Order Complaint No. 211 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Dated: 12th November 2025
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Complaint No. 211 of 2025

1. Hara Prasad Sabat
2. Siba Prasad Sabat
R/o: Plot No. 20, Axis Papa Homes,
Near Laxmi Nivas, Ameenpur, Sangareddy District, Telangana - 502033
…Complainants
Versus
M/s SSL Infra Developers
Rep. by Sri Sivapuram Surendra Kumar,
R/o: H.No. 8-3-1007/A, Flat No. 201 & 301,
ZNR United Splendour, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500073
…Respondent

Complaint No. 212 of 2025
1. Hara Prasad Sabat
2. Siba Prasad Sabat
R/o Plot No. 20, Axis Papa Homes,
Near Laxmi Nivas, Ameenpur, Sangareddy District, Telangana - 502033
…Complainants
Versus
M/s SSL Infra Developers
Rep. by Sri Sivapuram Surendra Kumar,
R/o: H.No. 8-3-1007/A, Flat No. 201 & 301,
ZNR United Splendour, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500073
…Respondent

Page 1 of 14

---

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 “RE(R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
3.

Given the similarity in the subject matter and the nature of reliefs sought in both cases,

they have been consolidated for the sake of convenience and to avoid unnecessary repetition.
A. Brief facts of the case:
4.

The Complainants submit that they had jointly booked two open plots in the project

“Peacock Estate” being developed by the Respondent. The booking was made during the prelaunch of Phase II of the said project in August 2023, which is situated in Survey Nos. 224
(Part), 225 (Part) and 228 (Part) of Thummala Pally Village, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad
District, Telangana. The specific plots booked were Plot Nos. 198 and 205. It is further
submitted that pursuant to the DTCP TLP approval obtained by the Respondent in February
2024, the said plots were renumbered as Plot Nos. 198 and 205, corresponding to earlier Plot
Nos. 270 and 265 respectively.
5.

The project “Peacock Estate” already has its Phase I registered with this Authority under

RERA Registration No. P02100005992, whereas Phase II, under which the Complainants’ plots
fall, was pre-launched during August 2023. The Complainants jointly booked the said plots
during this pre-launch stage.
6.

The Complainants entered into Agreements of Sale dated 06.09.2023 with the

Respondent after paying 50% of the total sale consideration for each of the plots. The
particulars of the plots and corresponding complaints are as follows:
•

Complaint No. 211 of 2025 pertains to Plot No. 198 (previously Plot No. 270 before
approval of the revised layout).

•

Complaint No. 212 of 2025 pertains to Plot No. 205 (previously Plot No. 265 before
approval of the revised layout).
Page 2 of 14

---

The Complainants had waited for nearly ten months, from 06.09.2023 until 13.06.2024,

expecting the Respondent to obtain the requisite RERA approval for Phase II and proceed with
registration. However, even as on 13.06.2024, no such approval had been secured and the
Respondent was not in a position to register the subject plots. Left with no other alternative,
and also facing financial necessity, the Complainants were compelled to cancel the booking by
submitting a written cancellation letter on 13.06.2024 at the office of the Respondent.
8.

The Complainants further submit that even after cancellation, the Respondent failed to

refund the amounts paid. Despite repeated personal visits and follow-ups, no steps were taken
to clear the refund in full. After prolonged delay, the Respondent refunded only a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- prior to 26.12.2024. Since the balance remained unpaid, the Complainants were
constrained to issue a notice on 26.12.2024 by Registered Post to the office of the Respondent
demanding refund.
9.

It is submitted that subsequent to the issuance of the said notice, the Respondent

refunded an additional sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, as on 10.03.2025, the Complainants have
received only a total of Rs.4,00,000/- from the Respondent, whereas a substantial balance of
Rs.5,05,600/- remains unpaid.
10.

The Complainants submit that on 05.02.2025, they managed to personally meet the

Respondent at his office and obtained from him a written commitment specifying dates and
instalments by which the outstanding amount of Rs.5,05,600/- would be cleared. As per the
said written undertaking, the Respondent undertook to refund the entire balance by 01.03.2025.
However, the Respondent failed to adhere to his own commitment, and no further amount has
been refunded thereafter.
11.

The Complainants further state that they have been constrained to make frequent visits

to the office of the Respondent for follow-ups, often waiting for long hours, and also making
repeated phone calls, all of which have gone unanswered or evaded. The Respondent has
consistently failed to honour his assurances and has been deliberately avoiding repayment. This
conduct has caused severe mental agony, anxiety, and distress to the Complainants and their
family members.
12.

The Complainants further submit that they had availed a personal loan from the bank

for making payment of the sale consideration and continue to bear the burden of interest
thereon. The failure of the Respondent to refund the sale consideration in a timely manner has
therefore subjected them to additional financial hardship and strain.
Page 3 of 14

---

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

i. Instruct the Respondent to clear the refund due amount of Rs.5,05,600/- (Rupees Five Lakh
Five Thousand Six Hundred only) within the early defined time period in the form of
Demand Draft or any other as such as this Authority finds it fit and appropriate in the
interest of natural justice and humanity towards better public service.
ii. Review and instruct the Respondent under this complaint, including such amounts as
exemplary costs for delaying the refund and for giving false commitments, which have
caused mental anxiety and additional financial stress to the Complainants, including but
not limited to all such other criteria’s and/or orders as this Authority may find it fit.
iii. Instruct the Respondent as this Authority may deem fit, since the Respondent had started
selling of open plots under the pretext of a “pre-launch” offer before obtaining the RERA
and DTCP approvals.
C. Counter filed by the Respondent:
14.

It is submitted by the Respondent that except those averments which are specifically

admitted, the rest of the allegations made in the complaint are false, fabricated, and tailored to
suit the convenience of the Complainants, and hence denied in toto. The Respondent contends
that the present complaint is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed as there is no violation
of any of the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act.
15.

It is submitted that the project in question has valid RERA approval vide Project

Registration No. P02100005992 dated 01.04.2023. The Respondent submits that the
cancellation of the subject plots was entirely voluntary and at the behest of the Complainants.
It is further contended that the change of plots from Phase I to Phase II was also at the request
of the Complainants themselves.
16.

The Respondent denies the authenticity of the Agreement of Sale relied upon by the

Complainants, stating that the said document is fabricated and does not bear the original
signature of the Respondent. It is submitted that the genuine Agreement of Sale pertains to
Phase I of “Peacock Avenue” and that the project was duly registered under RERA prior to
execution of the said agreement.

Page 4 of 14

---

It is further submitted by the Respondent that the allegations of “pre-launch” sales are

unfounded. The layout had already received DTCP approval vide TLP No. 9/2023/H dated
10.01.2023, much before applying for registration with RERA. The Respondent contends that
Phase II of the project has also since been registered with RERA and duly approved by DTCP,
and therefore there has been no violation of law or statutory provisions.
18.

The Respondent further submits that the Complainants have filed the present complaint

only with the intent to evade cancellation charges that are otherwise permissible under law and
under RERA. It is stated that the cancellation charges were duly conveyed to the Complainants,
who refused to accept the same and instead approached this Authority with false allegations of
non-refund.
19.

The Respondent contends that if the Complainants are willing to forego the cancellation

charges, the balance amount can be settled.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainants:
20.

The Complainants submit that the averments made by the Respondent in its counter are

false, misleading and intended to harass. The Respondent has deliberately disregarded his own
documents, shifted blame, and attempted to cause undue delay through evasive tactics. Save
and except what is specifically admitted, all other allegations are denied in toto.
21.

It is submitted that the booking made by the Complainants on 14.08.2023 pertains

exclusively to Phase II of “Peacock Estate,” which is evidenced by sale receipts and executed
Agreements of Sale clearly specifying the Phase number, project name, plot details and date.
Upon payment of 50% of the total sale consideration, the Respondent executed the agreement
documents. In support, the Complainants rely upon bank transaction records along with
receipts bearing transaction dates, IDs and recipient details. Accordingly, the allegation that the
booking relates to Phase I is false and denied.
22.

The Complainants further submit that Phase I of “Peacock Estate” was registered under

RERA No. P02100005992 dated 01.04.2023 in respect of Survey Nos. 227/P, 229/P and 230/P
located at Marpalle, Vikarabad. In contrast, Phase II relates to Survey Nos. 224 (Part), 225
(Part) and 228 (Part). As on the booking date of 14.08.2023, Phase II did not have valid DTCP
or RERA approval. Despite this, the Respondent accepted 50% of the sale consideration per
plot based only on an internal draft layout and assigned plot numbers. This constitutes a
violation of RERA provisions.
Page 5 of 14

---

The Respondent subsequently obtained DTCP Draft Layout Approval for Phase II vide

Draft TLP No. 26/2024/H dated 14.02.2024, nearly six months after the Complainants’
booking. Pursuant to such approval, the original plot numbers 265 and 270 were renumbered
as Plot Nos. 205 and 198 respectively. This sequence of events was already detailed in the
complaint and is supported by receipts and agreements.
24.

The Complainants submit that at the time of booking the plots were shown as measuring

147 sq. yds. Following DTCP Draft Layout approval, the plot size was revised to 183 sq. yds.,
whereupon the Respondent’s marketing officer demanded additional payment. Accordingly,
the Complainants paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2024, and receipts Nos. 2604 and 2605 dated
02.04.2024 for Rs.1,00,000/- each were issued against the renumbered plots 198 and 205.
However, despite accepting this additional consideration, the Respondent failed to issue a fresh
Agreement of Sale. The earlier receipts and Agreements of Sale, which reflected payment of
50% of the total sale consideration, clearly mention the old plot numbers and corresponding
measurements, while the newly issued receipts reflect the revised plot numbers and updated
measurements. The Complainants assert that all six documents, agreements and receipts are
genuine, duly signed by the Respondent or his designated officers, and therefore the allegation
of fabrication is false.
25.

It is further pointed out that Paragraph 2 of the Agreement of Sale itself records that

possession and registration would be subject to DTCP final approval, thereby recognising that
the allotment was made on the basis of an internal draft layout. The Respondent cannot now
deny the same.
26.

Denying the allegations made by the Respondent in Paragraph 6 of its Counter, the

Complainants submit that the Agreement of Sale submitted by them is genuine and was issued
by the Respondent himself, who must be held accountable for its contents. It is further
submitted that the objection regarding the signature is frivolous, as the same signature appears
consistently in the “Authorized Signatory” section of Receipt Nos. 1844, 1845, 1994, and
1994/1 documents previously issued by the Respondent. The Complainants further submit that
the Agreement of Sale bears Licensed Stamp Vendor details, identifiers of purchase,
conclusively pointing to the Respondent. The said document also bears transaction ID
230829155420777157 dated 29.08.2023, which prove its genuineness. The allegation of
fabrication is therefore baseless.

Page 6 of 14

---

The Complainants submit that on 04.11.2024, the Respondent’s Office Administrator,

in the presence of the Respondent and a designated Sales Representative, formally accepted all
six original receipts and acknowledged refund liability of Rs.9,05,600/-. The acknowledgment
bears the signature of the Respondent’s Office Admin. Further, on 05.02.2025, the Respondent
issued a written commitment letter with the official seal of SSL Infra Developers, undertaking
to refund the balance dues. These documents bind the Respondent and establish his liability.
28.

The allegation of the Respondent that the Agreement of Sale relates to Phase I is false.

All documents, including receipts, Agreements of Sale and the refund commitment letter,
consistently refer to “Peacock Estate – Phase II” with clear mention of survey numbers, plot
numbers, plot sizes and dates.
29.

The Complainants submit that the cancellation letter dated 13.06.2024, which was

voluntarily given, clearly records the reasons as “long waiting without registration” and
“financial need of medical emergency.” This demonstrates the genuine hardship faced by the
Complainants and prolonged delay attributable to the Respondent.
30.

It is further submitted that although DTCP Draft TLP approval for Phase II was granted

on 14.02.2024, RERA approval was still not obtained as of that date. Since RERA approval
follows DTCP approval, hence, until 14.02.2024, no approval existed for the relevant Phase II.
The Complainants therefore seek an inquiry by this Authority to ascertain the date of filing and
approval of RERA registration for Phase II.
31.

The Complainants deny the Respondent’s allegations in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of their

counter. It is submitted that the Respondent themselves issued a refund commitment letter dated
05.02.2025 but failed to honour the same. After filing the complaint on 10.03.2025, the
Respondent transferred Rs.25,000/- per plot, totalling Rs.50,000/- on 11.03.2025.
Subsequently, on 09.04.2025, two post-dated cheques of Rs.2,27,800/- each were issued in
favour of the Complainants, but both cheques were dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient.”
32.

It is submitted that cheque No. 001556 was dishonoured on 29.04.2025. Cheque No.

001554 was dishonoured on 31.05.2025. Legal notices under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act were issued on 09.05.2025 and again on 21.06.2025 for both dishonoured
cheques. Despite service of notices, no repayment has been made.
33.

The Complainants submit that they had availed a personal loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from

HDFC Bank to pay Rs.9,05,600/- to the Respondent towards the two plots. They continue to
Page 7 of 14

---

The Complainants further submit that the Respondent’s repeated allegations of

fabrication of documents are contrary to his own records and amount to misuse of process. His
consistent delay, false commitments and non-compliance demonstrate wilful default and
harassment.
35.

Accordingly, the Complainants pray that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased to

direct immediate refund of Rs.4,55,600/- with applicable statutory interest; initiate penal action
against the Respondent for violations of RERA and DTCP regulations; award costs of these
proceedings to the Complainant; and pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem
fit in the interest of justice.
E. Points to be determined:
36.

Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Respondent violated Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 by
making a “pre-launch” offer and accepting booking amounts from the Complainant
before registering Phase-II of the project “Peacock Estates” with the Authority?

II.

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

F. Observation of the Authority:
Point I
37.

Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents and material placed on record,

it is observed that the Complainants booked plots in “Peacock Estates – Phase II” in August
2023 and paid substantial sums towards sale consideration. The Agreements of Sale executed
on 06.09.2023 as well as the receipts issued clearly pertain to Phase II of the project, situated
in Survey Nos. 224 (Part), 225 (Part) and 228 (Part) of Thummalapally Village, Marpally
Mandal, Vikarabad District. The Draft Technical Layout (TLP No.26/2024/H) for the said

Page 8 of 14

---

This Authority had issued a show cause notice to the Respondent for violation of

Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act in respect of Peacock Estates – Phase II. In reply, the
Respondent in its counter sought to assert that “for the sake of bringing truth before this
Hon’ble Tribunal, Phase II is also registered under RERA and DTCP layout is also approved”.
However, the Respondent has not placed any material to substantiate this claim, and in the
absence of such proof, the contention cannot be accepted. Further, upon verification of the
records available with this Authority, no information regarding the registration of Phase II of
the project is found. Likewise, the Respondent has alleged that the Agreement of Sale produced
by the Complainants is fabricated, but has not filed any evidence to substantiate such an
allegation. On the contrary, the document produced clearly mentions Plot Nos. 265 and 270
(Phase II) in Survey Nos. 224 Part, 225 Part and 228 Part as the subject-matter of the sale.
39.

The Respondent further pleaded that the Agreement in fact pertains to Phase I of

“Peacock Avenue” and that registration under RERA had been secured much prior thereto, with
DTCP permission vide TLP No.9/2023/H dated 10.01.2023. This contention is clearly
untenable. The RERA registration relied upon by the Respondent, bearing No. P02100005992,
pertains to Survey Nos. 227/P, 229/P and 230/P at Marpalle, Vikarabad, whereas the plots
purchased by the Complainants are in Survey Nos. 224/P, 225/P and 228/P, forming part of a
distinct phase of the project. Each phase of a project is required to be registered independently,
and registration of Phase I cannot be pressed into service to justify bookings in Phase II. The
Agreement of Sale and the receipts produced by the Complainants demonstrate that the subject
plots were purchased in Phase II, which at the relevant time had neither DTCP approval nor
RERA registration.
40.

Significantly, Clause 2 of the Agreement of Sale records that “the vendor will hand

over the possession of the above said property at the time of registration, however the
registration would be done upon final approval of layout from DTCP or concerned
authorities… It is agreed by both the parties that the placement of the plots is subject to DTCP
final layout approval and east facing plots shall be allotted accordingly and there will not be
any change in the measurement and extent of the plot.” This clause itself demonstrates that as
on the date of execution of the Agreement, DTCP final approval had not been obtained. It also
shows that the Respondent collected fifty percent of the consideration while making allotments
Page 9 of 14

---

Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 provides that: “No promoter shall advertise,

market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot,
apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any
planning area, without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority established under this Act.” Further, Section 3(2)(a) carves out a limited exemption
from registration only in cases where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed
500 square metres or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed
eight.
42.

In

the

present

case,

a

perusal

of

the

Draft

Layout

approval,

vide

Lr.Roc.No.3323/156/2024, dated 14.02.2024 pertaining to Survey Numbers 224/P, 225/P &
228/P of Thummalapally Gram Panchayat, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District, shows that
the Phase II of the Project extends to an area of Ac.19.55 cents (equivalent to 94622 sq. yds.)
with 290 plots, which is far in excess of the statutory threshold prescribed in Section 3(2)(a).
The project therefore does not fall within the category of exempted projects and squarely
attracts the requirement of compulsory registration under Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act. The
act of the Respondent in collecting fifty percent of the sale consideration from the
Complainants at the stage of “pre-launch” prior to obtaining registration constitutes a direct
contravention of Section 3. Further, Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, obligates the promoter to
make an application for registration accompanied by approvals. The record clearly shows that
no such registration application for Phase II was made before the bookings.
43.

Accordingly, the Authority holds that the Respondent has committed breaches of

Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act by launching and marketing Phase II of “Peacock
Estates” without registration and by collecting booking amounts from the Complainants. The
pleas raised in the counter are unsupported by evidence and are contrary to the record.
Therefore, the Secretary of TG RERA is directed to initiate steps against the Respondent under
Section 59 of the RE(R&D) Act, for violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act.

Page 10 of 14

---

In order to adjudicate upon the entitlement of the Complainants to relief, it is first

necessary to set out the details of payments made, receipts issued, subsequent renumbering of
plots, and the chronology of refunds. The record establishes that the Complainants booked Plot
Nos. 265 and 270 in “Peacock Estates – Phase II”. At the time of booking, the Complainants
remitted 50% of the sale consideration for each plot, duly acknowledged by the Respondent
through the following receipts:
Sl.No. Receipt

1

Date of

No.

Receipt

1844

14.08.2023

Amount

Date of

Towards Plot

Payment
Rs.1,00,000/-

14.08.2023

Towards Plot No. 270
(later renumbered 198)

2

1845

14.08.2023

Rs.1,00,000/-

14.08.2023

Towards Plot No. 265
(later renumbered 205)

3

1994

01.09.2023

Rs.2,52,800/-

01.09.2023

Towards Plot No. 265
(later renumbered 205)

4

1994/1

01.09.2023

Rs.2,52,800/-

01.09.2023

Towards Plot No. 270
(later renumbered 198)

Thus, an aggregate of Rs. 7,05,600/- was paid by the Complainants for both the plots. Pursuant
thereto, an Agreement of Sale dated 06.09.2023 was executed.
45.

According to the contentions of the Complainant, following the grant of Draft Layout

Approval vide TLP No. 26/2024/H dated 14.02.2024, the originally allotted plots 265 and 270
were renumbered as Plots 205 and 198 respectively, and their extent was revised from 147 sq.
yds. to 183 sq. yds. To adjust the sale consideration in proportion to the increased extent, the
Respondent demanded further payment, whereupon the Complainants paid an additional
Rs.2,00,000/- on 29.03.2024, duly acknowledged as under:

Page 11 of 14

---

Date of

Amount

Date of

Towards Plot

No.

Receipt

Payment

1

2604

02.04.2024

Rs.1,00,000/-

29.03.2024

Towards Plot No. 198

2

2605

02.04.2024

Rs.1,00,000/-

29.03.2024

Towards Plot No. 205

Accordingly, as on 02.04.2024, the Complainants had paid a total of Rs. 9,05,600/- towards the
two plots.
46.

It is observed that, following DTCP Draft Layout approval on 14.02.2024 and

renumbering of plots, the Complainants allegedly continued to pursue registration without
success. Left with no option, they tendered a cancellation letter on 13.06.2024, recording “long
waiting without registration” and “medical emergency” as the grounds for cancellation. The
Respondent, however, failed to initiate refund of the amounts paid.
47.

It is further observed that, on 04.11.2024, the Respondent executed a written

acknowledgment confirming receipt of all six original receipts and accepting refund liability
of Rs. 9,05,600/-. Even thereafter, refunds were made only in part and in piecemeal. As per the
submissions of the Complainants, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was refunded prior to 26.12.2024,
and upon issuance of a legal notice dated 26.12.2024, a further Rs. 3,00,000/- was refunded,
thereby bringing the total refund up to Rs. 4,00,000/-. A substantial sum of Rs. 5,05,600/- still
remained unpaid. Thereafter, on 05.02.2025, the Respondent issued a written commitment
letter, duly signed and sealed with the official stamp of SSL Infra Developers, undertaking to
repay the balance of Rs. 5,05,600/- by 01.03.2025 in instalments. However, this commitment
was not honoured. Thereafter, on 11.03.2025, the Respondent transferred Rs. 25,000/- per plot
(Rs. 50,000/- in total) to the Complainants.
48.

Thus, as on date, the Complainants have received only Rs. 4,50,000/- against a total

payment of Rs. 9,05,600/-, leaving a balance of Rs. 4,55,600/- still due and payable.
49.

It is further observed that the Respondent had issued two post-dated cheques, Cheque

Nos. 001554 and 001556 dated 26.05.2025 and 26.04.2025 respectively, each for Rs. 2,27,800/,
in favour of the Complainants. Both cheques were dishonoured stating “Funds Insufficient.”

Page 12 of 14

---

The plea of the Respondent that cancellation charges are deductible is wholly untenable.

While such a stand has been taken in the counter, it is significant that at no stage did the
Respondent actually impose or deduct any cancellation charges. Instead, by the
acknowledgment of 04.11.2024, by making part refunds, by issuing a written commitment on
05.02.2025, and by issuing post-dated cheques (though dishonoured), the Respondent
unequivocally accepted full liability of Rs. 9,05,600/-. The plea of cancellation charges is
therefore an afterthought and cannot be sustained.
51.

Section 18(1) of the Act provides that:
“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.”

52.

In the present case, the booking itself was in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the

RE(R&D) Act, as Phase II was not registered with RERA at the relevant time. The
Complainants, despite this, waited patiently for ten months after execution of the Agreement
of Sale on 06.09.2023, hoping for registration, but were compelled to withdraw due to nonregistration of the concerned plots on 13.06.2024. In such circumstances, the Respondent
cannot seek to deduct cancellation charges or otherwise retain any part of the consideration for
the fault of his own. The Complainants, having validly withdrawn from the project after
prolonged delay, are entitled to refund of the entire amount paid. Out of the total sum of
Rs.9,05,600/-, only Rs.4,50,000/- has been refunded in parts, leaving an outstanding balance
of Rs.4,55,600/-, which the Respondent is liable to return together with statutory interest.
53.

Therefore, this Authority holds that the Complainants are entitled to a refund of a sum

of ₹4,55,600/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty-Five Thousand Six Hundred only), along with 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 highest Marginal Cost of Lending
Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum. It is noted that the said plot was cancelled on 04.11.2024,
and although the Respondent has made part payments thereafter, the entire amount is still to be
Page 13 of 14

---

In exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of the

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and in furtherance of the findings and
conclusions drawn hereinabove, the following directions are hereby issued:
i.

The Authority, taking note of the Respondent's violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the
Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, hereby directs the Secretary,
Telangana RERA, to immediately initiate steps under Section 59 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.

ii.

The Respondent is further directed to refund the outstanding balance of Rs. 4,55,600/(Rupees Four Lakh Fifty-Five Thousand Six Hundred only), along with interest at the
rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI MCLR of 8.75% plus 2%), in accordance with Rule 15
of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, calculated
from 04.11.2024 until the date of actual refund. The said refund together with interest
shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order.

55.

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by Respondents shall attract penalty in

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
56.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

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

Page 14 of 14

---