Order Complaint No. 1803 of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 1803 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

Ganesh Reddy
((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)
M/s Satya Infra rep by Mula Satyanaryana
(1-9-19/134/1&2, Ramnagar Main Road, near Meeseva office- Hyderabad – 500020)
…Respondent(s)

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 1 and
whereas non appeared for Respondent 2 after 20.08.2024 upon hearing both 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.
1 of 9

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.
4.

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

paid the total sale consideration amount of Rs. 2,59,000/- 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 ₹2,59,000/-. However, contrary to such claim, the Complainant has produced
only a single payment slip for ₹54,000/-. Further complainant has submitted the
paymentreceiptwhich was given by theRespondent isshowing net amount paid Rs.2,39,000/9.

The Respondent submits that the Complainant, Mr. V. Ganesh Reddy, had expressed

interest in purchasing plots in two different ventures – one located in “Viceroy Elite” at Kolluru
Village, Aleru Mandal, Bhuvanagiri District, and another in a layout referred to as
“Agaravanam” also situated at Kolluru Village, Aleru Mandal, Bhuvanagiri District. It is
submitted that the plots in Viceroy Elite carried a minimum extent of 167 sq. yards and were
valued approximately at Rs. 22,00,000/-, while plots in Agaravanam had a minimum extent of
121 sq. yards valued at approximately Rs. 4,50,000/-.

2 of 9

10.

The Respondent contends that the Complainant had been shown the plots and layout

plans, and was made aware that the said project “Fortune Avenue” was being developed under
an arrangement with one Medala Om Prakash and others, whose name appears as the promoter
of the RERA-registered project. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 had merely facilitated the
process based on an internal understanding with the said landowner/developer and had no
independent authority to execute sale deeds.
11.

It was also submitted that the Respondent refunded the entire amount received from the

Complainant upon receiving the original receipts. The payment slips now being relied upon by
the Complainant is a fabricated document, and the Complainant has produced receipts only for
₹54,000/- 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.

It is further submitted by the Respondent that all amounts allegedly paid by the

Complainant were purely token or advance payments made without any sale agreement, and
such payments were made based on mutual understanding. It is claimed that Respondent No.1
was always willing to refund any legitimate payments upon the return of original receipts, but
the receipts and payment slips produced by the Complainant are disputed as being
unauthenticated or fabricated.
14.

The Respondent also alleges that the present complaint is an attempt to harass and

blackmail him, engineered by one Mr. Mula Satyanarayana, who was previously associated
with the Respondent but whose services were terminated. It is submitted that after parting
ways, Mr. Satyanarayana opened a rival office and has since been involved in lodging multiple
complaints against the Respondent, including one filed on behalf of a person named
Anjaneyulu. The Respondent asserts that these actions are retaliatory in nature and intended to
tarnish his image.

3 of 9

15.

Respondent No.1 submits that if the Complainant is able to furnish original receipts

proving the payments, he remains willing to refund the same, provided the receipts are genuine
and duly verified.
E. Observations of the Authority:
Points for Consideration:
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought?
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 has sought refund of the amount paid to the

Respondents, on the ground that despite accepting substantial consideration, the Respondent
No.1 failed to register the allotted plot in the name of the Complainant.
17.

The Complainant has placed on record documentary evidence of direct payment of Rs.

54,000/- to Respondent No.1. As per the Complainant’s submissions, a total sum of Rs.
1,90,000/- was paid partly to Respondent No.1 directly, and partly through a real estate agent,
one Sri Mula Satyanarayana. On the other hand, Respondent No.1 has categorically denied
receipt of any amount beyond Rs. 54,000/- as token advance and stated that any additional
sums allegedly paid to the said agent were neither received by nor transferred to Respondent
No.1.
18.

In the interest of effective adjudication, the Complainant was directed to submit

corroborative evidence substantiating payments made to the Respondents. Simultaneously, the
Authority, in exercise of its suo motu powers, impleaded the real estate agent Sri Mula
Satyanarayana as Respondent No.2, in view of his active role in introducing the Complainant to
the project and collecting substantial amounts from him.
19.

The Authority also took note of other complaints pending against Respondent No.1, in

which the said real estate agent (now Respondent No.2) had played a similar role in collection
of money from complainants.
20.

Respondent No.2 appeared before the Authority on 20.08.2024 and admitted to having

collected amounts from the Complainant. He further submitted that the entire amount so
collected had either been transferred to Respondent No.1 in cash or adjusted against preexisting debts owed by Respondent No.1 to him. The Authority accordingly directed
Respondents No.1 and 2 to furnish relevant financial statements evidencing such transactions.

4 of 9

While Respondent No.1 remained non-committal, Respondent No.2 failed to file a written reply
and abandoned the proceedings. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 was set ex parte.
21.

In compliance with the directions of the Authority, the Complainant submitted

documentary proof of payments made to Respondent No.1 in the form of numbered receipts
and supporting bank and UPI transaction details. The receipts submitted are as follows:
1.

Receipt No. 7458 dated 09.01.2022 – Rs. 36,000/-

2.

Receipt No. 7653 dated 02.02.2022 – Rs. 10,000/-

3.

Receipt No. 7880 dated 07.03.2022 – Rs. 10,000/-

4.

Receipt No. 8173 dated 14.04.2022 – Rs. 10,000/-

5.

Receipt No. 8235 dated 11.05.2022 – Rs. 10,000/-

6.

Receipt No. 8389 dated 06.06.2022 – Rs. 10,000/-

7.

Receipt No. 8613 dated 16.07.2022 – Rs. 10,000/-

8.

Receipt No. 8729 dated 10.08.2022 – Rs. 10,000/-

9.

Receipt No. 8732 dated 02.09.2022 – Rs. 10,000/-

10. Receipt No. 9123 dated 02.11.2022 – Rs. 10,000/11. Receipt No. 9267 dated 04.12.2022 – Rs. 10,000/12. Receipt No. 9371 dated 03.01.2023 – Rs. 10,000/13. Receipt No. 9528 dated 07.02.2023 – Rs. 10,000/14. Receipt No. 1605 dated 19.02.2023 – Rs. 34,000/-

Additionally, receipts submitted for payments made to Respondent No.2 are:
1.

Receipt No. 026 dated 04.03.2023 – Rs. 10,000/-

2.

Receipt No. 034 dated 05.04.2023 – Rs. 20,000/-

3.

Receipt No. 036 dated 02.05.2023 – Rs. 20,000/-

4.

Receipt No. 040 dated 10.06.2023 – Rs.20,000/-

5.

Receipt No. 048 dated 30.06.2023 – Rs. 20,000/-

20. It is indeed surprising that despite the above-stated sequence of regular and diligent
monthly payments by the Complainant, both to Respondents No.1 and 2, Respondent No.1 has
chosen to brush aside the obligations arising therefrom. By submitting that only Rs. 16,000/was received and that the Complainant may produce original receipts to claim any refund,
Respondent No.1 has attempted to shift the burden entirely onto the Complainant. This attitude
appears to be indicative of an attempt to take undue advantage of an innocent homebuyer.
The Authority finds the explanation of Respondent No.1 to be untenable in light of the
documentary evidence produced by the Complainant. The stand that only a token amount was
paid and hence no registration obligation arose is thus rejected. Respondent No.1 has further
5 of 9

claimed to have refunded the amount received from the Complainant, but no documentary
proof evidencing such refund has been placed on record. In the absence of cogent evidence of
repayment, and in view of the clear admission of receipt of Rs. 54,000/-, the said assertion of
repayment stands unsubstantiated and hence rejected.
21. However, it is also noted that there is no evidence placed on record to conclusively
demonstrate that Respondent No.1 had knowledge of the payments made by the Complainant to
Respondent No.2. No contractual documents, letters, or communication establishing the agency
or authority of Respondent No.2 to collect funds on behalf of Respondent No.1 have been
produced. In the absence of such proof, this Authority holds that Respondent No.1 cannot be
held solely liable for the entire amount claimed.
22.

Accordingly, both Respondents No.1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally liable to refund

the respective amounts received by them, along with applicable interest.
23

In view of the above findings, this Authority concludes that both Respondents have

failed to ensure registration of the plot despite having received substantial consideration. Such
failure attracts the provisions of Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, which mandates refund of the amount paid by the allottee along with applicable
interest for any delay or failure in handing over possession or performing obligations.
Respondent No.1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/-, with interest at the rate
prescribed under Section 18 of the Act and Respondent No.2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.
90,000/-, along with interest.
24.

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

marginal cost of funds-based lending rate + 2%), from the respective dates of payments made
by the Complainant to each Respondent, until full realization of the amounts by the
Complainant.
25.

Before parting with the matter, this Authority finds it necessary to record an advisory

observation for the benefit of allottees. Homebuyers must exercise reasonable care and
diligence in their financial dealings, especially in transactions involving immovable property. In
the present case, although substantial sums were allegedly transferred, the Complainant failed
to secure proper receipts or acknowledgments from Respondent No.1 for many payments.
Such omissions reflect lack of prudence and due diligence. Allottees are reminded that
transactions with agents or third parties must be backed by proper authorization, formal
documentation, and receipts. Blind reliance on verbal assurances or intermediaries without
adequate safeguards undermines the transparency and accountability objectives envisioned by
the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
6 of 9

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 Act
is enacted to ensure transparency, accountability, and consumer protection in the real estate
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 No. 1 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 1 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.
7 of 9

32.

In view of the above, Respondent No. 1 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.
33.

It is also pertinent to note that Complaint No. 1826 of 2023 was adjudicated conjointly

along with the present complaint and three other complaints, all instituted against the same
Respondents and arising out of the same real estate project. Upon a comprehensive
consideration of the collective facts, statutory violations, and material on record in all such
matters, the Authority adjudicated the issue of imposition of penalty in a consolidated manner.
Accordingly, penalty was imposed upon the Respondents, and Real Estate Agent is declared as
defaulter under Section 10(c) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.
34.

In view of the consolidated adjudication already undertaken in respect of the issue of

penalty, no further or separate adjudication on the question of penalty is warranted in the
present matter.

F. Directions of the Authority:
35.

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
prayed by him, and the same is allowed in his favour, and the Respondent is hereby directed as
follows:
1. Respondent No. 1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- (Rupees one Lakh
Ninety Thousand Only) along with interest as per Section 18 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 15 of TG RE(R&D)
Rules,2017.
2. Respondent No. 2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees Ninety Thousand
Only) along with applicable interest.
3. The applicable rate of interest shall be the highest marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR)
of the State Bank of India, currently at 9% per annum, plus an additional 2% per annum,
totaling 11% per annum. This interest shall be calculated on the entire amount paid by
the complainant, from the date of respective payments received by each respondent until
the date of full repayment.

8 of 9

4. Respondent 1 is directed to immediately cease advertising the project under a name
different from its RERA-registered name and ensure compliance with Section 12 of the
RE(R&D) Act to avoid misleading homebuyers.
36.

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

9 of 9