Order Complaint No. 195 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 189/2024
Complaint No. 195/2024
Complaint No. 196/2024
Complaint No. 288/2024
Complaint No. 311/2024
Dated: 3rd November 2025
Coram:

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

Beccun Life Style Cultural Asscoiation
(Rep by President, Gamidi Rama Chandra Rao Flat No.101, VM Residency, Mythrivan Colony,
Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad - 500011)
…Complainants
Versus
Beccun Infrastructures Limited
(Rep by Prashant Kumar Puram(Managing Director)andRatan Prasad (CEO and Authorised
Signatory), Office at 102, Model House, Panjagutta, Hyderabad – 500082)
…Respondents
The present matter, filed by the Complainant Association, came up for hearing on
before this Authority, in the presence of Sri G.Sumanth Kumar, Sri P Srinivas Reddy and Sri K
Sai Chaitanya, learned counsels for the Complainants, and S/Shri B.N. Radhakrishna Yadav, B.
Murlidhar Yadav, and B. Sreelatha, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
Upon perusal of the material placed on record, and after hearing the submissions advanced by
both parties, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the following order
is passed:

2.

ORDER:
The present matter comprises a batch of complaints instituted by the Complainant

Association, wherein all its members are allottees/purchasers of units in the project titled
“Beccun Life Style”. The Association, over time, has filed multiple complaints in Form ‘M’
before this Authority a total of five in number as the strength of its membership increased
subsequent to the filing of the initial complaint. To ensure inclusion of all newly inducted
members of the Association as Complainants, separate complaints were preferred. However, the
underlying facts, reliefs sought, and Respondent’s pleadings in all such complaints are
substantially similar.

1 of 26

---

Considering the commonality of issues involved and upon a specific request made by

the Complainant Association, and there being no objection raised by the Respondent to such
course of action, all the complaints have been clubbed together and are being adjudicated by
way of a common order.
4.

The present set of complaints have been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the RE(R&D) Act”), read
with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as “the TG RE(R&D) Rules”), seeking appropriate directions and reliefs
against the Respondent in respect of the project in question.
A. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the Complainants, are as follows:
5.

The present complaints have been filed by the Complainants, who are members of the

Flat Owners Association comprising purchasers of units in the project titled “Beccun Life
Style”, developed by M/s Beccun Lifestyle Infrastructure Ltd., situated at Kompally,
Hyderabad.
6.

The said project is a registered real estate project under the provisions of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, bearing Registration No. P02200001308. In addition
to this, the project also includes extensions for Block A and Block E, registered separately
under Registration No. P02200008689.
7.

The grievance of the Complainants primarily revolves around inordinate delays and lack

of transparency in the execution of the project. It is alleged that despite the lapse of more than
four years since their respective bookings, construction activity in Blocks A, A Extension, D,
and E has not commenced, and not a single brick has been laid in these blocks. While
Respondent had initially assured early completion, all work was subsequently halted without
any valid justification or intimation to the allottees.
8.

The Complainants submit that repeated attempts were made to contact the Respondent’s

office to seek clarity regarding the delay; however, no satisfactory responses were provided,
and the Respondent's representatives failed to provide any definitive status or timeline for
completion.
9.

It is further alleged that the Respondent engaged in unauthorized and unlawful sale of

flats beyond the sanctioned limits. Specifically, units were sold to several allottees on the 8th,
9th, and 10th floors of Blocks A, B, C, D, and E, and similar unauthorized sales were made in
2 of 26

---

The Complainants aver that more than 100 purchasers had invested in the project

between 2019 and 2021, based on the Respondent’s commitment to complete the project within
two years. However, even after the passage of nearly five years, no meaningful progress has
been made in the aforementioned blocks. It is submitted that in the last two years, the
Respondent has only managed to construct Blocks B and C up to the 7th floor, and beyond that,
construction has come to a standstill. The persistent inaction and non-responsive approach of
the Respondent have caused grave concern and apprehension among the members of the
Association with respect to the eventual completion of the project.
11.

The Complainants allege that the Respondent appears to lack the requisite financial

resources to complete the project and is suspected to have diverted or misused the funds
collected from the allottees. In this context, the Association has sought the intervention of this
Authority to ensure the completion of the project and to direct the Respondent promoter to
comply with its obligations under the RE(R&D) Act.
12.

It is further submitted that several allottees, having already paid more than 50% of the

total sale consideration, are entitled to receive compensation in the form of rent due to the
delay. The Respondent is also accused of failing to update the project status regularly on the
RERA web portal, in violation of the statutory requirement under the RE(R&D)Act.
13.

It is further submitted that after filing of the complaints before this Authority, the

Complainants began receiving threats and notices allegedly aimed at intimidating them into
withdrawing their complaints. The Complainants also allege that the Respondent arbitrarily
invoked the “force majeure” clause to justify price escalations and misrepresented internal
discussions as official meetings, thereby misleading the allottees into believing that the
increased cost was mutually agreed upon.
14.

Additionally, the Respondent is stated to have taken coercive steps towards unilaterally

terminating several Agreements for Sale and threatening forfeiture of amounts already paid by
the purchasers. It is also alleged that the Respondent collected payments for unauthorized flats
without securing necessary permissions or executing valid Memoranda of Understanding
(MoUs) or Agreements of Sale.

3 of 26

---

The Complainants submit that the Respondent continues to demand additional payments

under the pretext of invoking Clauses 14, 15, and 16 of the Agreement for Sale, all under the
guise of “force majeure”, which the Complainants contend is being used as a tool to unfairly
burden the purchasers and avoid the Respondent’s obligations under the project.
16.

The Complainants contend that the Respondent has breached the construction timelines

specified in the respective Agreements for Sale, resulting in considerable financial burden and
emotional distress for the purchasers.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
17.

In view of the aforementioned grievances and submissions, the Complainants have

sought the following reliefs from this Authority:
a) To direct the Respondent to deliver possession of the allotted flats in accordance with the
specifications, layout, and amenities as represented in the project brochure and promotional
material, including the promised amenities block.
b) To direct the Respondent to compensate each allottee with a sum of ₹15,000/- per month as
rental compensation, owing to the delay in handing over possession, as per the terms of the
Agreement for Sale.
c) To direct the Respondent to immediately execute and register the Sale Deeds before the
competent authorities in favour of:
i.

Allottees who have paid the entire sale consideration, and

ii.

Allottees who are willing to settle the balance consideration amount for semifinished units.

d) To restrain the Respondent from effecting any further sale or marketing of units in the
project until such time the Respondent fulfils its obligations toward the existing allottees,
particularly those who made payments more than four years ago and are yet to receive
possession.
e) To direct the Respondent to furnish copies of valid approvals and sanctioned building plans
concerning:
i.

Construction of 8th, 9th, and 10th floors in Blocks A, B, C, D, and E;

ii.

Construction permissions for Block A Extension and Block E.

f) To direct the Respondent to ensure that the project status is regularly and accurately
updated on the RERA website, strictly in compliance with the statutory requirements under
the Act and Rules.
4 of 26

---

All payments made by existing and future allottees shall be deposited, and

ii.

Said account shall be operated under the joint oversight of this Authority and
designated members of the Beccun Lifestyle Cultural Association, to ensure that
collected funds are used exclusively for completion of the present project and not
diverted for any other purpose.

i) To permit members of the Complainant Association to conduct monthly, peaceful, and
physical inspections of the site to monitor construction progress and ensure transparency.
j) To direct the Respondent promoter and co-promoters to pay interest to allottees for the
delay in completion of the project, in accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the
RE(R&D) Act.
k) In the event the Respondent promoter and co-promoters are found incapable or unwilling to
complete the project, to invoke the appropriate provisions of the RE(R&D) Act and take
necessary steps including:


Appointment of a third-party agency or project management consultant,



Change in promoter,



Or any other suitable measure deemed fit by this Authority to safeguard the
interests of the allottees and ensure project completion.

C. Respondent’s Reply:
18.

The Respondent has filed a detailed counter, wherein the maintainability of the

complaint has been challenged at the outset. It is submitted that the present complaint is liable
to be dismissed on the ground that it has been filed by a party which lacks locus standi under
the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
19.

The Respondent contends that the Complainant association, i.e., Beccun Lifestyle

Cultural Association, is neither a “promoter” nor an “allottee” within the meaning of the
RE(R&D) Act, and therefore is not competent to file the present complaint. It is submitted that
the Association is a cultural body, with objects that are confined to organizing games, cultural
5 of 26

---

It is further submitted that the Complainant association has deliberately suppressed its

aims and objects, which do not empower it to file or prosecute the present complaint. Hence,
the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
21.

It is alleged that the Association has suppressed its objectives and is acting beyond its

scope by filing the present complaint on behalf of flat purchasers. The Respondent therefore
submits that the Association is a stranger to the contract and has no privity with the
Respondent. Consequently, the complaint is not maintainable in law and is liable to be
dismissed at the threshold.
22.

The Respondent further states that the Association has no direct connection with the

Respondent’s project and has not been authorized by any registered deed or resolution to
initiate legal proceedings on behalf of individual allottees. On this ground as well, the
Respondent challenges the jurisdiction of this Authority to entertain the present complaint.
Without prejudice to the above, and in response to the allegations on merits, the Respondent
submits that the complaint is malicious and has been filed solely to tarnish the reputation of the
company and to extort money by creating public unrest.
23.

It is alleged that the members of the said Association have been actively interfering with

the progress of the construction. They are stated to have installed hoardings and cautionary
signboards around the project site, thereby deterring visitors, labourers, and vendors. The
Respondent alleges that this interference resulted in the exit of several labourers and site
engineers, causing severe disruption to ongoing construction activities.
24.

The Respondent submits that these actions have led to reputational damage, and have

dissuaded financial institutions from extending further funding to the project, despite prior
sanction letters. It is submitted that these obstructions and the publication of interim orders in
newspapers were done deliberately to create fear and mistrust among prospective purchasers
and financiers.
25.

The Respondent denies the allegation that payments were collected for unauthorized

flats or those sale agreements or MoUs were withheld. It is submitted that all transactions were
6 of 26

---

26.

For Blocks A and E Extensions, the RERA-approved completion date is 29.09.2027;
and
For the main project, the completion date is 2025.
It is contended that the purchasers are also under a legal obligation to make payments in

accordance with the terms of the Agreements for Sale. The Respondent alleges that certain
individuals associated with the Association, without knowledge of these facts, have levelled
unfounded accusations and are using the complaint process as a means of harassment.
27.

The Respondent further alleges that individuals such as G. Ramachander Rao, K.

Govardanam, and others have continuously created nuisance at the project site. It is stated that
on 26.08.2024, these persons disrupted construction and issued threats to workers, following
which a police complaint was lodged with Pet Basheerabad Police Station.
28.

It is also submitted that, in light of continued agitation, a meeting was convened

between the Respondent and the Complainants. Minutes of the said meeting, according to the
Respondent, record that the complainants undertook not to interfere with construction activities
and assured timely payment of their respective dues. It was further agreed that in the event of
default, the Respondent would be at liberty to issue demand notices and initiate cancellation
proceedings as per the terms of the Agreement for Sale.
29.

The Respondent submits that the complainants failed to honour these commitments.

When dues remained unpaid and site interference continued, the Respondent was compelled to
issue demand notices followed by cancellation of agreements. The Respondent asserts that such
actions are in accordance with the law and contractual terms, and cannot be interfered with by
this Authority, especially since no prayer for setting aside validly executed cancellation notices
is maintainable.
30.

It is further submitted that on 01.09.2024, the same group again obstructed work at the

site by raising untenable demands. In response, the Respondent filed O.S. No. 115 of 2024
before the Hon’ble II Additional District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, seeking
injunctive relief. The suit is presently pending.

7 of 26

---

The Respondent reiterates that the project is under active construction and is being

carried out in line with sanctioned plans and RERA timelines. It is specifically denied that there
is any liability to pay rent, register sale deeds, or execute any documents at this stage,
especially when the possession timelines have not yet expired.
32.

The Respondent denies all remaining allegations regarding fund diversion, illegal sale,

arbitrary cancellation, and invocation of force majeure clauses, and submits that these
allegations are made recklessly, without legal basis or supporting evidence. It is contended that
the documents filed by the Complainant are not legally valid, and the identities of several
signatories are questionable. Hence, on facts and on law, the complaint is devoid of merit and
deserves to be dismissed in limine.
Interim Directions: On 11.11.2024, this Authority issued interim directions restraining the
Respondent from creating any third-party interest over 78 units in the concerned project.
D. Points for Determination:
33.

Upon a thorough examination of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and after

considering the arguments advanced by the parties, the Authority is of the considered view that
the following issues arise for determination in the present matter:
1. Whether the Complainant Association has the requisite locus standi to maintain the present
Complaint before this Authority?
2. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as sought in the Complaint, including:
a) Whether any relief can be granted in respect of the units which have already been
encumbered by way of registered Agreements of Sale/AGPAs?
b) Whether the Complainants are entitled to a direction against the Respondent to complete the
project as per the representations made in the Brochure and to hand over possession in
accordance with the terms of the executed Agreements of Sale?
c) Whether the Respondent is liable to furnish the sanctioned plans and approvals, if any,
obtained from the competent authority in respect of the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of Blocks
A, B, C, D, F, and the extensions of Blocks A and E, and what is the legal status of the
allottees who have been allotted flats on the said floors, in case such floors are found to be
unauthorized?

8 of 26

---

The Respondent has raised a preliminary objection challenging the locus standi of the

Complainant Association, contending that it is merely a cultural association and, therefore, not
legally competent to institute proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016. It is further alleged that the Complainant has suppressed this material fact and
hence, the present Complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
35.

This Authority, however, is unable to accept the preliminary objection raised by the

Respondent. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to Section 31(1) of the Act, which provides as
under:
“Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating
officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this
Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or
real estate agent, as the case may be.”
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this sub-section "person" shall include the

9 of 26

---

36.

Further, as per Rule 2(1)(b) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)

Rules, 2017, the term “association of allottees” is defined as:
"a collective of the allottees of a real estate project, by whatever name called,
registered under any law for the time being in force, acting as a group to serve the
cause of its members, and shall include the authorized representatives of the
allottees."

37.

A cumulative reading of the above statutory provisions makes it evident that a collective

body formed by allottees of a project by whatever name called if registered under any law for
the time being in force and acting collectively to serve the cause of its members, qualifies as an
association of allottees competent to maintain a complaint under the RE(R&D) Act.
38.

In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Complainant Association comprises

allottees of the same project and has been formed with the objective of representing their
collective interests and grievances. Though the Association may not be registered under the
Telangana Societies Registration Act, it stands registered under another valid enactment and is
demonstrably functioning to safeguard the collective rights of its members.
39.

It is also relevant to note Section 11(4)(e) of the RE(R&D) Act on the promoter to

enable the formation of an association, society, or co-operative society of allottees. The proviso
to this section makes it clear that, in the absence of a local law, even a majority of allottees
shall have the right to form such an association.
40.

If the Respondent desired that a formal society be registered under the Societies

Registration Act, it was incumbent upon the promoter to facilitate such registration in
compliance with its statutory obligation. Having failed to do so, the Respondent cannot now be
permitted to take advantage of its own omission to question the legal standing of the
Complainant Association.
41.

This Authority is further of the view that there is no legal impediment to a collective of

allottees uniting to present their common grievances before this forum. The expression
“association of allottees” under the Act does not prescribe registration under any particular

10 of 26

---

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Complainant Association possesses the

requisite locus standi to maintain the present Complaint. The preliminary objection raised by
the Respondent is, therefore, rejected.
43.

The Complaint is held to be maintainable, and the Complainant Association is

recognized as a competent and representative body for the purpose of adjudicating the
grievances raised herein.
Point 1 answered accordingly
Point 2:
Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs as sought in the Complaint, including:
a) Whether any relief can be granted in respect of the units which have already been
encumbered by way of registered Agreements of Sale/AGPAs?
44.

The Complainant Association has brought to the attention of this Authority that twelve

units, namely: B-103, B-205, B-307, B-406, B-408, B-702, B-708, C-103, C-105, C-206, C-408,
and C-707, which were previously allotted to members of the Complainant Association, have
been subsequently encumbered by the Respondent by way of registered Agreements of
Sale/AGPAs with third parties.
45.

It is submitted that while the Respondent had earlier entered into Agreements for Sale

with the complainant allottees for the aforementioned units, the same units were subsequently
sold to third parties through registered documents executed in the year 2024. Crucially, the
Respondent has not offered any explanation or justification in their reply for this conduct,
thereby indicating deliberate suppression and bad faith.
46.

On careful examination of the Encumbrance Certificates and documents placed on

record, this Authority finds prima facie evidence that the Respondent has committed a double
sale of the said units first to the complainant allottees and thereafter to third parties without
lawful cancellation or termination of the original agreements.

11 of 26

---

This conduct of the Respondent is in blatant violation of Section 11(4) of the RE(R&D)

Act, which places a statutory obligation upon the promoter to comply with the terms of the
Agreement for Sale and to discharge all duties, responsibilities, and functions in accordance
with the Act, rules, and regulations made thereunder. Section 11(4)(a) to (d) imposes clear
accountability upon the promoter to act transparently, deliver possession as agreed, and refrain
from transferring units already allotted.
The Respondent’s silence in their reply regarding these serious allegations further

48.

reinforces the inference of mala fide intent. No evidence has been produced to show that the
earlier agreements with the complainant allottees were not cancelled, nor has the Respondent
furnished any material to indicate default on the part of those allottees. In the absence of any
such evidence, the Respondent’s conduct amounts to a wilful breach of statutory duty and a
fraudulent misrepresentation of title to the same unit.
49.

If such conduct is condoned merely on the ground that the units now stand registered in

favour of third parties, it would open the floodgates for repeated misuse by promoters, who
could enter into multiple agreements for the same unit and escape liability through technical
encumbrance. Such mischief is precisely what the RERA framework seeks to prevent to protect
the interest of genuine homebuyers and eradicate malpractices in the real estate sector.
50.

Therefore, although the specific units originally agreed to be sold to the complainant

allottees now stand encumbered, the Respondent cannot be absolved of liability. In the interest
of equity and in furtherance of the objectives of the RE(R&D) Act, the Respondent is hereby
directed to:
i.

Allot an alternate, unencumbered unit of comparable size, specifications, and value
within the same project to each of the affected allottees, in substitution of the
originally allotted units, and at the same consideration agreed under the original
Agreement for Sale.

ii.

The selection of such alternate units shall be undertaken in consultation with the
affected allottees and shall be completed within 30 days from the date of this Order.
However, in the event that no alternate units are available within the project which
fact shall be duly substantiated by the Respondent through copies of executed
Agreements for Sale and encumbrance certificates the Respondent shall refund the
entire amount received from such allottees along with applicable interest under
12 of 26

---

The Authority has carefully examined the submissions advanced by both parties, the

documents placed on record, and the relevant provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. It is not in dispute that the complainant allottees had executed
Agreements for Sale with the Respondent during the period 2019 to 2021. Each such agreement
contained a specific stipulation that the Respondent would complete construction and deliver
possession within 36 months from the date of execution, subject to reasonable extensions
permitted under the law.
52.

However, as admitted by the Respondent itself, construction activity in Blocks A, D and

E and in the extensions of Blocks A and E has not commenced even after more than four years
from the date of booking. The Respondent has attributed the delay to non-payment by
purchasers, site interference, and financial constraints allegedly caused by agitation and
negative publicity. The Authority finds such explanations neither convincing nor supported by
cogent evidence.
53.

The Respondent has relied upon the RERA-registered timelines, contending that the

main project’s revised completion date is August 2025, and that the extensions have a valid
registration till 29.09.2027. While registration validity provides a statutory outer limit, it cannot
override the binding contractual obligations voluntarily undertaken by the promoter under the
respective Agreements for Sale. The contractually committed possession date is an assurance to
the allottee, and delay beyond that period, without any substantiated force majeure event,
constitutes a breach attracting consequences under Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act.

13 of 26

---

It is observed from the record that the registration of the main project stands lapsed as

on 30.07.2025. The Respondent has obtained an extension only in respect of Block A and
Block B (Extension portions), and not for the project as a whole. As such, while certain
portions continue to have valid registration, the main project is deemed to have lapsed by efflux
of time.
55.

The Complainants have not invoked Section 8 of the RE(R&D) Act, which respectively

deal with completion of remaining development works either by the competent Authority or the
Association of Allottees. The relief sought in the present complaint is confined to a direction
for the Respondent to complete the project in accordance with the sanctioned plans and the
contractual commitments.
56.

In the ordinary course, upon lapse of registration, this Authority is empowered under

Section 8 of the RE(R&D) Act to entrust the remaining development work to the Association of
Allottees or to such competent authority. However, in the instant case, the Association has
categorically shown no interest to undertake the project’s completion on its own, and has
instead requested that the Authority substitute the promoter. This Authority reiterates that
substitution of a promoter is not an administrative act but a statutory consequence that can arise
only upon following the due process prescribed under Sections 7 and 8.
57.

In the present case, the Respondent has given a clear undertaking during the

proceedings that it is ready and willing to complete the project in its entirety. The Complainants
have also expressed their consent to such completion, provided it is time-bound and under the
supervision of this Authority. Accordingly, the Authority deems it appropriate to afford a final
opportunity to the Respondent to fulfill its obligations in a time-bound manner.
58.

Therefore, Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to submit, within thirty (30) days from

the date of this Order, a comprehensive roadmap indicating the proposed plan for completion of
the project. Such roadmap shall clearly specify the construction phases, activity-wise timelines,
and milestones, and shall be strictly in conformity with the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017.
59.

The Authority emphasizes that the completion of the project and delivery of possession

are matters of utmost public importance, as they directly involve the hard-earned savings of
14 of 26

---

The Authority shall monitor compliance through periodic progress reports to be filed

every three months, failing which appropriate action under the provision of RE(R&D) Act may
be initiated.
61.

Thus, while granting this limited opportunity, the Authority makes it clear that any

further default or failure by the Respondent to adhere to the timelines shall automatically attract
consideration under Section 8 for the purpose of ensuring project completion through alternate
means in the larger interest of the allottees.
62.

Therefore, the Respondent is squarely liable to complete the project strictly in

accordance with the sanctioned plans, approved specifications, and the timelines stipulated
herein, and to hand over possession to allottees without any further delay or deviation.
c) Whether the Respondent is liable to furnish the sanctioned plans and approvals, if any,
obtained from the competent authority in respect of the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of Blocks A, B,
C, D, F, and the extensions of Blocks A and E, and what is the legal status of the allottees who
have been allotted flats on the said floors, in case such floors are found to be unauthorised?
63.

Under Section 11(4)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the

promoter is mandatorily required to develop the project strictly in accordance with the
sanctioned plans, layout plans, and specifications approved by the competent authority, and to
fulfill all obligations as per the Agreement for Sale executed with the allottees. This statutory
duty is not merely directory but forms the core obligation of the promoter under the RE(R&D)
Act.
64.

Upon scrutiny of the material placed on record, this Authority observes that the

Respondent has marketed and sold units situated on the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of Blocks A,
B, C, D, F, and on the extended portions of Blocks A and E, despite there being no sanctioned
building permission for such construction beyond the 7th floor. This clearly indicates that the
Respondent indulged in misrepresentation to the allottees that such extensions were part of the
approved plan. Such conduct amounts to a gross contravention of Sections 14 and 11(4)(a) of

15 of 26

---

As regards the legal status of the allottees who were allotted units on the unsanctioned

floors, it is settled law that no rights can accrue in respect of a structure raised without valid
sanction. Consequently, this Authority cannot direct delivery of possession or issue any
recognition for such units, as they have no legal existence under the approved plans.
Nevertheless, being a beneficial legislation designed to safeguard the interests of homebuyers,
this Authority deems it just and equitable to direct the Respondent to offer alternate units of
equivalent area, configuration, and value within the sanctioned portion of the project, subject to
availability, and at no additional cost to the affected allottees.
66.

In the event that no such alternate units are available, or if the allottee does not find the

offered option acceptable, the concerned allottee shall be entitled to a refund of the entire
amount paid, together with interest as prescribed under Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act
read with Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
The interest shall be calculated from the respective dates of payment till the date of refund, and
the entire process shall be completed within a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of
this Order.
d)

Whether the unilateral cancellations of the Agreements of Sale by the Respondent are

legally sustainable, and whether the Respondent is liable to register the units in favour of
allottees who have paid the total consideration or are willing to do so?
67.

The Respondent has admitted to having issued cancellation notices to certain allottees

on the ground of non-payment of instalments. However, the Respondent has failed to place on
record any documentary evidence substantiating that prior demand notices, reminders, or
intimations were issued to such allottees in accordance with the payment schedule prescribed in
the executed Agreements for Sale. No proof of communication, notice of default, or
opportunity to cure such default has been produced before this Authority.
68.

In this regard, Section 11(5) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,

2016, categorically provides that the promoter shall not cancel the allotment except in
accordance with the terms of the Agreement for Sale and only after giving due notice to the

16 of 26

---

Simultaneously, Section 19(6) of the RE(R&D) Act imposes upon every allottee the

duty to make payments in accordance with the terms of the Agreement for Sale, and to pay
interest for any delay in payment. The Authority recognizes that the promoter’s rights under the
said provision remain intact, provided that construction progress at site is commensurate with
the stage-linked payment obligations.
70.

It is a settled principle that where construction activity is stalled or substantially

delayed, the promoter cannot insist upon payment of further instalments, as the obligation of
payment is inherently reciprocal to the promoter’s obligation to progress construction. Hence,
unless the Respondent demonstrates visible and proportionate progress at site, the allottees
cannot be held to have defaulted merely for withholding payments.
71.

In cases where genuine default by an allottee is established, the Respondent shall be

entitled to claim interest for delayed payment in accordance with the terms of the Agreement
for Sale and the rate prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017. However, unilateral cancellation of allotments without issuing due
demand notice and without following the procedure laid down under the Agreement for Sale
constitutes a violation of Section 11(5) of the RE(R&D) Act.
72.

Accordingly, all unilateral cancellations effected by the Respondent without compliance

with due process are hereby set aside. The rights of the affected allottees are restored forthwith.
The Respondent may, if so warranted by facts, issue proper demand notices in accordance with
the contractual terms and, if despite such notice the allottee fails to rectify the default within the
stipulated period, only then may the Respondent exercise the right to cancel, in strict
conformity with the law.
73.

In respect of those allottees who have paid the entire sale consideration amount, or who

are ready and willing to do so upon completion, the Respondent is directed to execute and
register the Sale Deeds in their favour within forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order.
i) Whether the Complainants are entitled to compensation under the provisions of the
RE(R&D) Act or the terms of the Agreement?

17 of 26

---

The two issues being interlinked in nature are examined conjointly.

75.

At the outset, it is imperative to reiterate that the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016 is a beneficial legislation enacted with the twin objectives of ensuring
completion of projects and securing the rights of homebuyers. The overarching intent of the Act
is not merely punitive, but remedial and corrective to restore trust, ensure accountability, and
promote the expeditious completion and delivery of projects to their rightful allottees.
Therefore, while determining relief, this Authority is required to strike a judicious balance
between the statutory entitlements of the allottees and the overarching public interest in
securing project completion.
76.

Under Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, every allottee is entitled to receive interest

for any delay in handing over possession beyond the agreed date, until the actual date of
possession. The rate of such interest is prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, and is binding upon the promoter as a statutory
obligation. Conversely, claims for compensation such as reimbursement towards rent,
inconvenience, or mental agony fall squarely within the ambit of Section 71, to be adjudicated
exclusively by the Adjudicating Officer appointed under the Act. Accordingly, this Authority
does not possess jurisdiction to quantify or adjudicate claims relating to compensation (e.g.,
rent @ ₹15,000/- per month) sought by the Complainants, and such claims, if pursued, may be
appropriately placed before the Adjudicating Officer.
77.

As regards the claim for interest on delayed possession, it is evident from the record that

the project has suffered prolonged stalling due to a combination of financial constraints,
incomplete funding cycles, and the cessation of the earlier SWAMIH Fund process. The
Respondent has also admitted to liquidity challenges that have hindered the pace of
construction. The Authority recognizes that immediate enforcement of interest obligations at
this stage may further erode the Respondent’s limited financial capacity, thereby frustrating the
larger purpose of the RE(R&D) Act, which is to ensure completion and possession rather than
liquidation or abandonment of the project.

18 of 26

---

Having regard to these circumstances, and in exercise of the powers conferred under

Sections 35, 37, and 38 of the RE(R&D) Act, this Authority is of the considered view that the
ends of justice would be best served by deferring the enforcement of interest payment while
ensuring that the promoter remains under an unequivocal obligation to complete and deliver
possession within a clearly defined timeframe.
79.

Accordingly, the Authority views that, The Respondent shall complete the entire project

in accordance with the sanctioned plans and approved specifications within stipulated period as
granted by this Authority based on the roadmap submitted by the Promote and ensure that all
necessary occupancy and completion certificates are duly obtained from the competent
authority. The Respondent shall hand over possession of the respective units to all eligible
allottees immediately upon receipt of the occupancy certificate. The interest liability accruing
under Section 18(1)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with
Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, shall
continue to subsist for each allottee until the actual date of possession. However, in order to
balance the interest of timely project completion and to avoid a situation where immediate
large-scale disbursement of funds may adversely impact the construction progress and thereby
jeopardize the interests of all allottees at large, the payment of such interest shall stand
deferred. The Respondent shall discharge the cumulative interest liability within a period of
three (3) months from the date of handing over possession, in three (3) equal monthly
instalments, and shall pay the same directly to the concerned allottees. The said interest shall be
computed from the date of possession as stipulated in the Agreement of Sale till the actual date
of handing over possession.
k) To direct the Respondent to open a separate, dedicated bank account for this project,
wherein:
iii.

All payments made by existing and future allottees shall be deposited, and

iv.

Said account shall be operated under the joint oversight of this Authority and
designated members of the Beccun Lifestyle Cultural Association, to ensure that
collected funds are used exclusively for completion of the present project and not
diverted for any other purpose.

80.

Under Section 4(2)(l)(D) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,

every promoter is statutorily mandated to deposit seventy percent (70%) of the amounts
19 of 26

---

This provision is a core financial safeguard mechanism of the RE(R&D) Act, designed

to prevent diversion of funds, ensure ring-fencing of project finances, and secure completion
within the declared timelines. Hence, compliance with Section 4(2)(l)(D) is not optional but a
mandatory continuing obligation on the part of the promoter.
82.

In the instant case, the Respondent has claimed that a separate RERA-designated project

account has already been maintained; however, no verifiable evidence such as bank statements,
auditor certifications, or utilization reports have been produced before this Authority to
substantiate that the said account has been operated strictly in accordance with statutory
requirements.
83.

In view of the foregoing, and in order to restore financial transparency and confidence

among the allottees, this Authority does not deem it necessary to direct the opening of a new
bank account. However, it finds it imperative to impose financial oversight over the existing
RERA-designated project account. Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
i.

The Respondent shall continue to operate the existing RERA-designated project account
strictly in terms of Section 4(2)(l)(D) of the RE(R&D) Act.

ii.

Notwithstanding the statutory threshold of seventy percent (70%), the Respondent shall
deposit one hundred percent (100%) of all amounts realized from existing and future
allottees into the said dedicated account. Such funds shall be exclusively utilized for
completion of the present project and for no other purpose whatsoever.

iii.

The Respondent shall submit monthly bank statements and utilization certificates, duly
certified by the project’s chartered accountant, to the Association of Allottees and to the
Secretary, Telangana RERA. The Authority may, if necessary, call for inspection or
verification of the same at any time.

iv.

Any diversion or misutilization of funds from the RERA dedicated project account shall
render the Respondent liable for penal action under Sections 60 and 61 of the RE(R&D)
Act, in addition to any other consequences as may be deemed appropriate by this
Authority.
20 of 26

---

The Authority recognizes that transparency and accountability in project execution are

central to the objectives of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Under
Section 19(1) and (5), every allottee has a statutory right to obtain information relating to the
sanctioned plans, stage-wise construction progress, and other relevant approvals of the project.
Correspondingly, under Section 11(4)(a), the promoter is bound to make such information
available and ensure that allottees are kept informed of the progress of the project.
85.

In light of these provisions, the Authority considers it reasonable that allottees be

permitted to satisfy themselves of the construction status through orderly and peaceful access to
the project site. The Respondent, being the promoter, cannot unreasonably restrict such access,
provided that visits do not interfere with safety protocols or disrupt ongoing work.
86.
i.

Accordingly, the following directions are issued:
The Respondent shall establish a Grievance and Communication Cell at the project site
within four (4) weeks from the date of this Order, duly staffed with a responsible site
official, to address allottees’ queries, concerns, and grievances relating to construction,
documentation, or site access.

ii.

Members of the Beccun Lifestyle Cultural Association, or any authorized representative
of the allottees, may undertake monthly site inspections, with prior intimation to the
Grievance Cell, solely for the purpose of monitoring construction progress. Such visits
shall be conducted peacefully and without obstructing any ongoing work or violating
safety norms.

iii.

The Respondent shall maintain an inspection register, recording each visit, observations
made, and actions taken.

iv.

The Grievance Cell shall acknowledge and respond to any written grievance within 48
hours, and where a grievance is found genuine, ensure rectification within a reasonable
time not exceeding 15 working days, unless prevented by justifiable cause.

v.

The allottees and their Association are also directed to cooperate with site management,
respect construction boundaries, and refrain from any conduct that could impede lawful
work or site safety.

21 of 26

---

The Authority takes note of the concerns expressed by the Complainant Association

regarding the Respondent’s capability and willingness to complete the project. While the
Association suggested that this Authority may consider changing the promoter or appointing an
alternate agency for completion, it is observed that no formal application or representation has
been made under Section 8 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, nor
have the allottees expressed any willingness or readiness to assume the responsibility of
completing the project through their Association.
88.

Under the scheme of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the

invocation of Section 8 arises only upon revocation or lapse of project registration under
Section 7, pursuant to which the Authority may take such measures as necessary for ensuring
project completion, including through the association of allottees or appointment of a
competent agency. In the present case, although the project registration has technically lapsed,
the Respondent has furnished a categorical undertaking before this Authority expressing
willingness to complete the project within a reasonable extended period, if such extension is
permitted. The Complainants have also consented to such course of action during the hearing. It
is further observed that at no stage have the allottees either sought or expressed readiness to
assume the responsibility of completing the project themselves.
89.

Accordingly, the mere prayer that this Authority should “change the promoter” cannot

be entertained. The Authority cannot, on its own volition, appoint or substitute a new promoter
in the absence of statutory preconditions or a structured proposal from the allottees. Should the
Association genuinely seek to assume responsibility for completion, it must come forward with
a comprehensive roadmap and completion plan in accordance with the procedure contemplated
under Section 8 of the RE(R&D) Act, rather than seeking a blanket direction to replace the
existing promoter.
90.

However, to safeguard the interests of the allottees, this Authority grants the

Complainant Association the liberty to approach this Authority afresh under Section 8 in the
event that the Respondent once again fails to complete the project within the newly prescribed
22 of 26

---

Upon a careful consideration of the findings recorded under Point No. 2 and the

material placed on record, this Authority proceeds to examine the statutory compliance of the
Respondent under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
92.

It is observed that the Respondent has failed to adhere to the obligations imposed under

Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, which mandates the promoter to perform all functions
and responsibilities as per the terms of the agreement for sale executed with the allottees. The
Respondent has neither completed the project within the stipulated timeframe as promised
under the said agreements nor taken any effective steps to complete the same even after the
validity period of registration has lapsed. The project continues to remain incomplete, thereby
causing undue hardship to the allottees.
93.

Further, it has come to the notice of this Authority that the Respondent, in utter

disregard to the sanctity of the executed agreements for sale, has proceeded to alienate and
register certain units in favour of third parties, despite subsisting agreements with existing
allottees. Such conduct amounts to a clear violation of the promoter’s fiduciary duty under
Section 11(4)(a) and the principle of fair dealing envisaged under the RE(R&D) Act.
94.

It is also observed that the Respondent has failed to obtain an extension of project

registration as mandated under Section 6 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016, despite being fully aware that the project remained incomplete beyond the validity period
of registration. Instead of seeking extension in accordance with law, the Respondent allowed
the registration to lapse without furnishing any justification before this Authority. Furthermore,
the Respondent has failed to file the mandatory Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) as required
under Section 11(1)(b) of the said Act and Rule 17 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Rules, 2017, notwithstanding the issuance of show cause notices dated
01.02.2024 and 17.05.2024 by this Authority. Such failure constitutes a clear violation of the
23 of 26

---

Moreover, this Authority finds that the Respondent has violated Sections 12 and 14 of

the RE(R&D) Act, by making false representations and material misstatements to the allottees
regarding the construction of the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors of the project, which were not
sanctioned by the competent authority. The Respondent not only collected amounts from
allottees towards such unsanctioned units but also executed agreements for sale in respect
thereof, thereby misleading the purchasers and indulging in deceptive practices. Such conduct
strikes at the very foundation of the RE(R&D) Act, which is aimed at promoting accountability
and transparency in the real estate sector. The same also falls within the ambit of unfair practice
as envisaged under section 7(1)(c)(A) wherein it is clear that if a promoter makes a false or a
misleading representation or represents that the promoter has approval or affiliation which such
promoter does not have constitutes an unfair trade practice.
96.

In view of the above findings, this Authority directs the Secretary, Telangana RERA, to

immediately initiate steps under Section 61 of the RE(R&D) Act, for imposition of appropriate
penalty upon the Respondent, subject to the approval of the Authority, for the aforesaid
violations.
97.

While doing so, the Authority deems it necessary to observe that despite the multiple

violations established herein, a stringent action has not yet been initiated, solely in
consideration of the welfare of the allottees, whose life savings and hard-earned investments
are tied up in the project. The Authority, keeping the larger public interest in mind, is affording
the Respondent an opportunity to complete the project and deliver possession. However, it is
made explicitly clear that any further inaction or failure on part of the Respondent to complete
the project within the time as may be stipulated hereafter shall compel this Authority to initiate
ti declare the Respondent-promoter a defaulter under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
98.

Before parting with this point, this Authority also finds it appropriate to caution allottees

and prospective purchasers that prior to investing in any real estate project, they must diligently
verify the project details, including the sanctioned plans and registration particulars, on the
official RERA web portal. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, has been
24 of 26

---

Having regard to the detailed findings recorded on each of the foregoing issues, and in

exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 35,37, and 38 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the following directions are hereby issued in
the interest of justice, equity, and transparency:
1) The Complainant Association, being a collective body of allottees formed to safeguard
the interests of its members, possesses the requisite locus standi to maintain this
complaint under Section 31(1) of the RE(R&D) Act.
2) The Respondent has indulged in double sale of twelve units. The Respondent shall allot
alternate unencumbered units of equivalent value and configuration, or in the absence
thereof, refund the amounts with interest under Section 18(1)(a) within forty-five (45)
days.
3) Respondent No. 1 shall, within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, submit a
comprehensive roadmap for completion of the project, clearly delineating the
construction phases, timelines, and milestones. The Respondent shall also submit a
detailed financial resource plan, indicating the sources, availability, and proposed
utilization of funds required for each phase of construction, strictly in conformity with
the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
4) Units on the 8th, 9th, and 10th floors being unsanctioned, the Respondent shall offer
alternate units of equivalent value or refund the entire amount with statutory interest
under Section 18 of RE(R&D) Act from the date of receipt of each payment till the
actual realization within 90 days from the date of this Order.
5) All unilateral cancellations not in conformity with Section 11(5) are set aside. The
Respondent shall execute and register Sale Deeds in favour of allottees who have paid or
are willing to pay the total sale consideration within forty-five (45) days.
6) Where possession of the unit is delayed beyond the agreed date, the Respondent–
Promoter shall pay interest under Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act to each affected
allottee at the rate prescribed by this Authority, calculated up to the actual date of
possession. However, in cases where the concerned allottees have themselves defaulted
25 of 26

---

---

This Order is passed with the intent to balance regulatory enforcement with consumer

protection. The Respondent is reminded that the Authority’s indulgence in granting a final
opportunity stems solely from the need to safeguard the interests of the allottees whose life
savings are invested in the project. Failure to honour this opportunity shall attract immediate
action under Sections 7 and 63 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
101.

Failure to comply with above said directions by the Respondent shall attract penalty in

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
102.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

27 of 26

---