Order Complaint No. 201 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 201 of 2024
Dated: 31ST 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
Boaska Anuragam
(R/o Qtr No Ch -9, Opp: Andhra Bank, A -Zone,
Ramakrishnapur(post), Mancherial District – 504 301)

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. BhuvanTeza Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd
(Rep by Chekka Venkata Subramanyam),
#201, 2nd Floor, Lumbini Amrutha Chambers,
Nagarjuna Circle, Road Number 3, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad-500082.

2. Mr. Chekka Venkata Subramanyam,
Flat# C-110, Jayabheri Orange County, Road #2,
Financial District, Nanakramguda, Telangana - 500032.

3. Mrs. Chekka Bhagya Lakshmi
Flat# C-110, Jayabheri Orange County, Road #2,
Financial District, Nanakramguda, Telangana - 500032.

4. Mr. Jerripothula Phane Bhushana Rao,
R/o. Flat # 301, SR Mansion Apartments,
Road No. 70, Plot 75, HUDA Enclave, Aswini Layout,
Prashasan Nagar, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana-500096.

5. M/s. Sri Laxmi Agro Farms and Projects,

(Formerly M/s Devas Infra Projects)
Rep by Sri N. Surya Narayana Reddy
Flat No. 5th floor, RJR Herbal Hospital, Opp Image Hospital,
near Ratnadeep, Ameerpet, Hyderabad

… Respondents
The present matters filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of Complainant in person and none for the Respondents despite
multiple opportunities given to appear before the bench, hence set ex-parte and upon hearing
the submissions of the Complainant, this Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
Page 1 of 7

---

This Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and

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 action against the Respondents.
A. Brief Facts of the Case:
3.

On 18th September, the complainant entered into an Agreement of Sale with the

Respondents for the purchase of a flat in the project named “Happy Homes Phase-2.” Flat
No.201, Block B, measuring 1860 ft, is located at Shamripet village & Mandal, Medchal
Malkajgiri Dist, through their marketing firm Devas Infra Projects Pvt Ltd. As per the
agreement of sale, the flat has to be handed over by December 2023.
4.

It is submitted that despite the passage of several months, the construction activity did

not commence at the site. On making inquiries, the Respondents stated that the project was
cancelled due to government permission. It was later revealed that the ‘Happy Homes-2’
project had been indefinitely put on hold, without any formal intimation or communication to
the allottees and furthermore, the Complainant was informed that their agreement had been
shifted to a different project, and forced them to shift to ‘Happy Homes-1’, and the Respondent
stated the Complainant need to pay an additional amount of Rs. 10,52,000/- for a new flat and
the Respondent allotted Flat no. 307, Block -D with 2000 sft with increased sft price by Rs.
400/- and the Respondent never replied to the queries
5.

The Complainant submits that the delay in possession caused her significant financial

strain as she was paying both rent and EMI for the home loan.
6.

Frequent delays have caused severe mental strain to the Complainant and her family.

The Complainant submits that monies might be diverted to other projects. As per the
Agreement of sale, the Respondent No.1 agreed to pay rent to the Complainant from January
2024 if they fail to deliver the flat, but they haven’t received the same. The complainant states
they are worried about the limitation of the Agreement of sale.
7.

The Complainant submits that the land may have been transferred to the other persons

as a few victims paid money to the land lord of the Bhuvan Teja Happy Homes Phase-2 project,
Mrs. Chekka Bhagyalaxmi W/o Chekka Venkata Subramanyam, and also Phani Bhushan Rao,
a member of the Bhuvan Teja company board and the Complainant submits that there might be
transfer of land as it was not registered in the name of allottees and the Complainant states they
Page 2 of 7

---

Despite paying the whole amount, the Respondents are still requesting more funds to

register a portion of land, and the Respondent did not register it in the name of the Complainant
9.

The Complainant submits that civil and criminal cases are pending on the land, and a

few of the members have addressed the respondent to resolve a civil complaint that was filed
at the CCS Hyderabad.
B. Relief Sought
10.

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Complainant humbly prays

for the following reliefs:
I. Refund of the amount paid to the Respondent along with interest, if the Respondent failed to
complete the project within the stipulated time.
II. Rectification of any defects in the constructions
C. IA filed by the Complainant:
11.

During the course of the hearing, the Complainant filed an IA bearing no. 71 of 2024

before this authority requesting to implead the marketing firm M/s Devas Infra Rep by Sri.
NSN Reddy, now known as Sri Laxmi Agro Farms and Projects, as proposed Respondent No.5
to the present Complaint, as he is the proper and necessary party to this complaint, on the
ground that he had facilitated the transaction. Accordingly, notice was issued to the proposed
Respondent No.5. However, despite service of notices, the proposed Respondent neither
appeared nor filed any counter or affidavit. Upon due consideration of the material placed on
record before this Authority, including the receipts of payments submitted by the Complainant
before this authority, this Authority found that the presence of the said party was necessary for
effective adjudication of the matter and accordingly allowed the application, impleading him
as Respondent No.5. Consequently, vide Order dated 19.12.2024, the said Respondent was set
ex parte and continues to be arrayed as Respondent No.5 in the present proceedings.

Page 3 of 7

---

Before further adjudicating on the matter, this Authority takes due note of the repeated

non-compliance by the Respondents, who have failed to appear before this Authority despite
service of multiple notices and affording sufficient opportunities. In view of their continued
absence, the Respondents are hereby set ex parte, and the matter is being adjudicated based on
the pleadings, documents, and submissions placed on record by the Complainant.
Point-I
14.

Upon careful perusal of the records and the submissions placed before this Authority, it

is observed that the subject project titled ‘Happy Homes (Shamirpet)’, being developed by the
Respondent No.1, M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra projects Private Limited remains unregistered with
this Authority. As per the Agreement of Sale dated 09.05.2022, executed between the
Complainant and the Respondent No.1, the proposed project is situated in multiple survey
numbers at Shamirpet Village & Mandal, with an extent of the land involved of approximately
Ac. 10.20 guntas, i.e., around 42,000 square metres, hence the project exceeds the minimum
threshold of 500 square metres as prescribed under Section 3(2)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Accordingly, the project falls within the ambit of mandatory registration under Section 3 of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016, and the Respondent-promoter’s failure to comply with the same
constitutes a clear violation, attracting liability under Section 59 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
15.

It is further observed that the records available with this authority in a prior matter, vide

Complaint No. 286 of 2024, involving a different Complainant but the same project and
Respondent-promoter, this Authority had already adjudicated on similar facts and imposed a
penalty for violation of Section 3 RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Therefore, the issue of unregistered
development by the Respondent-promoter in the present case stands on an identical footing,
and has already been addressed through the said earlier order.
16.

The Complainant have brought to the notice of this authority that a few transactions are

facilitated by the Respondent No. 5; accordingly, the Complainant have submitted the proof of
Page 4 of 7

---

However, in the said Complaint No. 286 of 2024, the same Respondent No. 5 was found

to have engaged in similar conduct in contravention of Section 9 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016,
thereby contravening its provisions and becoming liable under Section 62 of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016. It is relevant to note that the said Respondent No. 5 was already penalised
accordingly. Thus, the facts of the present case are in parity with the earlier matter already
adjudicated by this Authority.
18.

This Authority further observes that the conduct of the Respondent-promoter reflects a

pattern of persistent non-compliance with the statutory obligations mandated under the RE
(R&D) Act, 2016. It is pertinent to mention that in a previous matter, i.e., Complaint No. 264 of 2024,
the Authority had taken cognisance of similar violations and had declared Respondent No. 1 as a
defaulter.”

The relevant extract from the said order is reproduced below for reference:
“35… Accordingly, Respondent No.1 is hereby declared to be a “defaulter”
both in its capacity as a “promoter” and as an “agent” within the meaning of
Sections 2(zk) and 2(zm) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. As a consequence, the
Respondent shall be prohibited from undertaking, advertising, marketing,
booking, selling, or registering any new real estate project or acting as a real
estate agent within the jurisdiction of this Authority until such time as all
existing dues, refunds, interest, penalties, and regulatory compliances are fully
discharged to the satisfaction of this Authority”
19.

Point I is answered accordingly.

Point No. II
20.

Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that the Complainant

entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 18.09.2021 with Respondent No.1 for the purchase of
a flat in the project titled Happy Homes, and Complainant paid the sale consideration of
₹43,48,000/- (Rupees Forty-Three Lakhs Forty-Eight Thousand only).

Page 5 of 7

---

Moreover, as per the agreement of sale, it is mentioned that the project was modified

with mutual consent of the parties, from “Happy Homes-II” to “Happy Homes,” effectively
revising the date of agreement from 11.11.2021 to 23.03.2023
22.

The Agreement of Sale specifically stipulates that possession of the subject flat was to

be handed over within 36 months, with a grace period of 6 months, from the date of obtaining
building permissions from HMDA and RERA.
23.

However, the Respondent has neither obtained the requisite statutory approvals nor

commenced any construction activity, thereby breaching the terms and conditions of the
Agreement. Consequently, the completion of the said project has become impracticable, and
the Complainants are seeking a refund of the amount paid along with applicable interest.
24.

In the present case, the Respondent neither completed the project nor initiated the

mandatory statutory processes required for lawful execution of the project. The continued
failure to obtain approvals and commence construction clearly amounts to a violation of the
provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
25.

In light of the above facts and circumstances, this Authority finds that the Complainant

is entitled to relief under Section 18(1)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, which reads as follows:
“(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an
apartment, plot or building,
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may
be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of
suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other
reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes
to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available,
to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot,
building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed
in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this
Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project,
he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the
handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.”

Page 6 of 7

---

Accordingly, the Complainant entitled for Refund of the amount paid by her to

Respondent and also to interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, i.e., the State Bank of India’s Marginal Cost
of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum, calculated from the respective date of Agreement
of sale until the date of actual refund.
27.

In view of the above findings, this Authority is of the considered opinion that the

Complainant is entitled to the relief sought, refund of the entire sale consideration along with
interest.
28.

Hence, Point II is answered in the affirmative, and the Complainant is held entitled to

a refund along with applicable interest
F. Directions of the Authority:
29.

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 her, and the same is allowed in her favour, and the Respondents are hereby directed
as follows:
a.

Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to refund the entire received amount of Rs.

43,48,000/- (Rupees Forty-Three Lakhs Forty-Eight Thousand only) from the Complainant
as specified in Agreement of sale, along with interest at the rate of 11% per
annum(Comprising SBI MCLR of 9% + 2%), calculated from the respective dates of each
payment made, as evidenced in the receipts produced on record, until the date of full and
final realisation of the said amount by the Complainant within forty five (45) days from the
date of this Order.
b. Failing to comply with the above-said directions by Respondent No. 1 shall attract strict
penal action in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
30. The complaint stands disposed off. 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 7 of 7

---