Order Complaint No. 217 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 217 of 2024
31st October 2025
Quorum:

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

Yogesh Sadula
Plot No.133, FNO 401, 4th floor, Prashanth Nagar
Kondapur, K.V. Rangareddy
Telanagana 500084

…Complainant
Versus
1. SVB Estates, rep. by Venkata Rao Marpina (Managing Partner)
R/o- H. No.1-62/K/84, 3rd floor, Beside Dwaraka Summit Building
Kavuri Hills Road, CBI Colony
Jubilee Hills, Madhapur,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500033

2. SVB Estates, rep. by Shaik Shabana (Managing Partner)
R/o- H. No.1-62/K/84, 3rd floor, beside dwaraka Summit BUILDING
Kavuri Hills Road, CBI Colony
Jubilee Hills, Madhapur,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500033

3. Srinivas Gupta Narayana
R/o- H. No. 57-8, Upstairs, Narayana Nialayam
Old Municipal Office Road
Fort Kurnool, Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh-518001

4. Nukala Balakrishna
R/o-H. No.17-40, Shankar Ganj
Wanaparthy, Savaigudem
Mahabubnagar,
Telangana 509103

5. Pepalla Satish Kumar
R/o-8-3-720/6-1, Salivahana Nagar
Near HP Gas Godown, Sriniagar Colony
Khairatabad, Hyderabad
Telangana 500073

…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on 23.07.2025
before this Authority in the presence of and Complainant and Respondent No.1 in person, and
after hearing the submissions made by both the parties, this Authority passes the following
ORDER:
1

---

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

The Complainant submitted that he had paid a cumulative amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- in

multiple transactions over a span of five years, commencing from 08.08.2019 until the present
date, to Mr. Venkat Rao Marpina and Mrs. Shaik Shabana, towards the promise of an open plot
registration at a layout named "Bird of Paradise", bearing Layout Permit No.
000176/LO/Plg/HMDA/2022, which is being marketed and managed by SV Bhrugu Estates
(SVB Estates), a firm owned by Srinivas Gupta Narayana and Nukala Balakrishna. The
Complainant submitted that the promised plot was Plot No. 28, admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards,
situated at Survey No. 115/P (subdivisions 115/B/A and 115/AA/A), located in Peddatopra
village, Shamshabad Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana.
4.

The Complainant further alleged that as per the mutual understanding and agreement

between the parties, the said plot was to be registered in his name on or before 30.12.2022.
However, despite his repeated requests and follow-ups, Mr. Venkat Rao and Mrs. Shaik
Shabana failed to fulfill their promise and continued to mislead him with false assurances. The
Complainant alleged that this conduct was part of a deliberate attempt to extract more money
from him, without any real intention of either effecting the registration or refunding the
amounts already paid. Further, the said individuals have now become completely unreachable
and have been ignoring all his phone calls and other modes of communication, thereby avoiding
accountability for their conduct.
5.

The Complainant, as reflected from the Agreement of Sale, agreed to purchase the said

property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 34,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-four Lakhs only). The
PURCHASER has paid advance amount of Rs. 26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-six Lakhs only)
out of which Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) by way of Cheque 000659/ICICI Bank,
Date 08/08/2019 and Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by way of Cheque
000058/HDFC Bank, Date 04/10/2019 and Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by way of
Cash, Date 04/10/2019 and Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) by way of Cash, Date
30/06/2022 and Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) by way of cash dated 11/09/2022 and
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) by transfer dated 20/10/2022 and RS.5,00,000/2

---

The Complainant alleged that from 2019 till June 2022, over a period of almost three

years, he was given repeated excuses and his allotted plot was changed on three separate
occasions without his consent. He further submitted that due to his prolonged wait and
continued pleading for registration, one Mr. Valipi Ankaiah alias Avinash, an agent of Bhrigu
Infra, suggested that he shift to a different layout project known as “Bird of Paradise”, citing
issues with Fortune Paradise registrations. Moreover, the Complainant submitted that “Bird of
Paradise” layout, bearing HMDA Permit No. 000176/LO/Plg/HMDA/2022, was situated at
Survey No. 115/P, Peddatopra village, Shamshabad Mandal, and was being managed by Mr.
Venkat Rao’s other firm, SV Bhrugu Estates. The Complainant requested for transfer of his
allotment to the said project, to which Mr. Venkat Rao agreed, but simultaneously demanded
additional payments.
7.

The Complainant alleged that pursuant to this demand, he paid Rs. 2,00,000/- in cash

on 30.06.2022 to SV Bhrugu Estates. Subsequently, under the pretext of requiring money for
layout permits and with a promise of imminent registration, the Complainant was forced to pay
another Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash on 11.09.2022. Further, the Complainant submitted that he was
told to prepare for registration, but on the scheduled day, Mr. Venkat Rao postponed the
registration citing vague reasons. Thereafter, the Complainant was informed by Mr. Venkat
Rao that the Rs. 8,00,000/- previously paid to Fortune Realty could not be recovered, and that
the Complainant must pursue recovery of that amount on his own. The Complainant alleged
that he eventually established contact with a representative from Fortune Realty and requested
for refund of the said amount. While he was pursuing this, Mr. Venkat Rao again approached
him and under threat of cancellation of allotment, coerced him into paying an additional Rs.
2,00,000/- via RTGS on 20.10.2022, which was acknowledged by receipt dated 27.10.2022.
8.

The Complainant further submitted that on 07.11.2022, Fortune Realty refunded Rs.

8,00,000/- by way of cheque bearing No. 02172094 drawn on Union Bank in the name of the
Complainant. The Complainant alleged that upon learning about this refund, Mr. Venkat Rao
wrongfully claimed entitlement to this amount and began to harass and threaten the
Complainant, insisting that the refunded amount was his and that he would initiate legal
proceedings if the money was not returned.

3

---

The Complainant alleged that Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2 have engaged in

persistent extortion and mental harassment by threatening cancellation of plot allotment
without any clarity or guarantee either regarding the registration of the promised plot or the
refund of the money already paid by the Complainant. The Complainant alleged that this entire
course of conduct has financially and mentally exploited him for over five years.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
10.

In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the Complainant has prayed

for the following reliefs:
a) To direct the Respondents to refund the full amount paid (Rs. 26,00,000/-).
b) To direct the Respondents to pay the promised interest on the total payment made, i.e.,
at the rate of 2% per month as agreed in the sale agreement.
C. Observation of the Authority
11.

In the present case, it is noted that the said project is under adjudication in Suo Motu

Proceedings No. 3037/2025 for violation of Sections 3, 4 & 9 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. This
Authority refrains from entering into the merits of the same in the present complaint, as duly
addressed in the aforesaid suo motu proceedings, and therefore, no separate finding is
warranted in this case on that aspect.
12.

The Complainant has placed on record the Agreement of Sale dated 06.12.2022,

executed for the purchase of Residential Plot No. 28, admeasuring 200 square yards, for a total
sale consideration of ₹34,00,000/-, in the project titled “Bird of Paradise”, situated in Survey
No. 115(P), bearing Layout Permit No. 000176/LO/Plg/HMDA/2022, located at Peddatupra
Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
13.

Upon careful consideration of the material available on record and the submissions

made by both parties, it is observed that, in terms of the Agreement of Sale dated 06.12.2022
executed between the Complainant and Respondent No. 1, the Complainant had paid an
aggregate sum of ₹26,00,000/- by way of bank transfer and ₹8,00,000/- in cash. It is admitted
in the main complaint that the Respondent refunded the sum of ₹8,00,000/- to the Complainant.
The total sale consideration of ₹34,00,000/- in respect of the subject plot.
14.

As per the terms of the said Agreement of sale, the Respondent No.1 had undertaken to

complete the registration of the said plot in favour of the Complainant on or before 30.12.2022.
4

---

The Authority notes that the Complainant, acting in good faith, extended ample

opportunities to the Respondent No.1 to either effect the registration or refund the amount paid.
Furthermore, the complainant filed a memo seeking a 30-day period from this Authority to
explore an amicable settlement. Despite the said opportunity, no resolution was achieved. The
Respondent No.1 persistent failure to comply within the extended period, coupled with his nonproduction of any verifiable evidence showing steps taken towards registration, clearly
establishes deliberate non-performance.
16.

Upon scrutiny of the records, it is evident that Respondent No. 1 collected substantial

amounts from the Complainant under the pretext of registering a plot in a layout project not
registered under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. As per the
Agreement of Sale dated 06.12.2022, Respondent No. 1 offered to sell the residential plot,
assuring that necessary HMDA approvals would be obtained within 25 days and that
registration would be completed on or before 20.12.2022, failing which the sale consideration
would be refunded with interest. However, Respondent No. 1 failed to secure the requisite
approvals, establish ownership, or effect registration. The misleading particulars furnished
regarding registration and the collection of monies without lawful authority constitute a clear
violation of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
17.

Further during the hearing, Respondent No. 1 submitted an undertaking affidavit dated

22.01.2025, wherein the Respondent No.1 stated that the subject plot would be registered in
favour of the Complainant. However, the Respondent No.1 has failed to comply with the said
undertaking, and no evidence of registration has been placed before this Authority till date,
despite having received the total sale consideration from the Complainant. This Authority
deems it appropriate that the provisions of Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 will attract. The failure of Respondent No. 1 to adhere the terms of
the Agreement of Sale, without any justifiable cause, and further failed to obtain requisite
5

---

It is pertaining to look into the provisions of Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016

which reads as follows:
“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.”
19.

Therefore, Respondent No. 1 is liable to pay the refund the total sale consideration of

Rs. 26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Only) received from the Complainant, along with
interest at the rate of 10.75% (SBI MCLR 8.75% + 2%), calculated from the date of collection
of each payment till the date of actual refund, though Respondent No. 1 submitted an
undertaking affidavit expressing intent to register the plot within 90 days from the date of
RERA project registration, the same has not been complied with. The Respondent’s conduct
indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead the allottee, and the Complainant cannot be expected
to wait indefinitely for registration. Accordingly, the refund with interest is hereby directed
under Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
D. Directions of the Authority:
20.

This Authority, vide the powers vested under Section 37 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016,

passes the following directions:
i.

The Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to refund the total sale consideration amount
of ₹26,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Six Lakhs Only) received from the Complainant
6

---

The above refund shall be made along with interest at the rate of State Bank of India’s
highest MCLR 8.75% + 2%, i.e., 10.75% interest, calculated from the date of collection
of each payment made by the Complainant till the date of actual refund, strictly in terms
of Section 18(1)(a) of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 read with Rule 15 of the Telangana
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.

21.

Failing to comply with the above-said directions by Respondent shall attract penalty

in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
22.

The Complaint is disposed of in lieu of the above directions. 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

7

---