Order Complaint No. 18 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint Nos. 18 of 2025
Dated: 6th April, 2026
Quorum:

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

1.Thanniru Naresh
Flat No 301, 3rd Floor, Svs Oracle Residency,
Sadasiva Nagar, Narapally, Land Mark-Nalla Malla
Redyy College Road, Hyderabad-500088
2.M Shiva Krishna
Flat No 501, 5th Floor, Svs Oracle Residency,
Sadasiva Nagar, Narapally, Land Mark-Nalla Malla
Redyy College Road, Hyderabad-500088
3.Ch Nagesh
Flat No 407, 4th Floor, Svs Oracle Residency,
Sadasiva Nagar, Narapally, Land Mark-Nalla Malla
Redyy College Road, Hyderabad-500088
4.Anil Kumar Chiluka
Flat No 503, 5th Floor, Svs Oracle Residency,
Sadasiva Nagar, Narapally, Land Mark-Nalla Malla
Redyy College Road, Hyderabad-500088
5.Akula Prakash Rao
Flat No 510, 5th Floor, Svs Oracle Residency,
Sadasiva Nagar, Narapally, Land Mark-Nalla Malla
Redyy College Road, Hyderabad-500088
6.Madhira Lakshmi Manohar
Flat No 306, 3rd Floor, Svs Oracle Residency,
Sadasiva Nagar, Narapally, Land Mark-Nalla Malla
Redyy College Road, Hyderabad-500088

… Complainants

Versus
1.M/s. SVS Promoters & Developers
Rep. by Proprietor, Godala Ramya
Registerd Office at 2-54, Divyanagar Main Road,
Narapally, Ghatkesar-500088.
2.Nimmagadda Chinna Venkata Ratnam Choudary
H.No 12-13-811, Tarnaka, Secunderabad.
Presently Residing At H.No 5-11-29,
Venkateshwara Nagar Colony, Meerpet,
1 of 15

---

The 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 appropriate relief(s) against the Respondent.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

This Complaint is filed by the Complainants who are allottees and residents of flats

bearing Nos. 301, 501, 407, 503 and 510 in the project “SVS Oracle” with registration No.
P02200001108 (valid from 07/08/2019 to 14/05/2024), situated at Divya Nagar Main Road,
Narapally, Ghatkesar Mandal, Hyderabad. The Complainants submit that they have
purchased their respective flats after payment of substantial sale consideration and execution
of registered sale deeds and are presently in possession of the flats. However, it is alleged that
despite such payment and possession, the Respondent No.1, namely M/s SVS Promoters &
Developers, has failed to complete the project and provide agreed amenities and
infrastructure as per the Agreement of Sale and brochure, thereby causing hardship and
deficiency in service.
Sl. Nos.
1
2
3
4
5

Complainant Name
Thanniru Naresh
M Shiva Krishna
Ch Nagesh
Anil Kumar Chiluka
Akula Prakash Rao

Purchased Flat No.
301 – 3rd floor
501 – 5th floor
407- 4th floor
503- 5th floor
510- 5th floor

Consideration value
50,00,000/52,00,000/44,00,000/44,00,000/18,06,000/-

6

Madhira Lakshmi
Manohar

306- 3rd floor

56,95,500/-

4.

The Complainants have detailed both individual and common grievances. It is

submitted that Flat No. 301 belonging to Thanniru Subhashini and Thanniru Naresh was to be

2 of 15

---

The Complainants have collectively alleged that the project suffers from serious

deficiencies including non-installation of the second lift with the lift shaft remaining exposed,
absence of balcony and corridor safety railings, exposed electrical cables on each floor,
absence of power backup or generator facility, lack of CCTV cameras and round-the-clock
security, absence of intercom facility, incomplete external painting and landscaping, absence
of children’s play area, indoor games, gymnasium, security room and entrance arch, lack of
proper building name display, and unmarked and unallotted parking spaces. It is further
alleged that these deficiencies create serious safety risks and render the premises unsafe for
habitation.
6.

It is further contended that the Respondent No.1 has obtained an Occupancy

Certificate dated 03.05.2025 declaring that the project was completed by 25.11.2024, whereas
in reality several mandatory works remain incomplete. The Complainants have also
addressed the issue of alleged pending payments and submitted that in respect of Flat Nos.
301 and 501, there are no outstanding dues and the claims made by the Respondent are
incorrect. With respect to other flats, only minor amounts are disputed. It is contended that in
any case, such alleged non-payment cannot justify non-completion of common amenities and
essential infrastructure.
7.

The Complainants have further raised an issue relating to discrepancies in allocation

of Undivided Share (UDS), stating that flats having identical built-up areas, particularly Flat
Nos. 301 and 501, have been allotted different UDS values, thereby indicating inconsistency
and lack of transparency.
B. Relief(s) sought:
8.

In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the Complainants humbly

prays that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to grant the following reliefs:
3 of 15

---

At the outset, the Respondent No.1 in their counter, has categorically denied all the

allegations made by the Complainants, contending that the same are false, frivolous,
fabricated, and made with ulterior motives to gain wrongful advantage and cause wrongful
loss to the Respondent.
10.

The Respondent No.1 submits that the Occupancy Certificate (OC) has already been

processed, and a DC letter for issuance of OC has been released vide Letter No.
014161/OC/HMDA/3863/GHT/2024 dated 28.04.2025 by the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA) through TG-bPASS. They filed the TG-bPASS Occupancy
Certificate Fee Intimation Letter dated 28.04.2025.
11.

The Respondent No.1 states that the Complainants had visited the project site (SVS

Oracle), and after being fully satisfied with the project, proceeded to purchase their respective
flats and executed registered sale deeds. The details of flat owners include:
a)

T. Subhashini and T. Naresh – Flat No. 301 (Doc No. 1038/2022)
4 of 15

---

Chidalla Nagesh – Flat No. 407 (Doc No. 1059/2023)

d) Chiluka Anil Kumar – Flat No. 503 (Doc No. 2318/2022)

12.

e)

S. Jyothi and Akula Shashank – Flat No. 510 (Doc No. 5924/2021)

f)

Madhira Adithya and Madhira Lakshmi Manohar – Flat No. 306 (Doc No.
10813/2023)
It is further contended that some Complainants have not paid the entire sale

consideration as per the Agreement of Sale (as admitted by them before the Hon’ble
Authority during the last hearing), despite which the Respondent No.1 proceeded with
registration and handing over possession of the respective flats. They filed a statement of
pending payments. On this ground alone, the Respondent No.1 asserts that the Complainants
are not entitled to demand amenities as a matter of right.
13.

The Respondent No.1 submits that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the project was

severely affected by financial distress, shortage of labor, and disruption in supply of raw
materials. Despite such difficulties, the Respondent No.1 managed to complete construction
and hand over possession of flats by executing registered sale deeds.
14.

With respect to power supply, the Respondent No.1 submits that a stabilized

residential power supply has already been provided to all unit holders. It is further alleged
that some Complainants have tampered with existing cables by engaging external electricians
without the knowledge of the builder. Additionally, the Respondent No.1 states that electricity
bills of certain flats were paid by the builder up to March 2025 to avoid inconvenience, and
filed supporting documents.
15.

Regarding the diesel generator, the Respondent No.1 states that due to a change in

emission norms from BS-IV to BS-V, there was an acute shortage of generators in the market,
leading to delay in procurement. However, a fresh purchase order dated 24.04.2025 has been
placed with M/s Serwell Power Systems for supply of a “Mahindra” make 82.5 KVA, 415V,
3-phase genset, and the timeline for installation is included in the schedule of works.
16.

With respect to staircase hand railings, the Respondent No.1 submits that the work

order has already been finalized, work commenced on 16.04.2025, and part of the work has
already been completed. The relevant work order dated 14.04.2025 and progress photographs
have been filed.

5 of 15

---

Regarding landscaping, it is submitted that the work order was issued on 20.10.2024,

and initial work commenced but was discontinued midway by the contractor without reasons.
The Respondent No.1 undertakes to resume the work either through the same contractor or by
appointing a new contractor, with timelines specified in the schedule of works.
18.

Similarly, with respect to external painting, the work order was issued on 05.01.2023,

and major work was completed; however, the contractor discontinued work midway without
reason. The Respondent No.1 states that necessary steps will be taken to resume and
complete the work, with timelines provided in the schedule of works.
19.

The Respondent No.1 further submits that work relating to other amenities is in

progress or scheduled, including Security room glass fixing and finishing, Corridor and
staircase final painting, Project name plate fixing, Car parking, Intercom work, Children’s
play area, Indoor games, Gym, Installation of second lift, Panel room and staircase doors.
The Respondent No.1 provided detailed timelines for all such works and filed the copy of
Schedule of Works.
20.

It is further submitted that the “SVS Oracle Flat Owners Association” has been

formed on 29.03.2025, and a list of members has been enclosed. It is stated that 4 out of 6
Complainants are members, including the Vice President and Joint Secretary.
21.

With respect to HMDA norms, the Respondent No.1 denies the allegations and

submits that the claims regarding non-compliance and poor quality are vague and defamatory,
asserting that best quality materials were used and all HMDA norms have been adhered to.
The Respondent No.1 refers to clauses of the Agreement of Sale, stating:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Clause 18: Purchasers must pay ₹1,00,000 towards corpus fund
Clause I: ₹45,150 towards provisi
onal CAM charges for 12 months
Clause IV: ₹25,000 electricity deposit reimbursement
Clause V: ₹1,00,000 building protection deposit (undated cheque)

It is submitted that these amounts have not yet been paid by the allottees, despite possession
being handed over.
22.

The Respondent No.1 reiterates that electricity bills were borne by the builder up to

March 2025, and that after formation of the association, maintenance and electricity
responsibilities have been transferred to the association vide letter dated 27.04.2025.

6 of 15

---

It is further submitted that out of 35 flat owners, only 6 have filed Complaints, and the

allegations are described as minuscule, vague, frivolous, and repetitive, while the remaining
29 flat owners are satisfied with the performance of the builder and have accommodated
delays caused by unforeseen circumstances.
24.

The Respondent No.1 assures that all pending works will be completed on priority as

per the enclosed schedule and refers to Section 32(g) of the RE(R&D) Act, which encourages
amicable settlement of disputes.
25.

Finally, the Respondent No.1 prays that the Hon’ble Authority may take into

consideration the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, financial losses, and efforts made by
the builder in handing over possession, and dismiss the Complaint, or pass such orders as
deemed fit in the interest of justice.
D. REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2
26.

Respondent No.2, namely the landowner, has filed a separate counter. The

Respondent No.2 submits at the outset that the Complaint filed by the Complainants seeking
completion of pending civil works in the apartment project “SVS ORACLE” is not
maintainable either in law or on facts, and is liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further
contended that the Complaint suffers from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties,
and on this ground alone is liable to be dismissed. The Respondent No.2 also submits that no
part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Authority, and
therefore the Authority lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. The
allegations made in the Complaint are stated to be subject to strict proof.
27.

It is further submitted that the Complainants have purchased and registered their

respective flats as per their own choice and are presently in occupation and possession of
their respective flats in SVS ORACLE.
28.

The Respondent No.2 submits that he, along with Smt. Rani Kumari (wife) and Smt.

Harini (daughter), are the co-owners of land admeasuring 4182 square yards, and that Smt.
Harini has executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Respondent No.2 to the
extent of executing sale deeds. It is further submitted that Respondent No.2 and co-owners
entered into a GPA-cum-development agreement with Respondent No.1 (developer) with a
sharing ratio of 50:50.

7 of 15

---

It is contended that Respondent No.1 (developer) prepared the project brochure and

obtained all necessary permissions, including approvals from Pocharam Municipality,
registration with RERA, and permissions from HMDA.
30.

The Respondent No.2 submits that he has sold certain flats falling to his share as per

the development agreement, and that it is clearly mentioned in the respective sale deeds that
the flats were sold as “semi-finished flats.” In this regard, the Respondent No.2 provides the
following details:
a. Flat No. 503 sold vide Document No. 2318/2022 to Complainant C. Anil Kumar, who
purchased the semi-finished flat with full consent, and photographic evidence is
enclosed with the registered document.
b. Flat No. 407 sold vide Document No. 10597/2023 by Smt. Rani Kumari to Complainant
Chidalla Nagesh, who also purchased with full consent as a semi-finished flat, supported
by photographs.
c. Flat No. 510 sold vide Document No. 5924/2021 to Smt. Shashanala Jyothi and Sri
Akula Shashank, and it is stated that they are not Complainants, while Sri Akula Prakash
Rao is only a signatory without locus standi. These purchasers also consented to
purchase a semi-finished flat with photographic evidence.
d. Flat No. 306 sold vide Document No. 10813/2023 jointly by Respondent No.2, his wife,
daughter, and Respondent No.1 (developer’s share) to Madhira Adithya and his father
Madhira Lakshmi Manohar, who purchased the semi-finished flat with full consent.
e. Flat No. 301 sold vide Document No. 1038/2022 jointly to Thanniru Subhashini and
Thanniru Naresh, who purchased the semi-finished flat with full consent.
f. Flat No. 501 sold vide Document No. 1893/2022 jointly to Munukuntla Shivakrishna
and Munukuntla Kavitha, who also purchased the semi-finished flat with full consent.
In all the above cases, it is emphasized that the purchasers were fully aware and consented to
buying semi-finished flats, and photographic evidence is enclosed along with the registered
documents.
31.

The Respondent No.2 further submits that the allegations in the Complaint are not

maintainable in view of the terms of the sale deed, wherein it is clearly provided that the flat
owners shall form an association to address grievances common to all residents.
32.

It is further contended that Respondent No.1 (developer) is solely responsible for

completion of pending works and addressing grievances, if any, of the flat owners.
8 of 15

---

The Respondent No.2 asserts that he does not fall within the definition of “Promoter”

under Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act, and therefore cannot be held liable under the
provisions applicable to promoters. It is further submitted that, as per the development
agreement, Respondent No.1 is responsible for providing all amenities as per the brochure,
and the Complainants, being aware of the agreement, have wrongfully impleaded Respondent
No.2 with ill motive in the present Complaint.
34.

The Respondent No.2 states that the SVS ORACLE project consists of 80 flats, out of

which 50 flats have been sold, and 35 flats are occupied. It is further submitted that although
the Complainants allege common grievances, only 6 Complainants have filed the present
Complaint, and they allegedly lack locus standi to maintain the same.
35.

In conclusion, the Respondent No.2 prays that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased

to dismiss the Complaint against Respondent No.2 with costs, as otherwise he would suffer
irreparable loss and damage.
36.

Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 has also filed a Memo dated 03.04.2025 enclosing a

letter dated 04.02.2025 issued by Respondent No.1, wherein the builder has undertaken to
complete all pending works and obtain the Occupancy Certificate on or before 30.03.2025
and has agreed to pay a penalty of ₹5,00,000 per month in case of delay. The said letter also
acknowledges pending works relating to flat internal works and common area balance works.
E. REJOINDER FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT TO THE COUNTERS OF
RESPONDENTS
37.

The Complainants have filed a rejoinder reiterating that the concerns raised in their

Complaint are genuine, substantiated, and supported by documentary evidence, including
photographs and resident testimonies. These issues arise from actual delays, incomplete
works, and deviations from agreed project deliverables, directly affecting residents’ safety,
convenience, and contractual expectations under RERA.
38.

With regard to the Occupancy Certificate (OC), the Complainants submit that the

builder obtained the OC on 03.05.2025, stating that required works were completed by
25.11.2024; however, in reality, several mandatory works remain incomplete. These include:
unfinished balcony and corridor railings; non-installation of the second lift with exposed
shaft; unmarked parking spaces; exposed power cables on each floor; absence of power

9 of 15

---

Regarding the purchase of flats, the Complainants state that all owners relied upon the

commitments made by SVS Promoters & Developers regarding timely completion of the
project; however, such promises were not fulfilled. Specifically, for Flat No. 301, the project
was scheduled for handover by May 2022, but the same has not been handed over within the
promised timeline.
40.

On the issue of pending payments, the Complainants provide details clarifying that,

contrary to Respondent No.1’s claims, dues have either been settled or clarified with
supporting documents. The details include:

41.

a.

Thanniru Subhashini & Thanniru Naresh (Flat 301): ₹1,93,347 shown as pending by
Respondent, but actually zero due (documents enclosed)

b.

M. Sivakrishna & M. Kavitha (Flat 501): ₹4,27,000 shown pending, but zero due

c.

Chidalla Nagesh (Flat 407): ₹30,000

d.

Chiluka Anil Kumar (Flat 503): ₹5,25,000 (purchased from landlord)

e.

S. Jyothi & Akula Shashank (Flat 510): ₹2,00,000
The Complainants assert that the agreement amount includes all promised amenities,

and therefore they are entitled to seek full completion of the project as per the brochure and
agreement before final handover.
42.

The Complainants further submit that while COVID-19 impacted builders, it equally

affected homebuyers, who nevertheless continued paying EMIs and installments irrespective
of project progress, causing financial strain. Hence, the Complainants request the Authority to
consider their situation.
43.

With respect to Form-M Complaints, it is submitted that such Complaints are genuine

and supported by evidence. The allegations of vagueness and repetition made by Respondent
No.1 are denied, and it is highlighted that the builder himself has admitted before the Hon’ble
Authority that delays occurred due to financial constraints.
44.

In response to specific claims made by Respondent No.1:
a. Power Supply: Though a transformer has been arranged, permanent electrical fittings
such as lights and switchboards in common areas are not installed. Temporary
hanging cables pose a safety hazard.
10 of 15

---

The Complainants submit that the Flat Owners Association has not yet been

registered, and the builder has failed to complete such registration.
46.

Regarding HMDA norms, the Complainants submit that quality issues exist across

apartments, and they request the Hon’ble Authority to initiate an independent investigation
into construction quality.
47.

Under the terms of the Agreement of Sale, the Complainants state that despite the

association not being registered by the builder, residents began contributing towards
maintenance from May 2025. However, Respondent No.2, who owns multiple flats, has
refused to contribute and directs residents back to Respondent No.1, thereby causing
maintenance issues.
48.

The Complainants also highlight serious discrepancies in Undivided Share (UDS)

allocation, noting that flats with identical built-up areas (e.g., Flat Nos. 301 and 501) have
been allotted different UDS values. They request the Authority to direct Respondent No.1 to
provide a formal explanation and rectify the agreements, with all costs borne by the
developer.
49.

It is further submitted that such UDS discrepancies are not isolated to this project but

are also observed in other projects of the same developer, namely SVS East Paradise and
SVS MR Palace, raising concerns about transparency and fairness across projects.
50.

In conclusion, the Complainants submit that the issues raised are serious, genuine, and

have caused mental, financial, and physical hardship, including loss of time and opportunities
for children due to lack of amenities. They therefore pray that the Hon’ble Authority:
11 of 15

---

To take strict action against Respondent No.1

b.

To impose monetary penalties for contractual and statutory violations

c.

To direct Respondent No.1 to bear legal and litigation costs

d.

To order an independent financial audit of the project to ensure transparency and
detect misuse of funds

F. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
51.

After deliberation on the facts and circumstances of the present case and the

documents filed in this behalf, following issue sprout for consideration IS Whether the
Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? If yes, to what extent?
G. OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUTHORITY
52.

This Authority has carefully considered the pleadings, material available on record,

and the submissions made by the respective parties. The principal issue that arises for
consideration is whether the Respondents have complied with their statutory and contractual
obligations in completing the project and providing the promised amenities to the
Complainants.
53.

The undisputed position that emerges from the record is that the Complainants are

allottees who have paid substantial sale consideration, have entered into registered sale deeds,
and are presently in possession of their respective flats. The grievance, however, pertains to
the non-completion of the project and non-provision of essential and promised amenities,
both in individual units and in common areas.
54.

At the outset, this Authority deems it necessary to reiterate that the obligations of a

Promoter under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 are statutory in
nature and cannot be diluted. Section 11(4)(a) mandates completion of the project in
accordance with sanctioned plans and the Agreement for Sale. Section 11(4)(e) obligates the
Promoter to facilitate formation of the association of allottees, and Section 14 casts a duty to
adhere to sanctioned specifications and rectify defects. These provisions, read together, make
it abundantly clear that completion of a project is not limited to handing over possession, but
extends to delivery of a fully functional, safe, and compliant project.
55.

In the present case, it is an admitted position that Respondent No. 1 has obtained an

Occupancy Certificate dated 03.05.2025. However, this Authority cannot overlook the
categorical admissions made by Respondent No. 1 in its own reply, wherein it has
acknowledged that several works remain pending. These include, inter alia:
12 of 15

---

The existence of such admitted deficiencies clearly demonstrates that the project, in

its current state, does not satisfy the test of completion as envisaged under the Act. The mere
issuance of an Occupancy Certificate cannot be treated as conclusive proof of completion
where substantial works affecting safety and habitability remain pending.
57.

This Authority further observes that the deficiencies brought on record such as

exposed lift shaft, absence of balcony and corridor safety railings, incomplete staircases, and
exposed electrical infrastructure are not minor deviations but serious safety concerns. These
deficiencies go to the root of habitability and render the premises unsafe for occupation. The
continued existence of such unsafe conditions, despite handing over possession, is wholly
contrary to the object and purpose of the RE(R&D) Act, which seeks to protect the interests
of allottees and ensure safe and habitable living conditions.
58.

This Authority also takes note of the fact that children’s play area, parking

demarcation, and common area development, remain incomplete. Such amenities form an
integral part of the sanctioned project and the representations made to the allottees.
Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 is directed to strictly adhere to the sanctioned plans and
approved specifications and ensure completion of the project in its entirety.
59.

The contention of Respondent No. 1 that certain Complainants have not paid the full

sale consideration and are therefore not entitled to claim completion of amenities is found to
be untenable. This Authority notes that Respondent No. 1 has failed to place any cogent or
substantiated material on record to establish that the Complainants have defaulted in payment
of the sale consideration or that any legally enforceable outstanding amounts remain due. In
any event, the obligation of the Promoter to complete common areas and provide promised
amenities is a collective and statutory obligation owed to all allottees, and cannot be made
contingent upon individual payment disputes. Any alleged outstanding dues, if any, constitute
13 of 15

---

With respect to Respondent No. 2, this Authority notes that he has sought to disclaim

liability on the ground that he is not a “Promoter” within the meaning of Section 2(zk) of the
RE(R&D) Act. However, it is an admitted fact that Respondent No. 2 has entered into a GPAcum-development agreement with Respondent No. 1 and has directly participated in the sale
of flats from his share. The definition of “Promoter” under the RE(R&D) Act is broad and
includes persons who construct or cause to be constructed a building for the purpose of sale.
Therefore, the role and liability of Respondent No. 2 cannot be summarily excluded at this
stage and requires consideration in light of his participation in the project.
61.

As regards the plea of delay due to COVID-19, this Authority acknowledges the

general disruption caused during the pandemic. However, it is noted that the project
registration remained valid up to 14.05.2024, and further, Respondent No. 1 itself undertook,
vide letter dated 04.02.2025, to complete the pending works by 30.03.2025. Despite such
assurance, the works remain incomplete even as on date. Therefore, the plea of pandemicrelated delay cannot justify continued non-compliance.
62.

As regards the plea of delay attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Authority is

cognizant of the fact that regulatory relaxations and extensions were given by the
Government of Telangana. It is also noted that the present project timeline overlaps with the
COVID-19 period. However, in this regard, this Authority observes that Respondent No. 1
has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that it had made any application seeking
extension of the RERA registration before this Authority, more importantly, Respondent No.
1, with full knowledge of the prevailing circumstances post-pandemic, has, vide its own letter
dated 04.02.2025, expressly undertaken to complete the pending works on or before
30.03.2025. Such undertaking, having been made consciously and in the normal course of
business after the COVID-19 period, binds the Respondent. Despite the same, the admitted
position remains that the works are incomplete even as on date. In view thereof, this
Authority is of the considered opinion that while the impact of COVID-19 is acknowledged
in principle, the Respondent cannot, at this stage, seek to rely upon the same as a justification
for continued non-compliance, particularly in light of its own subsequent undertaking which
remains unfulfilled.

14 of 15

---

In view of the above, this Authority is of the considered opinion that Respondent No.

1 has failed to discharge its statutory and contractual obligations in ensuring completion of
the project and provision of essential amenities and safety infrastructure.
H. DIRECTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY:
64.

In light of the foregoing observations, this Authority proceeds to pass the following

directions:
a. Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to complete the children play area (tot lot) in
accordance with the project sanctioned plan.
b. Without prejudice to the generality of the above, Respondent No. 1 shall, within a period
of 60 (sixty) days from the date of this Order:
1) Install, commission, and make fully operational the second lift;
2) Complete installation of all safety railings and grills in balconies, corridors, and
staircases;
3) Install and commission the diesel generator / power backup system;
4) Complete external painting, landscaping, and common area finishing works;
5) Properly demarcate and allot parking spaces to allottees.
65.
The Complaint is accordingly disposed of with the above directions. 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

15 of 15

---