Order Complaint No. 1802 of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 1802 of 2023
Dated this 29th day of March 2025
Quorum:

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

M Madhu
(H.06-86/40, Veeraswamy Nagar, Near Ganesh Manapam, Qutbullapur, Medchal – Malkajgiri
…Complainant

Hyd- 500055)
Versus
M/s Swayam Homes represented by Vantala Jangaiah Yadav

(Resp by Managing director Sri V.Jangaiah Yadav, R/o Madhusudhan Apartments, flat no.103104, Street 5, Habsiguda – Hyderabad)
…Respondent

This present Complaint came up for hearing on 13.11.2024 before us for hearing in the
presence of Complainant appeared in person and Sri Thirupati for the Respondent and upon
hearing the arguments on both sides and the matter reserved over for the consideration till this
date, this Authority passes the present complaint order.
ORDER
2.

The Complainant has filed complaint on hand 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"), alleging commission of violation and contravening of
the provisions of the said Act and Rules and sought for the appropriate reliefs against the
Respondent.
A.

The Brief facts of the case as per allegations/averments contained in the complaint

are as follows:
3.

The complainant submits that the Respondent has been selling plots in the project

“Viceroy Elite” however RERA registered in the name of “Fortune Avenue” Venture Promoter
being OM Prakash, in Kollur Mandal survey no. 1060, Tlp No. 123/2021/H.

1 of 7

4.

The Complainant purchased a plot in the venture, plot no. 20/A , of 131 sq yards and

paid the total sale consideration amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- towards the plot to the
Respondent.However, no Agreement of Sale was executed for the said allotment, and only
payment receipts were issued to the Complainant.
5.

Despite the payment being made in full, the plot has not been registered in the

complainant’s name to date.
B.

Relief(s) Sought:

7.

The Complainant prays for an order directing the Respondent to refund the amount paid

towards the purchase of the plot.
C. Respondent Reply:
8.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant has falsely contended that he has paid

an amount of ₹3,34,000/-. However, contrary to such claim, the Complainant has produced only
a single payment slip for ₹16,000/-. Furthermore, the Respondent has placed on record the
receipt issued by him to the Complainant, which clearly shows that the total amount received
was ₹2,39,000/- only, and that the balance amount payable by the Complainant stood at
₹5,82,000/-.
9.

The Respondent further submitted that the subject plot was actually purchased by one

Mr. M. Madhu in the layout known as Viceroy Elite, located at Kolluru Village, Aleru Mandal,
Bhuvanagiri District. The Complainant has admittedly not made the complete payment. Hence,
the Respondent questioned how the plot could have been registered in the Complainant’s name
without full consideration being paid.
10.

The Respondent submitted that the documentary evidence filed by the Complainant

does not establish any entitlement for registration of the property. The Complainant was shown
the plot and its documents prior to the proposed sale, and at that time, the site was part of a
RERA-registered project in the name of Fortune Avenue, with the registration being in the
name of Mr. Medala Omprakash.
11.

The Respondent further submitted that he had entered into an agreement with Mr.

Medala Omprakash and others in respect of the said land, and a copy of the same has been
annexed to the reply. It was also submitted that the Respondent refunded the entire amount
received from the Complainant upon receiving the original receipts. The payment slip now
2 of 7

being relied upon by the Complainant is a fabricated document, and the Complainant has
produced receipts only for ₹16,000/- while claiming a higher amount. The Respondent
submitted that unless the Complainant produces the original receipts, his claim is
unsubstantiated.
12.

The Respondent submitted that the amount paid by the Complainant was only in the

nature of a token advance, and since no Agreement for Sale was executed between the parties,
the transaction was never formalized. All such payments were made on mutual terms, and the
Respondent never had any intention to defraud or wrongfully withhold money. It was further
submitted that the Respondent did not register any plots to anyone unless the project was duly
registered under RERA, and all registrations were undertaken by the lawful owner, Mr.
Omprakash.
13.

The Respondent also submitted that the present complaint is an act of blackmail

orchestrated by the Complainant in collusion with one Mr. Mula Satyanarayana, who is the
instigator behind multiple such complaints. The said Mr. Satyanarayana had earlier worked
with the Respondent but his services were subsequently terminated. Holding a grudge, he
allegedly started operating an office under the name of Satya Infra Developers, and has been
selling plots and collecting money in an unauthorized manner. He is said to be misusing his
position to make false complaints against the Respondent, including one in the name of another
individual, Mr. Anjaneyulu.
14.

The Respondent stated that, should the Complainant be in possession of the original

payment receipts, the Respondent is willing to make refunds upon due verification of the same.
In the absence of such proof, the Respondent denies any liability.
15.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Respondent submitted that there is no

outstanding liability on his part, and that the claims made by the Complainant are baseless and
motivated. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to dismiss the
complaint in the interest of justice.
E. Observations of the Authority:
Points for Consideration:
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought?

3 of 7

2. Whether Respondents has violated the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation &
Development) Act, 2016 ("RE(R&D) Act")?
16.

The Complainant in the present matter seeks a refund of the amount paid to Respondent

No. 1 on the ground that, despite having received substantial consideration towards allotment of
a plot, the Respondent failed to execute the registration in favour of the Complainant.

17.

In support of the claim, the Complainant has placed on record documentary evidence

showing payment of Rs. 16,000/- directly to Respondent No. 1. It is further submitted that a
total sum of Rs. 3,80,000/- was paid, partly through direct payments to the Respondent and
partly via a real estate agent. However, Respondent No. 1 has categorically denied having
received any amount in excess of Rs. 16,000/-, contending that if additional amounts were paid
to a third-party agent, the same were neither received nor acknowledged by the Respondent.

18.

In order to facilitate effective adjudication, the Complainant was directed to produce

corroborative evidence substantiating the payments allegedly made to the Respondent(s). In
compliance, the Complainant submitted multiple receipts, alongside UPI and bank transaction
records, evidencing payments to Respondent No. 1, as follows:
1.

Receipt No. 043 dated 2905.2023 – Rs. 20,000/-

2.

Receipt No. 016 dated 09.01.2023 Rs.65,000/-

3.

Receipt No. 8577 dated 28.07.2022 – Rs. 30,000/-

4.

Receipt No 8315 dated 10.05.2023 - Rs.20,000/-

5.

Receipt No. 049 dated 08.07.2023 – Rs.30,000/-

6.

Receipt No. 1604 dated 19.02.2023 0 Rs.16,000/-

7.

Receipt No. 7658 dated 03.02.2022 – Rs. 99,000/-

8.

Receipt No. 7671 dated 05.02.2022 – Rs.1000/-

9.

Receipt No. 9127 dated 01.11.2022 – Rs. 20,000/-

The cumulative amount evidenced through these transactions stands at Rs. 3,01,000/-.
19.

It is a matter of concern that despite such a sequence of documented and periodic

payments, the Respondent has chosen to adopt a dismissive stance, contending that only Rs.
16,000/- was received and shifting the entire burden of proof onto the Complainant. This
conduct reflects an apparent disregard for the obligations owed to a prospective allottee and
undermines the very objective of consumer protection envisioned under the RE(R&D) Act.

4 of 7

20.

The explanation offered by the Respondent is found to be untenable in light of the

documentary evidence placed on record. The argument that no obligation arose due to nonreceipt of the entire consideration is rejected outright. The records before the Authority clearly
establish receipt of at least Rs. 3,01,000/- by the Respondent, which is sufficient to indicate a
commercial understanding between the parties and to trigger the obligation of executing the
registration.
21.

Although the Complainant claims to have paid Rs. 3,80,000/-, no reliable evidence has

been adduced to show that the remaining Rs. 79,000/- was either received by the Respondent or
paid under their authority. In the absence of conclusive proof in that regard, this Authority is
constrained to limit the Respondent’s liability to the extent of Rs. 3,01,000/- duly evidenced
through documented receipts.
23.

It is pertinent to note that despite receipt of a substantial amount, the Respondent failed

to come forward and execute the registration of the plot in favour of the Complainant. This
omission constitutes a breach of the obligations under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. As such, the Complainant is entitled to a refund of
the said amount along with interest at the prescribed rate as per Rule 15 of TG RE(R&D)
Rules.
24.

In view of the foregoing, this Authority holds that the Respondent is liable to refund an

amount of Rs. 3,01,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh One Thousand Only) to the Complainant, along
with interest as mandated under Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act.
25.

The interest shall be calculated at the rate of 11% per annum (being the prevailing SBI’s

highest marginal cost of lending rate 09% plus 2%), from the respective dates of payment as
evidenced in the receipts, until full and final realisation of the said amount by the Complainant.

Point 2:
26.

It is an admitted fact before this Authority that the concerned project is RERA-

registered under Registration No. P02000002810. However, upon perusal of the registration
certificate, it is observed that the project is registered under the name "Fortune Avenue", with
the promoter listed as Medala Omprakash. Conversely, Respondent No. 1 has been advertising
and marketing the said project under the name "Viceroy Elite", which is not the registered name
under RERA.
27.

Such conduct of the respondent constitutes misrepresentation and is a direct

contravention of the mandatory disclosure obligations under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The said
Act is enacted to ensure transparency, accountability, and consumer protection in the real estate
5 of 7

sector. It mandates that all advertisements, promotional materials, and sale communications
must correctly reflect the registered name of the project, so that homebuyers can independently
verify registration status and approvals.
28.

The submission of Respondent that he purchased the land from the registered promoter

Medala Omprakash vide Agreement of Sale dated 04.08.2022 does not absolve him of statutory
compliance. This Authority finds that while the said agreement may assign certain rights to the
respondent, the details of such assignment are vague and unsubstantiated. No registered
development agreement, no RERA transfer of promoter rights, and no proof of change in
developer or joint development status have been submitted before this Authority. The RERA
registration continues to be in the name of Medala Omprakash, and there is no public record or
order indicating transfer of promoter responsibilities to Respondent No. 1.
29.

As such, the use of the same RERA number while advertising under a different project

name and a different promoter creates a false and misleading impression upon prospective
purchasers constitutes a fraudulent and punishable misrepresentation.
30.

This Authority finds that the lack of clarity in ownership, developer rights, and

branding, as reflected in this case, is antithetical to the very objective of the RE(R&D) Act,
which is to promote a transparent and trustworthy real estate market. In the instant case, the
homebuyer is left in confusion regarding the true promoter, the correct project identity, and the
validity of advertisements, defeating the legislative intent of full disclosure.
31.

In fact, the same Respondent was already found guilty of similar conduct and penalized

by this Authority in Complaint No. 1826 of 2023, for engaging in fraudulent advertisement and
misrepresentation, and penalty was imposed under Section 37 read with Section 38 of the
RE(R&D) Act. Therefore, this Authority does not propose to impose a fresh penalty for the
same cause of action. However, continued non-compliance and recurrence of such misconduct
will attract stricter penal consequences in future.
32.

In view of the above, Respondent is hereby directed to cease and desist from using the

name "Viceroy Elite" or any other unregistered name for this project, and ensure that all further
advertisements, promotional material, communications, and sale offers reflect the registered
name of the project "Fortune Avenue", along with the correct RERA registration number, in
compliance with the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

Directions of the Authority:
33.

Based on the facts submitted, evidence on record, and the findings given thereon by us

as discussed herein above, this Authority holds that the complainant is entitled to the relief as
6 of 7

prayed by him, and the same is allowed in his favour, and the Respondent is hereby directed as
follows:
1. Respondent

to refund Rs. 3,01,000/- (Rupees Three lakh one thousand) to the

complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall
carry an interest at the rate of 11 % p.a., as per Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016
read with Rule 15 of TG RE(R&D) Rules, 2017.
2. Respondent is directed to immediately cease advertising the project under a name
different from its RERA-registered name and ensure compliance with provisions of the
RE(R&D) Act to avoid misleading homebuyers.
3. The Secretary of TG RERA is directed to call for an explanation from the promoter of
Fortune Avenue, Medala Omprakash, regarding how development rights were obtained
by M/s Swayam Homes and how rights to advertise and sell the plots of the registered
project under a different name were granted. This response is to be provided
immediately.
34.

Respondent is hereby informed that failure to comply with this order shall attract

Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdDr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

7 of 7