Order Complaint No. 174 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 174 of 2025
Dated: 12th November, 2025
Quorum:

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

I.C. Ashok Kumar,
R/o. D.No.3-17-3, 4-1637,
Villa No. 3 & 4, Maharaja Forts, Parvathapur,
Medipally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad - 500098
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Ambitionz N Homez,
Rep by its Managing partner, Sharad Kumar Misra,
R/o. 12-10-52, 1 S, Seethaphal Mandi, Secunderabad - 500061
2. Sharad Kumar Misra,
R/o. 12-10-52, 1 S, Seethaphal Mandi, Secunderabad-500061
3. Kanaka Durga,
R/o. 6-5-422, Self-Finance colony,
Phase-V, Vanasthalipuram, R.R. District.
4. S. Srinivas Reddy,
R/o 3-113, Bheemreddynagar,
Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad
5. M. Srihari Prasad,
R/o 9-21/3/7/9, Ashok Nagar,
Boduppal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Hyderabad.
…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing before this Authority in the presence of Counsels for Complainant Mr. Jacob Mudi and
Arun Kumar Mudi, and Counsel for Respondents Mr. G. Surender Reddy and upon hearing the
submissions of both the parties, this Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:

Page 1 of 12

---

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

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The dispute involved in the present complaint pertains to a Group Housing Scheme and

development of land in the name and style of “M/s. Ambitionz N Homez” situated at
Parvathapur, Medipally Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, in Sy.No.17/A/16 and Sy.No.21,
admeasuring Ac.5.23 guntas.
4.

It is submitted that the promoters, M/s. Ambitionz N Homez, entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with developers Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy
Constructions vide Regd. No. 343/2013, dated 07-02-2013, for construction and development
of the residential project. The said MoU was entered into between Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4
and 5.
5.

It is stated that Respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 5 entered into an Agreement for Sale-cum-

Construction of a duplex house with the complainant in respect of Plot Nos. 61D and 61C
(part), admeasuring 210 sq. yds., for a total consideration of Rs. 48,00,000/- on 18-04-2013.
The complainant, upon finding that the said plots were corner plots adjacent to Musi Nala,
requested the respondents to change the allotment, for which the respondents agreed and
allotted Plot No.3 (part) and Plot No.4, which were mortgage plots, stating that there were no
other plots available.
6.

It is further submitted that Respondents Nos. 2, 4 and 5 referred to Condition No.5 of

the HMDA technical approval letter and their requisition letter to HMDA seeking one year’s
extension to complete the project, assuring the complainant that the project would be completed
within one year, after which they would execute and register the sale deed of Plot Nos.3 and 4
in the complainant’s favour. The complainant agreed to purchase the same, and Respondents
Nos. 2 and 3 executed an Agreement for Sale in favour of the complainant for Plot Nos. 3 (part)
and 4, admeasuring 249 sq. yds. along with a proposed built-up area of duplex house of 2,900
sq. ft., for a total consideration of Rs. 53,94,000/- on 05-03-2014.
7.

It is also stated that Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 executed another Agreement of Sale in

favour of the complainant for purchase of 85 sq. yds. in Plot No.3 (balance part) for a total
Page 2 of 12

---

It is submitted that the respondents have received Rs. 64,00,000/- out of the total sale

consideration of Rs. 78,94,000/- towards Plot Nos.3 and 4, admeasuring 334 sq. yds., along
with the built-up area of duplex house of 2900 Sq.Fts in Survey Nos. 17/A/6 & 21 situated in
Maharaja Forts, Parvathapur Village, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. The
balance amount of Rs.14,94,000/- was to be paid at the time of registration.
9.

It is submitted that the Respondent Nos. 2, 4, and 5, had promised to complete the total

residential group housing project within 3 years as per the Condition No. 8 of the HMDA
approval, and submit a requisition letter for releasing the mortgaged plots and register the sale
deed for the said plots in favour of the Complainant in 2015. As the project was not completed
on time, extensions were sought twice between 2014 and 2016, with payment of 20%
revalidation charges of Rs. 8,82,530/- on 20-02-2015.
10.

It is submitted that, without completing the project, the respondents handed over

possession of Plot Nos.3 and 4 without executing and registering the sale deed in favour of the
complainant. It is further submitted that, on 20-02-2020, the complainant received a property
tax assessment notice from the Municipal Commissioner, Peerzadiguda, and upon informing
the respondents and receiving no response for six months, undertook self-assessment and
started paying property tax and electricity bills in the name of Respondent No.1 from 2017.
11.

It is further submitted that the respondents failed to complete the housing project within

three years i.e., on or before 12-01-2014 as per the condition no. 8 of HMDA technical
approval, dated: 13-01-2011, or even within the extended time till 12-01-2016, and have not
paid the revalidation charges to HMDA. Despite repeated approaches by the complainant
offering to pay the balance amount of Rs.14,94,000/- and execute the registration, the
respondents failed to register the sale deed, citing non-obtaining of Occupancy Certificate and
non-release of mortgage by HMDA, even after eleven years beyond the time limit given by
HMDA.
12.

It is stated that the respondents have failed to obtain Occupancy Certificate from

HMDA for the entire project; failed to release the mortgage and register the sale deed of Plot
Nos.3 and 4 in favour of the complainant; and failed to complete the 40 feet approach road as
per Condition No.17 of HMDA technical approval. The development works of children’s play

Page 3 of 12

---

It is submitted that the complainant suffered a heart stroke in 2021 due to stress from

non-registration of the plots, incurring medical expenses of Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is further
submitted that other residents ill-treated the complainant, calling him a private party staying
illegally due to non-registration, and did not permit him to contest elections for the “Maharaja
Forts Villa Owners Mutually Aided Co-operative Society”.
14.

It is further submitted that the complainant continues to pay property tax and electricity

bills in the respondents’ name since 2017, causing mental agony and reputational harm. A
resident also complained to the Municipal Commissioner, Peerzadiguda, that the mortgage
plots were constructed illegally, leading to a notice to Respondent No.2 on 13-07-2023, to
which a reply was given on 15-07-2023.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
15.
i.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
Initiate appropriate action against the respondents for fraud and breach of contract, by
awarding compensation.

ii.

Direct the respondents for registration of Plot Nos.3 and 4, admeasuring 334 sq. yds.,
which was a constructed duplex house D.No.3-17-3, 4-1637, in Sy.No.17/A/6 & 21.

iii.

To compensate the complainant for financial loss, mental anguish, and health
deterioration caused by the respondents’ actions.

iv.

To secure the complainant’s rightful ownership and alleviate his prolonged suffering.

v.

To instruct the promoters to obtain RERA registration.

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondents:
16.

The Respondents have submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable either

in law or on facts. All allegations made by the complainant are denied as false, baseless, and
created solely for the purpose of filing the present complaint, except those specifically admitted
herein.
17.

It is submitted that the land in Sy.No.17/A/6, admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts, and in Sy.No.21,

admeasuring Ac.0.23 gts, in all measuring Ac.5.23 gts., situated at Parvathapur Village, was
Page 4 of 12

---

The Respondents have stated that M/s. Ambitionz N Homez intended to construct villas

in the above said property. Accordingly, the Respondents approached HMDA for permission.
After

scrutiny

of

title,

HMDA

sanctioned

the

layout

vide

proceedings

No.LP.No.04/LO/ZOI/GTKR/HMDA/2010, dated 13-01-2011, and the layout was prepared as
per HMDA’s terms and conditions.
19.

It is submitted that the complainant approached the Respondents for purchase of a plot

in the said layout. After going through the title, HMDA permission, and other documents, as
well as inspecting the layout, the complainant agreed to purchase. At the time of entering into
the agreement, the Respondents informed the complainant that Plot Nos.1 to 4 were mortgaged
with HMDA and that, upon release of the mortgage, a registered sale deed would be executed
in the complainant’s favour. The complainant agreed and paid advance sale consideration, and
an agreement of sale was executed on 05-03-2014 in favour of the complainant.
20.

It is further submitted that in the year 2008, the villagers had occupied part of the

vendor’s land for use as a graveyard, leading to a suit for perpetual injunction for noninterference with the possession vide O.S. No. 860 of 2008 filed before the Hon’ble III
Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, which was decreed in
favour of the vendor. In the meantime, the Respondents purchased the property in 2011,
obtained HMDA permission, and commenced construction of villas in 2011, completing the
same by 2015. It is stated that, as the RERA Act came into force only on 01-05-2016, the project
was not registered under RERA.
21.

The Respondents have submitted that they have made the layout as per the norms of

HMDA, but the villagers encroached upon 10 feet of the approach road and constructed
compound wall, reducing its width from 40 feet to 30 feet. Due to this, the HMDA has not
released the mortgaged plots, including Plot Nos.1 to 4, in the above layout. The Respondents
state that they are making efforts to recover the encroached portion, and upon recovery and
release of the mortgage, they will execute a registered sale deed in favour of the complainant.

Page 5 of 12

---

It is further submitted that the site is named “Maharaja Forts” and that the complainant

had been elected as President of the “Maharaja Forts Welfare Association”, and is therefore
fully aware of the encroachment of the 10 feet road by the villagers.
23.

It is submitted that the RERA Act, which came into force on 01.05.2016, is not

applicable as the layout was made in 2011, and hence this Authority lacks jurisdiction. It is
stated that, as the plots were mortgaged to HMDA, they were sold to the prospective purchasers
at a lower rate than the prevailing market price. The fact of mortgage was never suppressed
and was duly recorded in the agreement of sale executed in favour of the complainant. In view
of the above, the Respondents have prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs as being
devoid of merit.
D. Points to be determined:
24.

Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority under Section 31
of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?

II.

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

E. Observations of the Authority:
Point I
Whether the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority under Section 31 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?
25.

Upon the perusal of all the pleadings as well as the documents placed on record by the

parties, this Authority proceeds with the following observations. The Respondents have raised
an objection contending that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Authority on
the ground that the subject Project is exempt from the applicability of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, as the Act came into force on 01.05.2016, and in the
present case the layout was made in the year 2011. It was also submitted that the Respondents
obtained HMDA permission and started construction of the villas in the year 2011 and the same
was completed in the year 2015 and as such the Respondents have not registered the project
with this Authority.

Page 6 of 12

---

This Authority, however, finds such a contention untenable. The record before this

Authority clearly indicates that, although the layout approval was granted by the HMDA in
2011, the project was never completed as per the sanctioned plan or the conditions of approval,
and no Occupancy Certificate has been obtained till date. The Respondents themselves have
admitted that the 40-feet approach road was not completed and that the mortgage plots,
including Plot Nos. 1 to 4, remain unreleased by HMDA. As the Occupancy Certificate for the
said project has not been obtained till date, the Project will be considered as an ongoing project
under the RE(R&D) Act, and hence the project cannot be treated as a completed project prior
to the enactment of the RE(R&D) Act.
27.

It is also necessary to refer to the plain language of Section 3(1) of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which reads as follows:
“No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite
persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case
may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without
registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority
established under this Act:
Provided that projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of this
Act and for which the completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter
shall make an application to the Authority for registration of the said project
within a period of three months from the date of commencement of this Act:
Provided further that if the Authority thinks necessary, in the interest of
allottees, for projects which are developed beyond the planning area but with
the requisite permission of the local authority, it may, by order, direct the
promoter of such project to register with the Authority, and the provisions of
this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder, shall apply to such
projects from that stage of registration.”
28.

A plain reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the applicability

of the RE(R&D) Act is not determined by the date of sanction of building permission but by
the status of completion of the project as on the date of commencement of the Act. Any project
for which a Completion Certificate or Occupancy Certificate had not been issued as on the date
of commencement of the Act is deemed to be an ongoing project and, consequently, falls within
the regulatory ambit of this Authority.
29.

In this regard, reference is invited to G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 04.03.2025, issued by the

Government of Telangana, whereby Rule 2(1)(j) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Page 7 of 12

---

Therefore, even though the Respondents may have obtained layout permission in 2011

and claim to have completed construction in 2015, the fact remains that the Occupancy
Certificate has not been issued for the project to date. This conclusively establishes that the
project continues to be an “ongoing project” within the meaning of the RE(R&D) Act.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing facts and findings, this Authority holds that the complaint
is maintainable before it under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016.
Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.
Point II
The Complainant has sought multiple reliefs, which are examined as follow:
a) Initiating appropriate action against the respondents for fraud and breach of contract,
by awarding compensation:
31.

The allegation of fraud and breach of contract raised by the Complainant does not merit

acceptance in view of the express terms of the Agreements of Sale executed between the
parties. The first Agreement of Sale, dated 05.03.2014, relating to Plot No. 4 and Plot No. 3
(part), admeasuring 249 sq. yds., along with proposed built-up area of duplex house of 2900
sft., in Survey No. 17/A/6, situated at Parvathapur Village, Ghatkesar Revenue Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, in Clause 3 categorically provides that “the plot will be allotted after getting
mortgage released by HMDA and the construction will be started than after getting clearance
from HMDA.” Likewise, the subsequent Agreement of Sale dated 30.09.2021, executed for
Plot No. 3 (part), admeasuring 85 sq. yds., reiterates in Clause 4 that “the plots will be
registered to the purchaser or to their nominees, or any person after the release of mortgage.”
32.

These stipulations leave no scope for doubt that the Complainant was fully aware, at

both stages of entering into agreements, that the subject plots were mortgage plots and that

Page 8 of 12

---

At the same time, it cannot be ignored that the Respondents acted in contravention of

the very terms of the HMDA approval vide LP.No.04/LO/ZOI/GTKR/HMDA/2010, dated
13-01-2011. Condition No. 1 of the approval categorically states that mortgage plots (Plot Nos.
1 to 4) are not saleable by the developer until the final layout is approved by HMDA, while
Condition No. 9 further stipulates that the applicant shall not be permitted to sell the plots/area
mortgaged in favour of HMDA, i.e., Plot Nos. 1 to 4. By entering into an Agreement of Sale in
respect of such mortgage plots, the Respondents violated these binding conditions, and such
conduct reflects a clear lapse on their part.
34.

However, it must be noted that the Complainant was neither misled nor unaware of the

mortgage condition. Having twice entered into agreements expressly subject to mortgage
release, the Complainant voluntarily assumed the risks associated with such plots. Mortgage
plots carry inherent risks as no conveyance or registration can be affected until release by
HMDA and any non-compliance of the conditions by the developer may indefinitely delay the
release. The Complainant, having consciously accepted these risks and parted with
consideration despite being aware of the restrictions, cannot now claim that he was defrauded
or that there has been a breach of contract.
35.

The inability to secure release of the mortgage within the anticipated period, though

unfortunate and attributable to Respondents’ failure to comply with HMDA conditions, does
not amount to fraud or breach of contract when the contractual understanding itself made
release of mortgage a precondition to allotment.
36.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that while the Respondents erred in entering into sale

agreements for mortgage plots in violation of HMDA conditions, the Complainant, having
entered the agreement with knowledge and acceptance of such risks, cannot sustain his claim
of fraud or breach of contract. The relief sought under this head is therefore not liable to be
granted.
b) Direction to the Respondents for registration of plot No. 3 & 4 and claim for
compensation:
37.

It is an admitted fact that Agreements of Sale were executed between the parties,

substantial consideration amounting to ₹64,00,000/- out of the total agreed sum of ₹78,94,000/Page 9 of 12

---

The only impediment cited by the Respondents for non-registration is the non-release

of the mortgage plots by HMDA. It is stated that the 40 feet wide approach road, as sanctioned
in the HMDA layout approval, was encroached upon by local villagers, who constructed a
compound wall, thereby reducing its width to 30 feet. On account of this encroachment and the
consequent deviation from the approved layout conditions, HMDA has refused to release the
mortgaged plots, including Plot Nos. 1 to 4. The Respondents contend that they are making
efforts to remove the encroachment and restore the road to its sanctioned width so that HMDA
may release the mortgage, following which the plots can be registered in favour of the
Complainant.
39.

While the existence of such encroachment is not in dispute, this circumstance is

attributable solely to the Respondents’ failure to comply with HMDA conditions and to secure
release of the mortgaged plots within the prescribed time. The layout approval clearly required
provision of a 40 feet wide approach road as per sanctioned plan, and the Respondents’ inability
to ensure compliance has directly resulted in HMDA withholding release of the mortgaged
plots, thereby preventing execution of sale deeds in favour of the Complainant. Despite the
lapse of considerable amount of time, the Respondents have neither obtained the Occupancy
Certificate nor ensured release of the mortgage, thereby depriving the Complainant of legal
title despite his having performed his part of the contract by paying substantial portion of the
sale consideration.
40.

The Complainant, having paid a substantial portion of the sale consideration and having

been in possession of the property, cannot be indefinitely deprived of registration on account
of the Respondents’ defaults. The statutory obligation under Section 11(4)(f) of the RE(R&D)
Act requires the promoter to “execute a registered conveyance deed of the apartment, plot or
building, as the case may be, in favour of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate
title in the common areas to the association of allottees or competent authority, as the case may
be, as provided under section 17 of this Act;”
Page 10 of 12

---

In terms of Section 11(4)(b) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,

2016, the promoter is statutorily obligated to be responsible for obtaining the completion
certificate or the occupancy certificate, as the case may be, from the competent authority, and
to make the same available to the allottees individually. The scheme of the RE(R&D) Act
clearly envisages that it is the promoter’s primary and non-delegable obligation to complete
the project in its entirety and secure the requisite occupancy or completion certificate, thereby
ensuring lawful possession to the allottees. Therefore, the pendency of encroachment disputes
or technical objections with HMDA, cannot absolve the Respondents of their statutory
responsibility to complete the process of obtaining requisite approvals, secure release of the
mortgaged plots, and execute the conveyance in favour of the Complainant.
42.

Accordingly, this Authority directs the Respondents to take all necessary steps to rectify

the impediments, including recovery of the encroached portion of the approach road if required,
and to obtain an Occupancy Certificate for the project at the earliest. Within thirty (30) days
from the date of receiving the Occupancy Certificate, the Respondents shall secure release of
the mortgaged plots from HMDA and thereupon execute and register the sale deed in favour of
the Complainant in respect of Plot Nos. 3 and 4, admeasuring 334 sq. yds., along with the
constructed duplex house D.No.3-17-3, 4-1637, in Survey No. 17/A/6 & 21, in the project
Maharaja Forts situated at Parvatapur Village, Ghatkesar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, subject to the Complainant simultaneously tendering the balance sale consideration of
₹14,94,000/- as agreed between the parties.
43.

The Complainant has also sought compensation for financial loss, mental anguish, and

health deterioration allegedly suffered on account of the Respondents’ conduct. This Authority
notes that the jurisdiction to determine and award compensation vests with the Adjudicating
Officer under Section 71 of the RE(R&D) Act, upon filing of an application in the prescribed
manner. Accordingly, the Complainant may file a separate application in Form ‘N’ before the
Adjudicating Officer for the claim for compensation.
c) Instruction to the promoters to obtain RERA registration of the project
44.

As determined under Point I, the project in question qualifies as an “ongoing project”

within the meaning of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, since no Occupancy Certificate
has been issued to date. Ordinarily, such a project is required to be registered with this
Authority, and the promoter is under a statutory obligation to comply with the mandate of
Section 3.
Page 11 of 12

---

However, in the present case, it is an admitted fact that all villas in the project have

already been sold to the respective purchasers. In such circumstances, directing registration of
the project at this stage would serve no meaningful purpose, since there are no unsold units to
be marketed or conveyed.
46.

Consequently, this Authority is not inclined to issue a direction for registration of the

project under Section 3 at this juncture. Nevertheless, the Respondents remain bound by all
other obligations flowing from the agreements executed with the Complainant and from this
Authority’s present directions, including securing release of the mortgaged plots and
completing registration in favour of the Complainant.
F. Directions of the Authority:
47.

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37, this Authority issues the

following directions:
1. The Respondents are hereby directed to take all necessary steps to rectify the
impediments, including recovery of the encroached portion of the approach road if
required, and to obtain an Occupancy Certificate for the project from the competent
authority at the earliest. Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the
Occupancy Certificate, the Respondents shall secure release of the mortgaged plots
from HMDA and thereupon execute and register the Sale Deed in favour of the
Complainant in respect of Plot Nos. 3 and 4, admeasuring 334 sq. yds., along with the
constructed duplex house D.No.3-17-3, 4-1637, in Survey No. 17/A/6 & 21, in the
project Maharaja Forts situated at Parvatapur Village, Ghatkesar Revenue Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, subject to the Complainant simultaneously tendering the balance
sale consideration of ₹14,94,000/-.
48.

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by Respondents shall attract penalty in

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
49.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be 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

Page 12 of 12

---