,59,436/- (Rupees Thirty eight
lakhs fifty nine thousand four hundred and thirty six Only) for violating Sections 11 &
14 read with Section 61 of the RE(R&D)Act, 2016 payable within 30 (thirty) days in
favor of TG RERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online payment to A/c No.
50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036; and

ii.

The Respondent is hereby directed to approach the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA) for obtaining the necessary permissions required to
complete the project in accordance with the representations made in the brochure. If
the Respondent fails to obtain the approval from the competent the Respondent shall
be held liable, in terms of Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, to refund the
amounts received from the allottees along with appropriate compensation for the loss
and hardship caused to them. The Respondent shall also ensure that necessary
applications are made for the approval of all promised amenities, as specifically
sought by the Complainants under relief (iv), before the competent authority; and

iii.

The Respondent is hereby directed that upon obtaining requisite approvals for the
completion of the project from the competent authority, the Respondent shall, within a
period of ten (10) days from the date of such approval, submit an application for
registration of the project under Section 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Until such registration is duly granted by this Authority, the
Respondent is restrained from advertising, marketing, booking, selling, offering for
sale, or in any manner inviting persons to purchase any villas or units in the subject
real estate project. Failure to comply with the above directions shall be viewed as a
serious violation of the statutory mandate under Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016. In such an event, this Authority shall not hesitate to initiate proceedings for
declaring the Respondent as a defaulter, in accordance with law, and to invoke all
consequential penal provisions under the RE(R&D) Act.

27 of 28

---

The parties are hereby informed that non-compliance of directions of the Authority
shall attract penalty under Sections 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

89.

In light of the above, present complaint is 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

28 of 28

---