Order Complaint No. 190 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.190 OF 2024
9th Day of October 2025
Quorum:

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

Sheshrao Rathod S/o Tukaram, Aged 46 years
R/o. Flat No. 204, Bhargav’s Lakshmi Residency, Samatha Nagar,
Addagutta, Near Jiva Gurukulam. Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 500 085
…Complainant
Versus

1. Tammu Srinivas Rao S/o T. Narayana Rao, aged 58 years, Occupation
ADE/TRANSCO, Jogipet, Sangareddy
Hno. 1126, Ground Floor, Old MIG Phase-1, BHEL, Serilingampally, Ranga
Reddy District, Telangana -502032
2. BHEL Mayfair Mutual Aided Cooperative Housing Limited, President Regd
No. TSMC/DCO/RR/3800/2017
HNo. 2435, First Floor, Old MIG Phase-1, BHEL BHEL, Serilingampally, Ranga
Reddy District, Telangana -502032
3. Tammu Venkateswara Rao S/o T. Narayana Rao, aged 60 years, Ex BHEL
employee and CMD TVR Housing Private limited.
HNo. 1126, First Floor, Old MIG Phase-1,BHEL, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy
District, Telangana -502032
4. LIC Housing Finance Limited, Kukatpally Area Office
Ground Floor, D .No. 20-M-141, Sri Sai Balaji Towers, Matrusri Nagar, Opp.
Pillar No. 605, Near Miyapur, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.
5. Sub-Registrar office, Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District
Shankarpally, Hyderabad Ranga Reddy District - 501203
…Respondents
The present matters filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person, and learned Counsel for Respondents
No. 1- 3. Sri N.Rajeshwar Rao and Ms. Kavya Katta and learned Counsel for Respondent No.
4. Sri Hari Prasad Podila and Sri. C. Vishnuvardhan Reddy represented on behalf of
Respondent No. 5, upon hearing submissions made by both parties, and the matter reserved
over for consideration till this date, this Authority passes the present Complaints ORDER:
Page 1 of 25

---

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 “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. Briefs facts of the case as stated by the Complainants:

3.

The Complainant submitted that he has paid full and total sale consideration for the

villa (House Number- 483). However, Respondents 1,2 and 3 have not registered the villa in
favour of the Complainant even after extorting an additional bride of Rs. 7,00,000/-(Rupees
Seven Lakh Only) through black mail and constant threats.
4.

It is submitted that the Respondents 1, 2, and 3 are engaged in the business of

constructing houses and plots under the name "TVR Housing Private Limited." They exploit
the 1995 Societies Act by registering housing societies and have constructed approximately
2,178 villas (1200+678+300 units of 3 Societies) valued around Rs 1,450 Crore (420 Cr+700
Cr + 330 Cr). Although the business under the Societies Act is supposed to be non-profitable,
the respondents have earned undeclared secret profits of around Rs 100 Crore. They
manipulate society registrations by self-declaring themselves as presidents and appointing
executive board members from non-members, including their drivers, clerks, and family
members and draw salaries and book expenditures for their personal gains. They collude with
builders/landowners, blackmail members, demand bribes, and unilaterally increase unit
prices.
5.

It is submitted that the Complainant joined "BHEL Mayfair Mutually Aided

Cooperative Housing Society Limited" (Regd. No TSMC/DCO/RR/3800/2017) on 21-052018 by paying an advance amount of Rs 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakh only). This
included Rs 300/- towards share capital, Rs 1,000 towards membership fee, and Rs 50,000/towards office expenditure, legal audit, third-party inspection, and incidental charges. The
total sale consideration was initially offered at Rs 73,00,000/-, then increased to 88,00,000/-,
and then finalised at Rs 83,50,000/- for a villa measuring approximately 300 sq. yards with a
plinth area of 2316 sq. ft (ground plus first floor) in Kondakal Village. Shankarpally Mandal,
Ranga

Reddy

District,

as

per

HMDA-approved

plan

layout

permit

number

11/LO/Pig/HMDA/2018 dated 21-05-2018. The respondents issued an admission cum
allotment commitment letter on 21-05-2018 and a membership cum share certificate with
admission number 266 in a B-schedule property. The property was purchased in the society
Page 2 of 25

---

The Complainant submitted that on 15-05-2022, all members of the plot-wise

tabulated B-Schedule properties of document number 9863/2018 were allotted houses by a
lottery system after receiving full sale consideration, and the Complainant was allotted villa
house number 483. This information is available on the respondents' website "trvao.in."
7.

The Complainant submitted that in November 2022, the respondents started executing

conveyance deeds for B-schedule properties to respective allottees and asked for registration
charges of Rs. 17,500/-, which the Complainant paid on 11.11.2022 after the Society verified
all office clearances. The said amount of Rs. 17,500 X 678 unit was taken as a bribe to
execute the registered Conveyance Deed in favour of allottees. However, the respondents
later demanded more money and refused to register the allotted villa.
8.

It is further submitted that the Respondents 1, 2, and 3 are merely custodians of the

Complainant's allotted villa and do not hold legal ownership as absolute owners of the Bschedule property of document number 9863/2018 dated 04-10-2018. They are only
permitted to execute conveyance deeds in individual members' names.
9.

The Complainant submitted that on 21-09-2023, he approached the Government of

Telangana Cooperation Department, District Cooperative Officer (DCO), Ranga Reddy
District, who after examining the submitted evidence and documents, ordered Respondents 1
and 2 to register the allotted villa (number 483) in the Complainant's name. The Complainant
submitted the same order was sent to the respondents via registered post, email, and
WhatsApp, but the respondents chose to remain silent and inactive.
10.

The Complainant submitted that on 11-10-2023, the Complainant sent a request letter

along with the DCO order through registered post, but the respondents refused to accept it,
stating "no such person available, which amounted to an act of cheating and caused mental
agony to the Complainant.
11.

The Complainant submitted that on 01-11-2023, the Complainant took physical

possession of the allotted villa on the oral advice of DCO officials, who stated that having
membership-cum-share certificate, the Complainant is the absolute owner of Villa No. 483 as
per allotment of B-schedule property of document number 9863/2018 dated 04-10-2018 and
further advised to file a police case if anyone objects to occupation and peaceful living. The
Complainant has been in possession of the villa since then, and the respondents have

Page 3 of 25

---

The Complainant submitted that the respondents operate by forming housing

societies, attracting members with small initial amounts, and giving admission to the general
public as members. They make the members go for loans, purchase land with the members'
money, and register the land in the Society's name with a self-declared president. They then
form a pseudo board of executive members of their choice that generally includes their
drivers, clerks, office helpers, etc., and make unilateral decisions to gain money and take
commissions from builders. and blackmail members. This business model exploits members
by dictating terms and conditions, leading to a high profit legalised illegal business model
with zero investment and zero risk for the respondents. The Respondent no. 1 and 3 being
brother floated another society in the name of BHEL NAGNAR Mutually Aided Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd and made their brother Mr. Tammu Ravi Varma as President and
collected huge amounts as bribes without any single pie investments. There are several cases
pending against these societies and brothers of Respondent-1
13.

The Complainant further submitted that the respondents have formed three societies:

Society-1 "BHEL EMMACHS, Regd AMC/MDK/DCO/1959/2012," Society-2 "BHEL
Mayfair MACH, Regd TSMC/DCO/RR/3800/2017," and Society-3 "BHEL Nagnar MACH,
Regd TSMC/DCO/RR/3883/2019." And they have self-declared presidents, Respondent 3,
his younger brother (Respondent 1), and their elder brother, Mr. Tammu Ravi Verma, for
Societies 1, 2, and 3, respectively and they have unilaterally increased prices for each unit
and collected illegal cash ranging from Rs 20 Lakh to Rs 80 Lakh from each villa owner by
threatening and coercion. They have further colluded with construction companies for poor
quality delivery, earning hundreds of crores in undeclared, untaxed, secret money. The
societies, meant to be non-profitable, have been exploited for personal gain. Respondent 3.
Mr. Tammu Venkateswara Rao, resigned from BHEL employment in 2022 to avoid scrutiny.
The respondents have avoided conducting elections and continue to exploit the societies for
personal gain.
14.

The Complainant submitted that there are Pending Cases and Registration Issues

against the respondents, including CC 1721/2023/TS RERA for forging lay-outs in Society-3
"BHEL Nagnar" and another case CC No. 7/2024/ TS RERA against Respondents 1, 2, and
3. Approximately 60 villa houses, including mortgaged ones, are yet to be registered due to
non-payment of illegal bribes demanded by the respondents. While all members paid around

Page 4 of 25

---

The Complainant submitted that Respondent-2 is not registered under RERA, though

it is covered under RERA. Respondents 1 to 3 informed all the members at the time of
collecting advance amounts that the society is registered under the RERA Act. But they
cheated the members, and they are liable for punishment under the RERA Act.
16.

The Complainant further submitted that he had paid the total sale consideration of

villa costs and the GST also collected by Respondent-1,2 & 3, but no GST returns submitted
to the members. Due to undue pressure by Respondent 1 to 3. Rs 7,00,000/- bribe also paid to
Respondent-1 and he issued a receipt for Rs 7,00,000/- also, but not registering Conveyance
Deed in the Complainant's favour and demanded a further bribe, saying that the villa costs
have increased
17.

The Complainant submitted that the cause of action arose on 21-05-2018 when the

complainant took admission and a letter of allotment commitment and membership-cum
share certificate and paid an advance amount of Rs 7,00,000/-, including the charges for
admission, shares and office expenses; and that on 15-05-2022, when the villa no. 483 has
been allotted to the Complainant by lottery after final payment and received no-objection
clearance certificate; and on 06-07-2019 and 17-05-2022 when the Respondent-1 to 3 took Rs
7,00,000/- as bribe and Respondnet-1 gave cash receipt (Supported by receipts, bank
statement and Voice recording) to the complainant; and on 01.11.2023 when the complainant
took the physical possession of allotted Villa 483 and since then in continuous physical
possession; and the Respondent-1 to 3 failure to act on their part to register allotted villa no.
483 on the Complainant's name, despite being in receipt of full payment and being directed
by the relevant authorities, constitutes the cause of action in this case.

B. Relief(s) Sought
18.

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

under:
1. To Direct the Respondent 1, 2, 3 to immediately register Villa Number 483 in the
name of the Complainant; and
2. To Direct the Respondent 1, 2, 3 to repay the bribe amounting to Rs 7,00,000/(Rupees Seven Lakh only) to the Complainant, and

Page 5 of 25

---

C. Counter Statement Filed by 2nd Respondent
19.

It is further recorded that Respondents No.1 and 3 have filed a Memo before this

Authority stating that they adopt the counter filed by Respondent No.2 and requested that the
same may be treated as their reply. The said request has been permitted and accordingly, the
counter filed by Respondent No.2 stands adopted on behalf of Respondents No.1 and 3 as
well.
20.

The Respondent No.2 filed a reply/counter stating that it is a Society, represented by

its President, which has gone through the averments in the affidavit filed by Petitioner, and
the same are hereby denied as false and incorrect, except those which are specifically
admitted hereunder.
21.

It is submitted that the society initially entered into an agreement dated 11.02.2018

with M/s. Greenmark Properties rep by Gorantla Kalyan Reddy for the purchase of 618 plots
out of 678 plots. Accordingly, four (4) sale deeds were executed on 04.10.2018, and the land
owner agreed to sell the remaining plots, which were mortgaged with HMDA and builders'
Page 6 of 25

---

It is submitted that the 2nd Respondent, being a Society with an intention to provide

the housing Plots to its members, having collected the amounts from its Members, purchased
the Plots from its original owners, and with the permission of the members, entered into a
construction agreement with M/s. Greenmark Properties for making necessary constructions
over the Plots, ie. Villas with the permissions obtained from the concerned authorities. In this
process, the 2nd Respondent neither developed the land nor made any constructions and also
not received any commissions, charge or fees or remuneration from the members. Therefore,
the 2nd Respondent does not fall within the ambit of the RERA Act. Hence, the complaint is
not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
23.

It is submitted that the Builder, i.e. M/s. Greenmark Properties, having registered this

subject Project under the RERA Act vide Certificate dated 13.3.2019, obtained permission
for construction of Villas on completion of the project and was issued the Occupancy
certificate dated 29.12.2022 (despatched on 6.2.2023). It is relevant to state that the Society
(2nd Respondent) executed the conveyance deed in favour of all the members, and they are in
possession of their respective villas.
24.

It is submitted that Complainant filed present complaint U/s.31 of RERA Act on the

ground that Respondents No.1 to 3 having received total sale consideration for Villa No.483
failed to register the same even after extracting additional amount of Rs.7.00 Lakhs towards
bribe through blackmail and constant threats and inter alia sought for relief to direct the
Respondents No.1 to 3 to register the Villa No.483 in the name of the Complainant and to
repay an amount of Rs7.00 Lakhs and to compensate the Complainant for rental losses and
damages of Rs.25.00 Lakhs and also claimed Rs.2.00 Lakhs towards legal charges and
expenses etc. The Respondent No.2 categorically deny all the claims as the same are not
maintainable and sustainable under law against the society.
25.

It is submitted that Complainant, in order to seek registration of Villa, made all false

and baseless allegations against Respondents No.1 to 3, and there is no material documentary
admissible evidence to substantiate the allegations and claims made in the complaint. Hence,
all the material baseless allegations are denied by the 2nd Respondent and further take a plea
that the complaint itself is not maintainable against the Society, in view of the completion of
the Project and issuance of the occupancy certificate much prior to the filing of this
complaint.

Page 7 of 25

---

That one Mr. B. Rajesh Kumar has paid membership fee of Rs.5.00 Lakhs on

26.02.2018 by way of Cheque No.000051 drawn on HDFC Bank on receipt of such payment
the said member was given membership vide admission No.266 and said B. Rajesh Kumar
further paid a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs on 20.9.2018 (total Rs.10.00 Lakhs) and he was given
admission letter dt. 02.08.2018, but subsequently said member through his Father, Sri. B.
Venkata Ramana Reddy expressed his intention to withdraw the membership and requested a
refund of the advance amount. Accordingly. Sri. B. Venkata Ramana Reddy was given a
refund of the membership advance of Rs. 10 Lakhs vide Cheque No.545809 dt. 3.2.2019.
27.

It is submitted that to give the genesis of admission and allotment made to the

Complainant. As seen from the society record, initially Complainant on 30.4.2019 issued a
post-dated Cheque dt. 9.5.2019 for Rs.25.00 Lakhs in favor of society and with a request not
to present in Bank, and assured that it will be cleared in due course. The society, in view of
the cancellation of the membership of Sri. Rajesh Kumar, allotted the admission Number 266
to the Complainant on submission of application on 30.4.2019 in Form J for membership.
28.

It is submitted that the Complainant was issued an admission cum allotment letter

dated 21.5.2019, and the Complainant admittedly made payment of Rs. 7 lakhs to the society,
which includes admission fees, etc. It is to be noted that there is a typographical mistake in
the issuance of the allotment letter to the Complainant, and the year was wrongly typed as
2018 instead of 2019, and this could be established from the payments made by the
Complainant, and actual payment commenced only from 6.7.2019, and there is no payment
made prior to 2019. Therefore, it cannot be said that Complainant was admitted as a member
and was given an allotment letter on 21.05.2018. The Complainant applied for a bank loan,
and the same was sanctioned, and an amount of Rs. 7.00 Lakhs was paid, and subsequently
paid further instalments to the society against the Villa.
29.

It is further submitted that in 2018, in all the allotment letters issued to the Members,

the Villa Cost was shown as Rs. 73.00 Lakhs and GST for members who were admitted in
2018. Subsequently, due to enhancement of rates, the Villa cost was enhanced to Rs.
83,50,000/- and since the Complainant joined later, i.e. in May 2019, the Villa cost was
shown as Rs. 88.00 Lakhs and GST and other expenses as evident from the Admission Letter
issued to the Complainant. Admittedly, Complainant has paid a total sum of Rs . 83,50.000/+ GST totalling to Rs . 96,68,670/-, and if the Villas cost is taken as Rs . 88.00 Lakhs as
shown in the allotment letter dated. 21.5.2018 (2019) the Complainant is still liable to pay
around Rs . 5,09,310/- and penalties for delayed payment if the GST is calculated. Therefore,

Page 8 of 25

---

It is submitted that all the allottees of 2nd Respondent society got the conveyance

deeds registered on their names and accordingly they have formed a welfare society namely
Mayfair Visista Villa Owners Mutually Cooperative Maintenance Society and apparently the
said society who is controlling and managing the affairs of the society is not
impleaded/shown as a party Respondent to this case. Further it is to be noted that even in the
absence of payment of full consideration and without there being issuance of NOC and
conveyance deed by 2nd Respondent, the Welfare society put the Complainant in possession
in Villa No.483. It is also relevant to state that the entire subject project which is registered
under RERA Act is completed and Occupancy certificate was issued on 29.12.2022,
therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable against the society. Further submit that 2 nd
Respondent represented by 1" Respondent do not fall within the meaning of promoter or real
estate agent, therefore, RERA case is not maintainable against 2nd Respondent. Hence the
complaint is liable to be dismissed.
31.

It is relevant to state that Complainant admittedly paid an amount of Rs. 7.00 Lakhs

towards membership fees to the society on 06.07.2019, and it cannot be presumed that the
complainant got the allotment letter on 21.5.2018 when the allotment letter of Rajesh Kumar
was given on 2.8.2018 on payment of Rs. 5 lakhs. Nevertheless, the Complainant, instead of
making the balance amount to the society for getting the conveyance deed executed by the
society making all false and baseless allegations against the society and its president.
32.

It is submitted that the contention of the Complainant that in Para 4.1 that

Respondents No. 1 to 3 failed to register Villa even after extorting an additional bribe of Rs.
7.00 Lakhs through blackmail and constant threats is totally false and in fact there was no
necessity for Respondents to demand extra amount towards sale consideration and in fact the
Complainant failed to pay the total sale consideration of Rs.88.00 Lakhs towards Villa cost
and GST etc., as per allotment letter as agreed and there is still balance of Rs.5,09,310/- is
due and payable towards sale consideration and other charges and penalties for Villa No.483
which has been allotted by the society after drawl of lottery. The 2nd Respondent society,
represented by its President, issued a no-objection certificate dated 14.5.2022 for lottery
allotment and to forward for the allotment, and this was issued by the society. The
Complainant is still liable to pay the balance of Rs . 5,09,310/- and other charges for the
delay.

Page 9 of 25

---

It is submitted that the Complainant made an allegation against Respondents No 1 to 3

that they are engaged in the business of houses and plots under the name of TVR Housing
Pvt. Ltd. and that they exploited the 1995 Act, though the society is supposed to be nonprofitable and that Respondents have earned undeclared secret profits of Rs. 100 Crores and
that manipulated the society registrations and colluded with the builders, land owners and
blackmail the members and demand bribes and unilaterally increased unit prices and
declaring themselves as President and the Executive Board members are from non-members,
including drivers and clerks, is totally incorrect. The Complainant made all false and
imaginary allegations to tarnish the reputation of the society and its President, and also the 3
Respondents, who are in no way connected with the subject property. The complainant is
making false allegations going beyond the scope and purview of the RERA Act.
34.

It is submitted that there is no bar for any individual or group of persons to form a

society with a common object of providing houses to the members by purchasing land from
land owners and constructing dwelling units through contractors. The RERA Act made it
clear that unless and until the society or a person is not in receipt of any
remuneration/commission/charges etc., for selling the plot or house or individual house it
cannot be termed as real estate agent and further the Section 2 (z) (k) defines the promoter. In
the present case, the society, with due respect to RERA Authority, does not fall within the
scope of RERA and Respondents No. 1 and 2 in no way benefited as alleged by the
Complainant, and 3 Respondent is in no way connected with the project.
35.

It is submitted that in this case, the 2nd Respondent society neither developing or

developed the land into plots nor made any constructions on its own. The Complainant is
aware that the society purchased the plots from landowners and, by appointing the builder,
constructions were made. Therefore, the 2nd Respondent represented by the 1 Respondent
does not fall within the definition of promoter or real estate agent Therefore, Complainant
cannot make any unwanted & baseless allegations against Respondents No.1 to 3.
36.

It is submitted that the contention of the Complainant that he joined as a member of 2

Respondent society on 21.5.2018 on payment of certain charges and he was given allotment
letter dt. 21.5.2018 is factually not correct. In fact as per the membership letter cum allotment
letter date as 21.5.2018 but Complainant has not made any payment till 6.7.2019. It is evident
from Complainant record-there is no document or payment receipt produced to show that he
has paid membership fees and other charges on 21.5.2018. The Complainant made payment
for the first time only on 6.7.2019. The admission No.266, as stated above, was initially
allotted to one Sri. Rajesh Kumar and on its cancellation, admission No.266 was given to
Page 10 of 25

---

It is submitted that 2nd Respondent take an objection for non-impleadment of

builder/owner and developer i.e. Greenmark Properties Pvt. Ltd. as a party to the present
case. The Complainant, with the intention to harass and cause damage to the reputation of the
2nd Respondent and its President, filed this case without any valid and sustainable cause of
action. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed. The Complainant, instead of
impleading the necessary parties, i.e. Developer and Welfare Society, to the present case,
wrongly impleaded the 3rd Respondent, who is in no way connected with the subject matter
relating to the 2nd Respondent society. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder mis-joinder for parties.
39.

It is submitted that the contention of the Complainant that he has paid sale

consideration of Rs . 83,50,000/- towards the cost of Villa is not correct. The contention of
Complainant that the society demanded Rs.7.00 Lakhs towards for payment of bribe and he
has paid Rs.3.00 Lakhs and Rs.4.00 Lakhs is totally false and hence denied. Further
contention of the Complainant that the Respondents collected Rs.17,500/- towards
registration charges as a bribe and later demanded more money and refused to register Villa
is totally false and incorrect. The document writer is for the purpose of registration expenses
collected from members, for which the society is not responsible.
40.

It is submitted that in reply to the contention of Complainant with regard to legal

ownership etc., the society or its managing committee never claimed any ownership or title to
the B-Scheduled property dated. 4.10.2018 and it is true on payment of full consideration
Villas have been registered by execution of conveyance deed in favor of all the members
except Complainant. The Complainant was relying on the alleged receipt said to have been
issued by the secretary of the Society to substantiate his contention that said amount has been
paid as bribe is totally false and incorrect. Whether complainant paid Rs. 3 lakhs on 6.7.2019
to Janardhan Reddy or not is a question of fact, because the said alleged receipt was not
issued by Respondent No. 1 to 3, therefore, for the transaction between a member and
Janardhan Reddy in his individual capacity the Society cannot be held responsible in the
absence valid document before the court. Moreover, the said receipt dt. 6.7.2019 is subject to
proof and relevance and the signature on the said receipt is yet to be proved by its original
signatory. who is not a party to the present case.
Page 11 of 25

---

It is submitted that it is true that DCO addressed a letter to society for registration of

Villas to members and it is not correct to say that Respondents 1 to 3 refused to accept same.
As a matter of fact, the society being registered under MACS Act, 1995 is under control of
DCO, therefore, it cannot refuse to follow the instructions issued by the office of DCO from
time to time. The contention that the notice issued by DCO was refused by society is not
correct and it could be seen from postal tracking at page No.23 of Complainant documents it
is only shown as returned as no such person in the address. Therefore, it cannot be said that it
is rejected. The Complainant wrongly interpreted postal tracking.
42.

It is submitted that admittedly the Complainant took the possession of allotted Villa

and he is residing in the said Villa from 1.11.2023 and it is not correct to say that
Respondents 1-3 remained inactive. Further contention of the Complainant that Respondents
being Co-operative Society involved in mis using the act provisions is not correct. At Para
No.10 of the complaint Complainant made all false and baseless allegations against
Respondents No.1 to 3 that they are self-declared President and running the society with
pseudo board and Board of Executive members of their choice including Drivers, Clerks,
Officer Helpers etc. and taking unilateral decisions to gain money from builder and blackmail
the members is totally false and incorrect. The Complainant with ill-motive making all false
allegations and also unnecessarily involved the other family members of Respondents and
made false allegations that they have collected huge amounts as a bribe without investment is
totally false and baseless. The Complainant failed to establish the allegations by documentary
evidence to sustain the allegations and from the averments and allegations it seems that the
Complainant using the RERA Authority as Platform to seek investigation or Inquiry under
MACS Act ete against the Respondent instead of pursuing his remedy in appropriate manner
as per the provisions of the Act for grievance if any.
43.

It is submitted that the contention of the Complainant that the Respondents floated or

formed three (3) societies and they have increased the unit cost and collected illegal cash and
they have further colluded with the construction companies for poor quality delivery and that
Respondents avoided the conduct of elections and continue to exploit the societies for
personal gain is equally false. It is submitted that forming the societies by the other family
members of 1" Respondent or 3rd Respondent is not a crime and Complainant unnecessarily
with a malafide intention enlarging the scope of present complaint and Complainant should
confine and make out his grievance against the Respondents within the scope of RERA Act.
An elaborate inquiry in the allegations under various other provisions of the laws, with due
respect to the RERA Authority, is not permissible.
Page 12 of 25

---

It is submitted that the Complainant at para 12 made a false allegation that the Villas

pertaining to BHEL Nagnar Society are yet to be registered- due to non-payment of illegal
bribe demanded by Respondents is totally false and incorrect and in fact in the case referred
i.e. CC No.7/2024 pertain to BHEL Mayfair Society and in that case the Villa was already
been registered in favor of its owner viz. Sri. Suresh Babu Rajoli, and there is no dispute
about that, and the other case referred to, i.e.CC No.1721/2023 pertaining to BHEL Nagar
Society and alleged forgery of layouts, is between the land owner and builder, and society has
nothing to do with the said dispute. Nevertheless, said case is yet to be adjudicated by RERA
and in fact Complainant therein did not raise any allegations against society, however,
Complainant in this case is, it seems. aggrieved for the grievances of others. Hence there is
no basis or merit in the said allegations and same is not connected with the present case.
45.

It is further submitted that in connection with the allegations/contentions made in

para 14 and 15 it is submitted that Complainant is making false allegations against
Respondents No.1 to 3 and there is no question of cheating or undue pressure by the
Respondents No.1 to 3 and the alleged bribe of Rs. 7.00 Lakhs alleged to have been paid
through 1" Respondent and he issued receipt by R1 is not correct and making further
demands for bribe is equally false. The Complainant is put strict proof of the same. The
Documents filed herewith would substantiate the case of the Respondents and there is no
merit in the RERA Complaint filed by the Complainant, hence the same are liable to be
rejected. The Complainant under guise of RERA case inviting this Hon'ble Authority to
probe the factual aspects of the cases of others filed against the Respondents No. 1 to 3 and
the Complainant. intentionally omitted to implead the necessary parties and trying to seek
relief beyond the scope of RERA by not complying his part of obligations under the Act.
46.

Further the in view of the above facts and circumstances, the 2nd Respondent

therefore pray that this Hon'ble authority may please to dismiss the complaint in CC No.
190/2024 against the 2nd Respondent and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Authority
deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
D. Rejoinder:
47.

The Complainant submits this Rejoinder in response to the allegations raised in the

Counter, the Complainant submits that in response to paragraph 13 of the written statement,
where the Respondents claim that the case does not fall within the scope of the RERA Act, it
is evident from paragraph 1 of counter statement that the Respondents 1-3 had formed the
Society before members joined. Respondent 1-3 identified the land, entered into an
agreement with the landowner-cum-builder, and then invited members to join the Society by
Page 13 of 25

---

Furthermore, subsequent to the construction, the act of registering the allotted houses

in members' names by Respondents 1-3 after taking full and final payment constitutes selling.
Document number 10, page 21 of the main complaint, provides clear evidence that
Respondents 1 and 2, specifically the Society's President, acquired a house for just Rs 5 lakh
and failed to pay their dues along with other members, which amounts to a form of
remuneration, albeit fraudulent. Additionally. Respondent 3 opted for pre-retirement to form
Societies and engage in real estate business.
49.

Hence, the case unequivocally falls under the jurisdiction of the RERA Act, and the

claim in Paragraph 13 of the written statement is demonstrably false.
50.

With regard to Paragraphs 7, 8, and 11 of the written statement have been deliberately

manipulated to misrepresent the facts and justify the failure to register the villa in the
complainant's name. The Respondents have presented a distorted narrative by providing
partial truths regarding the joining date and the sale consideration. These half-truths are
intended to mislead and do not reflect the complete facts of the case.
51.

The respondents claim of Complainant joining date 21.05.2019 using typographical

error reason is false and even 21.05.2018 indicated in allotment cum commitment letter in
Complaint is also false. The actual date of joining was in July 2019, not May 2019. The
complainant joined on 05.07.2019 with the first payment of Rs 7 lakh. The date mentioned in
the allotment-cum-commitment letter, 21.05.2018, coincides with HMDA permission date.
This is not a typographical error but a deliberate action by Respondents 1-3 to extort money
and provide fraudulent favouritism to the complainant. The complainant has relied on the
allotment-cum-commitment letter issued by Respondents 1-3 to accurately state the date of
joining the Society in the main complaint. In view of payment of total amount of Rs 83.5
lakh, the complainant name was added to the lottery of allotment and in the lottery the
complainant was allotted villa no. 483. If the amounts are due to the Respondents, as stated in
their Counter Statement, they could not have added the Complainant name in the lottery. Out
of 618 villas, only 615 villas are put for lottery. 60 villas are mortgage and other reserved
villas total are 678. All the villas are constructed with members payment but benefit of other
villas are not transferred to members which against Societies Act 1995.

Page 14 of 25

---

The wrongful claim of a sale consideration of Rs 88 lakh is not due to the

complainant's late joining, but rather a price escalation plan that was under consideration by
Respondents 1-3 at the time of the complainant's admission, which applied to all members.
This plan is clearly outlined in document number 13, page 18 of the main complaint, but it
has been concealed in the written statement. In line with para 3 of main Complaint, the
Respondent 1-3 planned to increase the price by Rs 15 lakh on Rs 73 lakh initial amount
which turns to Rs 88 lakh to all members, which includes all amenities. The price variation
was linked to amenities even in allotment cum commitment letter, which is why the sale
consideration of Rs 88 lakh was not fixed at the time of the complainant's admission. The
price was finalized after four months, on 11.11.2019, at Rs 83.5 lakh.
53.

Revised payment schedule is sent through WhatsApp by General Secretary on

20.07.2020 for Rs 83.5 lakh only and the same is reflected in payment details in counter
statement document number 13. Upon full and final payment, Respondents 1-3 issued a NoDues certificate for Rs 83.5 lakh on 14.05.2022. Additionally, LIC, the financer, disbursed
the final instalment only after confirming the full and final payment of Rs 83.5 lakh. The
Society ledger also reflects Rs 83.5 lakh as the total amount. Also, the 1995 Societies act
does not differentiate members based on joining date.
54.

Further, the full and final payment was confirmed by the issuance of a receipt for Rs

17,000 for registration charges, signed by Mr. Tammu Ravi Varma, the third brother of
Respondent 1-3, in his own handwriting, with a note stating that the dues had been cleared
from the Society office which also prove false claim in para 17. The Society's account
maintenance records also show no outstanding dues from the complainant.
55.

Therefore, the liability claim in the written statement is a new fabrication by

Respondents 1-3, relying on a partial truth regarding the price indicated in the allotment-cumcommitment letter and a blatant lie about the typographical error on the date of joining, in an
attempt to deceive the RERA Authority and avoid registering the allotted villa house in the
complainant's name. The delay in registration is growing financial burdens on Complainant,
as LIC, the housing loan financier, is not giving additional loans needed for woodwork,
preventing the complainant from fully utilizing the villa leading to rental loss.
56.

With regard to Paragraph 9 of the counter, the Respondent claim completion of

project and occupancy certificate dated 29.12.2022 whereas the Respondent's call for
emergency GBM dated 24.06.2023 calls to review of progress of project and work status.
Further the page 30 of document number 13 of main complaint, a letter by members says no
progress of work in Jan-Feb 2023. Hence the claim of project completion on 29.12.2022 is
Page 15 of 25

---

The builder is doing remaining work at a very slow pace with buyer's maintenance

funds. The incompletion of the project lead to poor occupancy, which discouraged vendors
from providing necessary facilities making difficult to stay at city outskirt. As a result, the
complainant has suffered significant losses, with the value of the villas now less than half of
that of neighbouring properties.
58.

The Respondents 1-3 claimed in Paragraph 19 that their Society operates under the

control of the District Cooperative Officer (DCO) as per the Societies Act of 1995 is false.
The Respondents failed to comply with the DCO's directive to register the allotted villa in the
complainant's name. Additionally, in violation of section 3(b) which is heart of 1995
Societies act, the Respondents 1-3 neither conducted elections nor submitted election details
to the DCO, as evident in document number 9 of main complaint, an RTI reply from the
DCO. Further, in the same document it is evident that the Respondents not even submitted
details of members to DCO. By leveraging the loosely regulated framework of the DCO,
Respondents 1-3 sought to evade from RERA Authorities and requested the case closure by
citing the applicability of the RERA Act in their Counter statement. The office of Respondent
1-3 is full of their relatives and family members. All the records of the Society is in the hands
of them and they are manipulating the records as per their choice.
59.

The primary reason for registering the Society under the 1995 Act was to bind buyers

under its provisions, as indicated in Point 5 of Page 14 of the Counter statement and continue
real estate business with zero investment and zero risk.
60.

The facts mentioned in Paragraph 6 were never disclosed to the complainant With

malicious intent, Respondents 1-3 concealed these facts and coerced the complainant into
paying money by claiming, "one more member having the same admission number". This
action by Respondents 1-3 has caused significant mental anguish to the complainant. The
Respondent 1-3 removed several members and added in their place and did real estate
business without any investments by blackmailing tactics and assigned the same admission
numbers to the newly inducted purchasers. Everyone in the Society knows that even the
President that is Respondent 1 removed one member and added his name in that place in the
allotment list just before the week days of allotment. The Respondent 3 also added several
other persons just before the week of allotment and he has several villas in the benami names
Page 16 of 25

---

The legal right to the allotted villa house number 483, as claimed by the complainant,

is confirmed by Respondents 1-3 in Paragraph 18 of the written statement.
62.

The complainant has exclusively dealt with Respondents 1-3 from the initial

agreement through to the full and final payment for purchasing the villa. There has been no
involvement of M/s Greenmark Properties or the Mayfair Visista Villa Owners Mutually
Aided Cooperative Society in this transaction. Therefore, Respondents 1-3's objection
regarding the non-inclusion of these parties is invalid.
63.

The use of the name "TVR" in the office and website names clearly refers to

Respondent 3, who is conducting real estate business under the guise of the Society.
Respondent 3 has established multiple Societies in the names of different family members,
one after another, to continue real estate business with zero investment and zero risk. Thus,
Respondent 3 is a central figure in the cause of action.
64.

The Respondents did not explicitly deny the documents submitted by the complainant

and instead produced additional documents to falsely impose extra liability on the
complainant. This appears to be an attempt to obscure the real reason for not registering the
villa in the complainant's name, which is tied to financial extortion. The Respondents' denial
of the allegations made in the complaint is largely unsubstantiated and unsupported by any
credible documents. Therefore, the complainant respectfully prays to the RERA Authority for
appropriate relief.
65.

The Complainant in his rejoinder have sought same relief in Complainant.

E. IA field by the Complainant
66.

The Complainant filed an IA to direct Respondent Nos. 1 -3 to produce the documents

to substantiate his contention and disprove Respondent 1-3's contentions. It is proper and
necessary to summon the following documents from the custody of Respondents 1-3.

Page 17 of 25

---

F. IA Counter by the Respondent
67.

It is submitted that Petitioner originally filed a Complaint and inter alia sought for

relief to direct the Respondents No.1 to 3 to register Villa No.483 in the name of
Complainant besides compensation etc., and Respondents No.1to3 filed their counter
opposing the reliefs and maintainability of complaint under RERA Act against the
Respondents No. 1 to 3 and also for non impleadment of necessary parties viz. The developer
and the Welfare society, which is currently managing the affairs of all the purchasers/owners
of villas.
68.

The Respondents No. 1 to 3 raised a specific plea that 2nd Respondent is not a Real

Estate Agent under Sec. 2(zm) of RERA nor Promoter as defined under Sec. 2 (zk) of RERA,
besides a plea non joinder of necessary parties to the lis. The Petitioner, on filing of counter
statement, filed a reply statement and also filed the present application seeking production of
documents which are not relevant.
69.

It is submitted that Petitioner / Complainant, pending adjudication of the above CC,

filed the present application for production documents viz.
1. Membership Registers of all 678 Members and their joining
2. Audit reports from the year 2018 to 2023-24
3. Cash Book from the year 2018 till date
4. Minutes Books of the society from 2017
Page 18 of 25

---

The case of the Petitioner is that the counterstatement filed by the Respondents

necessitated the filing of this Petition for the production of documents in order to disprove the
contentions of the counterstatement. The contentions raised and grounds pleaded in the
affidavit are totally incorrect, hence denied. The Petitioner has to prove his case on his own
merits and documents sought for are not relevant for adjudication of the issue in the present
complainant.
71.

The case of the Petitioner succinctly is that 2nd Respondent society failed to register

Villa No.483 even after receipt of total sale consideration and society is responsible for
delaying the registration and accordingly sought for registration of villa besides a claim for
compensation etc. The contentions and pleadings are categorically denied by 2nd Respondent
society in its counter and Petitioner in his Complaint stated that he joined as a member in
2018 and it is was refuted by society, again in Reply affidavit he changed his version and
stated that actual date of joining was July 2019, therefore, petitioner often taken inconsistent
stand to substantiate his version. Further, the petitioner is interested to probe into the affairs
of the society i.e. conduct of meeting and elections and minutes of meeting etc. which are in
fact beyond the scope of main relief in complaint.
72.

It is submitted that the Respondent society has taken a plea in its counter that the

Complaint is not maintainable against the society as it does not fall within the scope and
ambit of RERA either as a Real Estate Agent or Promotor; therefore, the complaint is to be
dismissed. Admittedly, complaint in connivance with the Maintenance society, which was
formed with the owners of Villas, took the possession of Villa No. 483 without any
registration of conveyance deed executed by 2nd Respondent society. Nonetheless, Petitioner
raised a grievance of non-registration of villa despite, according to him, payment of total
consideration; however, going further Petitioner is making allegations against the
Management of the society vis-à-vis its functioning etc. and, with due respect, it is submitted
that these pleadings are not within scope or domain of this Hon'ble Authority.
73.

It is submitted that the documents mentioned above, which are now sought for, i.e. Ito

4 and 6 to 10 are not relevant to the issue involved in the case. The document, i.e. payment
Page 19 of 25

---

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the 2nd Respondent therefore pray that

this Hon'ble authority may please to dismiss the IA /2025 in CC No.190/2024 against
Respondents No. 1 to 3 and pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Authority deem fit and
proper in the interest of justice.
75.

This Authority found that the IA filed is not relevant to the present case, and the same

was dismissed
G. Proceedings:
76.

Before proceeding to the observations on merits, it is pertinent to clarify a preliminary

aspect regarding the array of parties. The Complainant, in the present case, has addressed the
second Respondent as “President, BHEL Co-operative Society.” Upon being questioned
during the hearing, the Complainant submitted that his intention was to implead the Society
as Respondent No. 2, and that the reference to the President was only in a representative
capacity. Hence, Respondent No.2 is described and referred to accordingly in the cause title.
77.

It is therefore evident that Respondent No. 1 represents the President of the BHEL

Mayfair Mutual Aided Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., whereas Respondent No. 2 refers
to the Society itself, which is the concerned entity in the present dispute. No objections have
been raised by the Respondents in this regard, and all subsequent submissions have been
made on behalf of the Society.
78.

The Authority notes that no confusion or prejudice has arisen during the course of

proceedings on this account, and the misdescription appears to be a bona fide and inadvertent
error committed by a layperson without legal assistance.
79.

Since this Authority functions under a beneficial legislation intended to protect the

interests of allottees and promote substantive justice, it cannot dismiss a complaint merely on
account of a technical or typographical error. Accordingly, it is clarified that Respondent No.

Page 20 of 25

---

Further, the Authority, vide Interim Order dated 19.12.2024, restrained Respondent

No. 2 from creating any third-party rights over the subject villa until the final disposal of this
complaint.

H. Points for consideration:
80.

After perusal of the documents filed by the parties and the contentions raised therein,

the following issues sprout for consideration by this Authority:
I.

Whether the present Complaint is maintainable before this authority?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for? If yes, to what extent?

I. Observation by the Authority:
Point -1
81.

The Respondents have, as a preliminary objection, contended that the present

complaint is not maintainable before this Authority, on the ground that Respondent No. 2,
being a Co-operative Housing Society, does not fall within the ambit of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It is their submission that the said Society had
merely purchased land from M/s. Greenmark Properties Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Director
Mr. Gorantla Kalyan Reddy, and subsequently entered into a construction agreement with the
same entity on 04.10.2018. The Respondents assert that the Society’s sole objective was to
facilitate housing for its members, that it collected contributions from them for the purchase
of land, and thereafter entered into a development arrangement with the said developer for
the construction of villas after obtaining requisite approvals. They further submit that the
Society neither undertook construction nor engaged in any commercial sale activity, nor did it
earn any commission or remuneration, and therefore cannot be treated as a “Promoter” or
“Real Estate Agent” under the RE(R&D) Act.
82.

In order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to refer to the definition of

“Promoter” as contained under Section 2(zk) of the Act, which inter alia includes:
(i) a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an independent
building or a building consisting of apartments, or converts an existing
building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all
or some of the apartments to other persons and includes his assignees; or
(ii) a person who develops land into a project, whether or not the person
also constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to
Page 21 of 25

---

83.

A plain reading of the statutory definition indicates that the legislature, with deliberate

intent, included co-operative housing societies within the ambit of “promoter” as they
undertake or facilitate construction or allotment of apartments or buildings to their members.
The underlying principle is that liability attaches to the role performed rather than to the form
or label adopted. The RE(R&D) Act is a beneficial legislation designed to ensure
accountability for every entity that engages, directly or indirectly, in real estate development
and allotment to buyers or members.
84.

In the present case, the material on record unmistakably shows that Respondent No. 2

performed acts squarely covered within the scope of promoter’s functions. The Society
collected funds from its members, purchased land in its name, entered into a construction
agreement with M/s. Greenmark Properties, issued admission and allotment letters, facilitated
registration of villas in favour of its members, and participated in advertisements and
promotional materials wherein the project was explicitly described as “Promoted by BHEL

Page 22 of 25

---

When such public representations have been made and promotional materials

categorically attribute the role of “promoter” to the Society, it is untenable for the same entity
to subsequently disclaim such status in proceedings before this Authority.
86.

It is a settled proposition that the obligations under the RE(R&D) Act are mandatory

in nature and cannot be circumvented by dividing the functions of construction, allotment,
and sale among different entities. The statutory explanation to Section 2(zk) expressly covers
the situation where one person constructs and another sells; both are deemed promoters. The
RE(R&D) Act creates a unified framework of accountability, ensuring that all entities
engaged in real estate development remain answerable to allottees and to the Regulatory
Authority.
87.

Therefore, upon consideration of the pleadings, documents, and promotional

materials, this Authority is of the considered view that the acts and conduct of Respondent
No. 2, namely, collection of funds, execution of construction agreements, issuance of
allotment letters, advertisement of the project, and facilitation of registration —
unequivocally establish that it has acted in the capacity of a Promoter within the meaning of
Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act.
88.

Accordingly, this Authority rejects the plea of non-maintainability raised by the

Respondents and holds that the present complaint is maintainable before this Authority, the
Respondent Society being squarely covered within the statutory definition of a Promoter
under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Point 2.
89.
The Complainant has submitted that despite payment of the entire sale consideration
amounting to ₹83,00,000/-, the Respondent has failed to execute and register the sale deed for
the subject villa. The Complainant contends that all payments were duly made, including
applicable GST, and that he has been in possession of the villa for a considerable period. The
grievance is thus confined to the Respondent’s failure to register the said villa in his name.
90.

Per contra, the Respondent has denied the claim of full payment and stated that as per

the records of the Society, the total villa cost was revised from ₹73,00,000/- (as applicable to
earlier members admitted in 2018) to ₹83,50,000/- and subsequently to ₹88,00,000/- for
members admitted later in May 2019, including the present Complainant. It is their
contention that the Complainant’s total liability was ₹88,00,000/- plus applicable GST and
Page 23 of 25

---

Upon perusal of the records, it is seen that the Complainant was issued an Admission

and Allotment Letter bearing No. 266, wherein the total cost of the villa was reflected as
₹88,00,000/-, subject to applicable taxes and registration charges. However, it is also an
admitted position that the Complainant was later issued a “No Objection Certificate” (NOC)
dated 14.02.2022 by the Respondent, certifying his eligibility for lottery allotment and further
confirming that the Society had no objection to forwarding his name for allotment.
Subsequently, a certificate dated 14.05.2022 issued by the Respondent once again recorded
that a total consideration of ₹83,50,000/- had been received from the Complainant and that
the Society had no objection to proceeding with registration. The said certificate further
mentions payment of ₹17,500/- towards registration charges.
92.

It is, therefore, inexplicable that the same Respondent, who issued a certificate

confirming receipt of the entire amount and granted possession, has now, after more than
three years, taken a contradictory stand alleging outstanding dues of ₹5,09,310/-. If indeed
any such balance was legitimately due, it is inconceivable that the Respondent would have
issued the aforesaid NOC, certified the Complainant for allotment, and allowed him to take
possession of the villa without raising a single written demand, notice, or objection over these
years. The Authority finds such conduct inconsistent and lacking in bona fides.
94.

It is also pertinent to observe that the Respondent’s explanation of “rate

enhancement” does not hold weight in the present circumstances. The documents placed on
record, particularly the allotment and certification letters issued by the Respondent, clearly
acknowledge the Complainant’s full and final payment of ₹83,50,000/-. Having accepted the
said amount as full consideration and issued a certificate to that effect, the Respondent cannot
now retract or raise new financial claims belatedly, that too only after the Complainant has
approached this Authority for registration.
95.

The Authority, therefore, finds merit in the Complainant’s contention that he has paid

the full and final consideration as acknowledged by the Respondent through its own
certifications. The belated plea of “balance due” appears to be an afterthought and is viewed
by this Authority as an attempt to mislead the proceedings and delay the lawful registration of
the villa.

Page 24 of 25

---

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Complainant is the rightful allottee and has

fulfilled his financial obligations as per the records available. The Respondent’s refusal to
register the villa is without just cause and contrary to its own documentary
acknowledgements.
97.

Consequently, the Respondent No. 2 is directed to forthwith execute and register the

Sale Deed in respect of the subject villa in favour of the Complainant within ten (10) days
from the date of this Order, failing which coercive action as per the provisions of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 shall be initiated.

J. Directions of the Authority:
98.

In view of the detailed observations made hereinabove and upon careful consideration

of the pleadings, documents placed on record, the submissions made by both parties, and
applicable provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, this Authority is of the considered opinion
that the Complainants are entitled to the following reliefs:
I.

The Respondent No. 2 is directed to register the villa no. 483 in the name of
Complainant within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of this order.

II.

With respect to the claim for compensation, the Complainant has the liberty to
approach the Adjudicating Officer by filing Form ‘N’.

99.

It is further made clear that failure to comply with the directions contained in this

Order shall attract the consequences stipulated under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
100.

The complaint is disposed of with these directions. 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 25 of 25

---