Order Complaint No. 197 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 197 of 2024
Dated: 01st July 2025

Quorum:

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

Smt. Mudrakartha Veenadhari
(W/o Dr. Srinivas Mudrakartha, Flat No: 302, Sree vajra Residency, H.No. 1-9-485/9, St. No.6,
Lalithanagar, Near Dr. Ambedkar Community Hall, Adikmet, Hyderabad- 500044. Email.
[email protected])
…Complainant
U

Versus
M/s. RR Constructions
(representative by Ragir Ritesh, S/o RagirRajeev,Ageed 36 years, RR Konstructions,
RagirSadan, H.No. Plot no.13, 1-9-548, Lalithanagar, Hyderabd-500044.)
… Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
12.02.2025 before this Authority wherein the Complainant appeared in person and
Respondent Counsel, Sri C Yadagiri. upon pursuing the material on record and on hearing
argument of the both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the following
order is passed:
ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant 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. Brief Facts of the Case, as Stated by the Complainant
3.

The Complainant, Smt. Mudrakartha Veenadhari, has stated that she is the registered

owner of Flat No. 302 in the project known as “Sree Vajra Residency,” situated at
Lalithanagar, Hyderabad. It is submitted that the said flat was purchased upon full
consideration, and the Sale Deed was duly registered in her favour on 13.03.2021.
1 of 10

---

The Complainant submits that the Respondent, Mr. Ragir Ritesh, promoter and

builder of the said project, made repeated representations to the effect that he had applied for
the Occupancy Certificate (OC). However, despite numerous requests, the Respondent failed
to furnish any documentary proof or application number evidencing such application.
Consequently, the Complainant undertook independent verification with the Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), Secunderabad Zone, and discovered that no
such application had been made for over 2.5 years since completion of construction.
5.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has constructed 10 flats on the site

measuring 459.22 sq. meters, although the sanctioned building plan only permitted
construction of 8 flats. This unauthorized deviation, according to the Complainant, renders
the project liable to be regulated under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (RERA), which applies to projects exceeding 500 sq. meters or
consisting of more than 8 units.
6.

It is further submitted that the Complainant and other residents began occupying their

respective units in or around February 2022. Despite this, several essential services and
amenities, both dependent and independent of the issuance of OC, have not been provided.
These include provision of water supply with an official CAN number, installation of power
transformers, diesel generators, rainwater harvesting system, fire extinguishers, and other
essential infrastructure. The deficiency has allegedly led to significant inconvenience,
recurring water leakage, fungal growth, and even potential electrical hazards, particularly in
the recently completed watchman's room.
8.

The Complainant further submits that despite the filing of an earlier complaint (CC

No. 62/2024/TSRERA) which resulted in a summons being issued to the Respondent, and
notwithstanding the Respondent's written assurances of action, the grievances remain
substantially unaddressed even after a lapse of four months. Key issues such as application
for OC, commissioning of basic amenities, and unauthorized parking continue to persist,
resulting in hardship to the allottees.
9.
The Complainant has placed on record several construction-related deficiencies,
including:
a.

Water inundation in the parking area due to absence of adequate slopes and rainwater
shades.

2 of 10

---

Inferior quality of internal and external painting which is prone to discolouration and
stains.

c.

Substandard plumbing and sanitary fittings necessitating premature replacement.

d.

Poor plastering quality resulting in cement patches upon minor impact.

e.

Premature degradation of watchman’s room and toilet, which have developed fungal
growth and leakages soon after construction, thereby posing health and safety risks.

10.

With regard to parking, the Complainant alleges that although the builder does not

own any unit in the project, he has been unlawfully and forcibly occupying designated
parking spaces for over 2.5 years. It is claimed that he deliberately left Flats 203 and 401
without assigned parking and instead used those spaces to park his personal vehicles, also
displaying signage for “RR Konstructions.” Additionally, the Respondent allegedly parks
multiple vehicles and cycles in the premises despite having sufficient space in his own
adjacent residence.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
11.

In light of the foregoing grievances, the Complainant has sought the following reliefs

from the Authority:
i.

Immediate direction to the Respondent to apply for and obtain the Occupancy
Certificate from the concerned municipal authority.

ii.

An order directing the Respondent to fulfill all obligations as per the Sale Deed and
Development Agreement within a time-bound manner, including completion of all
pending works and provision of amenities.

iii.

A written undertaking from the Respondent indemnifying the residents and the
Society against any penalties or charges levied by GHMC or any other authority in
respect of unauthorized constructions or regularization proceedings under schemes
such as BRS/LRS.

iv.

Compensation in the form of monthly parking charges of ₹1,000 per four-wheeler and
₹500 per two-wheeler, from February 2022 onwards, for the Respondent’s
unauthorized occupation of the parking spaces.

v.

Appropriate penalty for harassment and mental agony caused to senior citizens who,
after decades of professional life, purchased these homes with the legitimate
expectation of peaceful habitation.

3 of 10

---

Penalty for violations of statutory norms, lack of communication, and willful noncompliance of written assurances including failure to provide the OC, generator,
transformer and other services.

vii.

A regulatory direction to halt all ongoing construction projects of the Respondent
until compliance with the present project is ensured, citing willful breach of trust,
repeated misrepresentations, and violation of statutory obligations under the RERA
Act and municipal laws.

C. Respondent Reply:
12.

The Respondent has filed a detailed counter, vehemently denying each and every

allegation made by the Complainant. It is his categorical assertion that the complaint is
frivolous, devoid of merit, legally and factually untenable, and has been instituted with the
ulterior motive of deriving wrongful gain. The Respondent contends that the complaint is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law and ought to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
13.

The Respondent submits that he, being the developer, had entered into a Development

Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 31.08.2019, registered as
Document No. 4144 of 2019, with several landowners including Smt. I. Visasla, Smt. Isola
Sudha, and Smt. Manjula Kandala, among others. The said agreement pertained to the
development of a residential building over Plot Nos. 15 and 16, admeasuring 459.22 sq.
meters, situated at Lalithanagar, Adikmet, Zamistanpur, Hyderabad. The Respondent states
that pursuant to the said agreement, necessary building permissions were obtained from the
GHMC authorities, permitting the construction of a stilt + 4 upper floors structure,
comprising eight residential units.
14.

The Respondent further submits that the construction was carried out strictly in

accordance with the permissions granted by the competent authority. However, he claims that
after completion of the construction, the landowners themselves made changes to their
allocated flats, specifically by Converting two flats on the second floor into three 2BHK
units, and Converting two flats on the fourth floor into four 1BHK units.
15.

The Respondent clarifies that such deviations were neither planned nor executed by

him, but were independently undertaken by the landowners without his involvement. He
disclaims any responsibility for the said unauthorized modifications.

4 of 10

---

The Respondent asserts that the Complainant, Smt. Mudrakartha Veenadhari,

purchased Flat No. 302, located on the third floor, having a super built-up area of 1739 sq. ft.
(inclusive of common areas) and an undivided share (UDS) of 68.75 sq. yards, by way of a
registered Sale Deed dated 13.03.2021, registered as Document No. 1367/2021. He argues
that since the transaction was completed by a registered conveyance deed and full
consideration was paid, there exists no cause of action against him.
17.

Respondent pertains to jurisdiction and maintainability. He contends that Section

3(2)(a) and (b) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with the
relevant Telangana Rules, exempts projects which Do not exceed 500 sq. meters, and Do not
consist of more than 8 apartments.
18.

According to the Respondent, the present project falls below both thresholds, since

the site area is only 459.22 sq. meters and the approved number of flats was eight. He submits
that even the subsequent alterations by landowners do not alter the scope of the original
sanctioned plan, which remains below the threshold for RERA applicability. Accordingly, he
contends that the project is exempt from registration, and the complaint is thus not
maintainable under the RERA Act.
19.

The Respondent further points out that the Complainant had earlier filed a complaint

on similar grounds before this very Authority, which was subsequently withdrawn. He argues
that the current complaint is vexatious, repetitive, and filed with malice, only to harass the
Respondent and to seek unjust enrichment. The Respondent prays for dismissal of the
complaint with exemplary costs, asserting that it is barred by law, unsupported by facts, and
filed with an ulterior motive.
D. Rejoinder
20.

The Complainant, by way of rejoinder, has categorically denied the claims and

contentions made by the Respondent in the counter. It is her assertion that the Respondent has
sought to mislead this Authority by making false, misleading, and unsubstantiated
submissions that are contrary to the documents on record. The Complainant specifically
rebuts the Respondent’s contention regarding non-applicability of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016, and submits that the very objectives of the Act transparency,
accountability, and consumer protection — have been deliberately violated by the
Respondent.
5 of 10

---

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has deliberately evaded the mandatory

registration requirements of the RERA Act by constructing 10 units instead of the 8 units
sanctioned under the building permit, thereby bringing the project within the regulatory ambit
of the Act. It is submitted that the Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney
(DAGPA) executed between the Respondent and the landowners expressly contemplated 11
residential units. The Complainant relies on the DAGPA, along with email communications,
building permits, and subsequent sale agreements, to establish that the Respondent
consciously created a structure that would, in effect, exceed the registration threshold under
RERA, and thereafter failed to reconcile the sanctioned plan with the development
agreement, thereby exposing his mala fide intent to circumvent regulatory compliance.
22.

The Complainant further submits that the landowners, being senior citizens suffering

from health complications, entrusted the Respondent with Power of Attorney in good faith,
assuming that he would manage all statutory obligations. However, the Respondent willfully
failed to fulfill his responsibilities, particularly Clause 31 of the DAGPA, which obligated
him to obtain requisite approvals and statutory clearances, including the Occupancy
Certificate (OC). The Complainant reiterates that even if the project area is below 500 sq.
meters, the moment more than 8 units are constructed or sold, registration becomes
mandatory under Section 3(2) of the Act, thereby nullifying the Respondent’s justification.
23.

The Complainant points to the serious hardship and adverse consequences suffered by

the allottees owing to the non-issuance of an Occupancy Certificate, even after a lapse of
more than three years from construction completion. In the absence of an OC, basic civic
amenities such as a CAN number for water supply have been denied to the residents. The
Complainant categorically refutes the Respondent’s attempt to shift blame onto the
landowners for the creation of additional flats post-construction. It is submitted that the
DAGPA itself mentions second-floor units as three-bedroom flats, and there is no evidence of
any post-construction alteration by landowners. On the contrary, the Respondent has actively
installed nameplates for all 10 flats and facilitated their registration through individual sale
deeds, thereby admitting to their existence and his role in creating them.
24.

The Complainant also brings to light that the earlier complaint filed before this

Authority was withdrawn only on the strength of written assurances made by the Respondent,
including undertakings given to the allottees and to the Chairman of RERA, promising
completion of pending works within a specific time. The Complainant submits that the
6 of 10

---

26.

In particular, the Respondent has failed to provide:
a.

Mandatory amenities such as a functional transformer, adequate water storage
facilities, and fire extinguishers;

b.

Lift of proper specification, as promised in the promotional materials;

c.

Essential structural and safety features, such as waterproofing of the terrace,
remediation of seepage issues, and reinforcement of compound walls.
The Complainant, therefore, asserts that the project, in reality, consists of 10

residential units, as borne out from factual and documentary records. Consequently, the issue
of applicability of the RERA Act no longer survives for adjudication, and the Respondent
must be held accountable under the provisions of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017. The Complainant prays that the Authority invoke the relevant
penal provisions of Sections 59 and 60 of the Act against the Respondent for failure to
register the project and for breach of statutory obligations.
E. Observation of Authority:
27.

Before proceeding to adjudicate the reliefs sought by the Complainant, this Authority

considers it necessary to address the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent
pertaining to the maintainability of the complaint on grounds of jurisdiction. The Respondent
contends that the present project is exempted from registration under Section 3(2)(a) and (b)
of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
28.

The relevant statutory provision under Section 3(2) of the Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no registration of the
real estate project shall be required—
(a)where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed five
hundred square meters or the number of apartments proposed to be developed
does not exceed eight inclusive of all phases:

29.

It is the Respondent's contention that the sanctioned development, as per Building

Permit No. 2/C15/13133/2019 dated 19.08.2019, relates to a plot measuring 459.22 square
7 of 10

---

However, upon perusal of the record, including the sanctioned plan and the

Development-cum-General Power of Attorney (DGPA) executed between the landowners
and the Respondent developer, it is clearly evidenced that a total of 11 residential units have
been constructed in the project. In particular, it is observed that:
i.
ii.

The second floor comprises three flats (instead of the two sanctioned),
The fourth floor comprises four flats (instead of the two sanctioned),

iii.

These deviations result in a total of 11 units, thereby exceeding the threshold
limit under Section 3(2).

31.

While the Respondent attempts to evade liability by placing the blame solely on the

landowners, alleging that the modifications were carried out by them unilaterally, such an
explanation is both evasive and untenable. The Respondent cannot wash its hands off the
statutory obligations under the Act by shifting blame to the landowners when the DGPA itself
reflects a plan with 11 units and there is no evidence to show that the construction was
unauthorized by the developer.
32.

This Authority finds such a defense to be an afterthought and a clear attempt to

circumvent the regulatory mechanism established under the RE(R&D) Act. It is reiterated
that the intent of the Legislature, as evident from the Preamble of the RE(R&D) Act, is to
establish accountability and transparency in the real estate sector and protect the interests of
homebuyers. Permitting promoters to escape the rigour of the Act by taking such vague pleas
would defeat the very object and purpose of the legislation.
33.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the project does not fall within the exemption

contemplated under Section 3(2) and, therefore, was mandatorily required to be registered
under Section 3(1) of the Act. Failure to register the project renders the promoter liable for
penalty under Sections 59 and 60 of the RE(R&D) Act. The jurisdictional objection raised by
the Respondent is thus rejected.
34.

This Authority also records its strong displeasure and condemnation of such evasive

conduct by the Respondent-promoter. Let it be categorically declared that any promoter
found engaging in practices designed to circumvent the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act,
especially through misrepresentation of project size or number of units, shall be dealt with
8 of 10

---

The Complainant has sought directions to the Respondent to obtain the Occupancy

Certificate (OC), which is an obligatory statutory requirement upon completion of any real
estate project. As per Section 11(4)(b) of the RE(R&D) Act:
The promoter shall be responsible to obtain the completion certificate or the
occupancy certificate, or both, from the relevant competent authority as per local
laws or other laws for the time being in force and to make it available to the allottees
individually or to the association of allottees, as the case may be

36.

It is evident from the record that the OC has not been obtained by the Respondent.

This amounts to a serious breach of statutory duty and has a direct impact on the rights and
legal security of the allottees. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to immediately apply
for and obtain the occupancy certificate from the competent authority forthwith and ensure
that a copy thereof is handed over to the association of allottees.
37.

Further, the Complainant has alleged certain deficiencies in the quality of construction

and essential services, including non-functional transformer and water inundation. As per
Section 14(3) of the RE(R&D) Act, a promoter is statutorily obligated to rectify structural
defects or poor workmanship brought to his notice within a period of 30 days.
38.

The Respondent, through its own letter dated 22nd May 2024, has acknowledged the

said deficiencies and assured residents of rectification. Despite such acknowledgment, the
rectifications have not been carried out. This amounts to a continuing breach. The
Respondent is accordingly directed to rectify the following issues within 30 days from the
date of receipt of this Order:
a. Make the transformer functional and ensure consistent power supply;
b. Rectify water inundation and ensure proper drainage and waterproofing measures.
39.

As regards the Complainant’s prayer for compensation on account of construction

deficiencies, this Authority observes that such reliefs are within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Adjudicating Officer appointed under Section 71 of the RE(R&D) Act read with Rule
35(1) of the TG RERA Rules, 2017. The Complainant is therefore at liberty to approach the
Adjudicating Officer by filing a complaint in Form ‘N’, seeking appropriate compensation.

9 of 10

---

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

discussed herein above, this Authority holds that the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed by
him, and the same is allowed in his favour, and the Respondent is hereby directed as follows:

a. For violation of Sections 3 and 4 i.e., for non-registration of the project – “Sree Vajra
Residency”, the Respondent is liable for penalty under Sections 59 and 60 respectively,
therefore, the Respondent is directed to pay penalty of Rs.2,81,276/- (Two lakhs eighty
one thousand two hundred and seventy six only) payable within 30 days in favour of
TGRERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online payment to A/c No.
50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036;
b. The Respondent is directed to immediately apply for and obtain the Occupancy
Certificate, and upon receipt, furnish the same to the association of allottees.
c. The Respondent is directed to rectify water inundation and ensure the transformer is
functional, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
d. The Respondent promoter is hereby prohibited from advertising, marketing, booking, or
selling any real estate project that falls within the ambit of Section 3 of the RE(R&D)
Act without valid registration with this Authority. Any future violation shall attract
stringent penal action, including prosecution under Section 59(2) of the Act and
possible debarment from further development activity under Section 7.
41.

The complaint stands disposed off. No order as to costs.

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

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

10 of 10

---