Order Complaint No. 221 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 221 of 2025
Dated: 29th 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

1. Yarlagadda Ammaji
2. Yarlagadda Atchyuta Ramayya,
R/o. H.No.37-18/16/2, Plot No.821,
Defence Colony, Near Sainikpuri Shopping Center,
Sainikpuri, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad - 500094
…Complainant
Versus
M/s B.V.R. Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director Mr Bainaboina Venkateswarlu,
O/o. Plot No.31, H.No.8-15-120/C/3/FF, Chintalakunta,
L.B. Nagar Circle, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074
…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing on 18.09.2025 before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant and none
appeared on behalf of the Respondent and upon hearing the submissions, this Authority
proceeds to pass the following 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 “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.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

It is submitted that the Complainants purchased a residential plot bearing No. 100,

admeasuring 167 square yards, in the project titled “S.V. Electronic City–3” situated in Survey
No. 138, Sirigiripur Revenue Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

Page 1 of 10

---

The Complainants state that out of the total consideration, they paid a sum of

₹20,00,000/- through a combination of cheque and cash payments, as detailed below:
Sl.No.

Date

Amount

Mode of Payment

1

31.01.2022

₹2,00,000/-

Cheque (No. 000973)

2

05.02.2022

₹4,00,000/-

Cash

3

05.02.2022

₹3,00,000/-

Cash

4

24.04.2022

₹11,00,000/-

Cash

Total

₹20,00,000/-

5.

Subsequently, an Agreement of Sale was executed on 13.06.2023. This agreement

stipulated that the Scheduled Plot would be delivered within sixty (60) days from the date of
the Agreement of Sale, contingent upon the release of the Scheduled Plot from the existing
HMDA mortgage, a condition about which the Complainants assert they were previously
misinformed.
6.

Despite repeated follow-ups, the Developer failed to deliver the plot. Thereafter, the

Developer agreed to register the Scheduled Plot on or before 14.05.2024, and further undertook
under a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.03.2024 to pay an additional sum equivalent
to 2% of the consideration as goodwill from the dates of respective payments, in the event of
default.
7.

However, the Respondent developer again failed to fulfil their obligations as stipulated

in the Memorandum of Understanding. Consequently, the Complainants were constrained to
lodge a formal complaint before the L.B. Nagar Police Station on 21.01.2025.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following relief:
i.

Refund of the full amount paid along with reasonable compensation.

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
9.

At the outset, the Respondent denies all the allegations made in the Complaint in toto,

except those specifically admitted. The Respondent submits that the Company is a registered
Page 2 of 10

---

It is submitted that the Complainants initially intended to purchase Plot No.100,

admeasuring 167 sq. yards, in the project “S.V. Electronic City–3” situated at Sirigiripur
Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, for a total sale consideration
of ₹23,00,091/-. However, since the said plot was already mortgaged with the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA), the same could not be registered. The
Complainants were duly intimated of this fact, and on their acceptance, the Company offered
an alternative plot. Accordingly, Plot Nos. 3, admeasuring 220 sq. yards in Survey No. 121 &
122 forming part of the layout known as “RK Avenues” Block-C, situated at Kadthal Village
and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was registered through a third-party registration vide
Document No. 18957/2022 dated 11.10.2022, before SRO Maheshwaram.
11.

It is further submitted that despite such registration, the Complainants later expressed

disinterest and voluntarily cancelled the registered Sale Deed in respect of Plot No.3 at Kadthal
Village. Thereafter, they insisted upon registration of the original Plot No.100 in Survey No.138
(actual Survey No. 136). The Respondent once again informed the Complainants that Plot
No.100 remained under HMDA mortgage and could not be registered at that time.
12.

It is submitted that the Complainants, while insisting on the registration of Plot No.100,

further demanded that the same be registered on or before 14.05.2024, failing which the
Respondent should pay an additional 2% goodwill amount on the payments made by them. As
the Respondent had no other option, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.03.2024 was
executed, whereby the Respondent agreed to repay the amounts paid by the Complainants
along with an additional 2% goodwill. The Respondent submits that there is no default on its
part, since an alternative plot was already offered and registered in favour of the Complainants
through third-party registration.
13.

It is submitted that the Respondent is making efforts to secure release of Scheduled Plot

No.100 and, upon such release, the plot will be registered in favour of the Complainants. In the
alternative, the Respondent is prepared to offer another plot in the project at the prevailing
price, as per the Complainants’ choice, and get it registered in their favour.

Page 3 of 10

---

The Respondent further submits that, if this Hon’ble Authority comes to a conclusion

that the Respondent is guilty of not registering the scheduled property, the Respondent is
prepared to either offer another plot to the satisfaction of the Complainants, or to compensate
the Complainants as per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.03.2024.
15.

In the light of the above, the Respondent prays that the Complaint be dismissed with

exemplary costs, and this Hon’ble Authority may pass such other orders as deemed fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
D. Points to be determined:
16.

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

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Respondent has violated Sections 3 & 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 by not
registering the project, S.V. Electronic City–3?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

E. Observations of the Authority:
Point I
17.

Upon careful examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions made by both

parties, it is observed that the Complainants had booked a residential plot bearing No. 100,
admeasuring 167 square yards, in the project titled “S.V. Electronic City–3”, situated at Survey
No. 138 (actually Survey No. 136), Sirigiripur Revenue Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, for a total sale consideration of ₹23,00,091/-. Out of the said amount, the
Complainants have paid ₹20,00,000/- between 31.01.2022 and 24.04.2022 through cheque and
cash payments. Subsequently, an Agreement of Sale dated 13.06.2023 was executed between
the parties, wherein it was stipulated that the said plot would be registered within sixty (60)
days from the date of the agreement, subject to release of the plot from an existing HMDA
mortgage.
18.

This Authority, during the course of proceedings, issued a Show Cause Notice to the

Respondent for violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, in respect of the said project. However, the Respondent failed to file any reply or
explanation to the said notice. In its counter, the Respondent merely stated that its company is

Page 4 of 10

---

Upon verification of records available with this Authority, it is found that the certificate

referred to by the Respondent pertains to a different project titled “S.V. Golden City–V”,
situated in Survey Nos. 62P and 63P at Ramanuthula Village, Amangal Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, registered under Project Registration No. P02400003957 dated 22.01.2022, valid up
to 17.12.2023. It is therefore evident that the registration cited by the Respondent pertains to a
different project altogether and is unrelated to the project in question, i.e., “S.V. Electronic
City–3”.
20.

The HMDA draft layout approval dated 11.05.2022 placed on record by the Respondent

reveals that the project “S.V. Electronic City–3” pertains to open plots in Survey Nos. 136 (Part)
and 138 (Part), admeasuring a total extent of 26,619.22 square metres, situated at Sirigiripur
Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. This layout is clearly distinct from the
registered project referred to by the Respondent and falls within the purview of the present
complaint. Further, the said layout clearly corresponds to the land on which the Respondent
has developed the project titled “S.V. Electronic City–3.”
21.

In this context, it is relevant to refer to Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016, which categorically 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.”
22.

The exemption provided under Section 3(2)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, applies only to

projects where the land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square metres, or where
the number of apartments proposed does not exceed eight, inclusive of all phases. In the present
case, the project “S.V. Electronic City–3” clearly involves development over an extent of
26,619.22 square metres, which far exceeds the exempted limit prescribed under the RE(R&D)
Act, thereby mandating registration of the project with this Authority prior to any
advertisement, booking, sale, or collection of consideration from allottees.

Page 5 of 10

---

Further, under Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, every promoter is required to make an

application for registration of a real estate project along with all requisite disclosures. In the
present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the Respondent had ever applied for
such registration. On the contrary, the material on record shows that the Respondent has entered
into an Agreement of Sale with the Complainants and collected substantial amounts without
obtaining registration, thereby contravening Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act.
24.

The plea of the Respondent that the Company is registered based on the certificate

pertaining to “SV Golden City–V”, cannot absolve it of the statutory obligation to register the
specific project “S.V. Electronic City–3.” Each project is required to be separately registered
under Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, and the registration obtained for a different project cannot
be extended or applied to another distinct project.
25.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Respondent has violated Sections 3 and 4 of

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, by marketing, booking, and
collecting consideration for plots in an unregistered project titled “S.V. Electronic City–3.”
Therefore, the Secretary of TG RERA is directed to initiate steps against the Respondent under
Section 59 of the RE(R&D) Act, for the said violation.
Point No. I is answered accordingly.
Point II
26.

Upon a detailed consideration of the pleadings, documents, and submissions of both

parties, this Authority observes that the Complainants had purchased Plot No. 100 admeasuring
167 square yards in the project “S.V. Electronic City–3” for a total sale consideration of
₹23,00,091/-, out of which a sum of ₹20,00,000/- was paid between 31.01.2022 and 24.04.2022
through cheque and cash payments. The Complainants contend that an Agreement of Sale dated
13.06.2023 was executed, under which the Respondent undertook to deliver the scheduled plot
within sixty (60) days, subject to its release from the existing HMDA mortgage, a condition
regarding which the Complainants assert that they were never informed prior to execution of
the agreement. It is further submitted that even after execution of a subsequent Memorandum
of Understanding dated 14.03.2024, wherein the Respondent undertook to complete
registration on or before 14.05.2024, the Respondent failed to fulfil its obligations.

Page 6 of 10

---

The Respondent, in defence, submits that the Complainants were fully aware that Plot

No. 100 was mortgaged with HMDA and that registration could be completed only upon release
of the said plot. The Respondent further submits that an alternative plot in another project at
Kadthal Village was offered and registered in favour of the Complainants by means of thirdparty registration. According to the Respondent, the Complainants voluntarily cancelled the
same and insisted upon registration of the original mortgaged plot.
28.

Before addressing the rival contentions, it is necessary to examine compliance by the

Respondent with the statutory mandate of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016. Section 13(1) of the Act clearly provides that: “A promoter shall not accept a sum more
than ten per cent of the cost of the apartment, plot, or building, as the case may be, as an
advance payment or an application fee, from a person without first entering into a written
agreement for sale with such person and register the said agreement for sale, under any law
for the time being in force.”
29.

In the present case, the Respondent collected a substantial sum of ₹20,00,000/-, which

is nearly 87% of the total consideration, prior to execution of the Agreement of Sale dated
13.06.2023. Thus, the Respondent has clearly violated Section 13(1) of the RE(R&D) Act by
collecting more than ten percent of the cost of the plot without first entering into and registering
a written agreement for sale.
30.

With respect to the mortgage status of the plot, the Respondent has admitted that Plot

No. 100 was mortgaged with HMDA. The Respondent has further admitted in the counter that
it is still “making efforts to get the said plot released from HMDA.” Condition No. 1 of the
HMDA draft layout approval dated 11.05.2022 categorically prohibits the sale of mortgaged
plots and specifically states that plots mortgaged in favour of HMDA, i.e., Plot Nos. 85 to 92
and 94 to 102, shall not be permitted to be sold. Plot No. 100 falls squarely within this
prohibited category. Therefore, the act of entering into an Agreement of Sale and collecting
substantial consideration for a mortgaged plot is in direct contravention of the HMDA approval
conditions.
31.

As per Condition No. 9 of the HMDA approval, the Respondent was obligated to

complete the development works within a period of three years from the date of approval and
thereafter submit a requisition for release of the mortgaged plots for final layout approval. The
approval is dated 11.05.2022; hence the Respondent ought to have completed developmental
Page 7 of 10

---

This Authority deems it necessary to comment upon the conduct exhibited by certain

promoters who, after collecting substantial amounts from unsuspecting allottees, seek to
incorporate clauses in the Agreement for Sale providing for the “release of mortgage” or similar
encumbrances at a later stage. Such practices place allottees in a highly vulnerable position, as
they are left with no meaningful choice but to adhere to these dictated terms after having
already parted with significant consideration. This Authority firmly holds that such conduct is
impermissible, contrary to the mandate of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016, and undermines the legislative intent of securing transparency and protection to
homebuyers. This Authority, therefore, strongly deprecates and prohibits such practices, and
cautions promoters against adopting any device or arrangement that compromises the rights
and interests of allottees.
33.

In the present case, the Respondent has acted in dual contravention, first, by collecting

substantial consideration without entering into a registered Agreement of Sale, and second, by
entering into an Agreement of Sale in respect of a mortgaged and non-saleable plot in violation
of HMDA conditions. Furthermore, as held under Point No. 1, the project itself is unregistered,
in violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act. The Respondent has therefore acted in
complete disregard of statutory requirements and regulatory conditions.
34.

As regards the Respondent’s assertion about offering an alternative plot, the documents

placed on record indicate that a Sale Deed dated 11.10.2022 was executed by one Yelishetty
Rajkumar in favour of the Complainants for Plot No. 3, admeasuring 220 square yards in a
layout known as “R.K. Avenues” at Kadthal Village for a consideration of ₹4,62,000/-. The
Complainants later sold this plot to one Nelavelli Saraladevi through Sale Deed dated
21.06.2023. These appear to be independent third-party transactions, arising from mutual
arrangements between the parties concerned, and cannot be construed as performance of the
Respondent’s obligations under the Agreement of Sale for Plot No. 100.

Page 8 of 10

---

In view of the above findings, this Authority holds that the Respondent is in clear breach

of its statutory and contractual obligations, and the Complainants are justified in seeking
withdrawal from the project. Accordingly, the Complainants are entitled to refund of the entire
amount of ₹20,00,000/- paid by them.
36.

As regards the claim for interest, this Authority observes that although the Agreement

of Sale dated 13.06.2023 does not specify a fixed date for completion of registration or delivery
of possession, the obligations of the Respondent cannot be viewed in isolation. The HMDA
Draft Layout Approval dated 11.05.2022 categorically mandated the Respondent to (i)
complete all developmental works within three (03) years, (ii) obtain final layout approval, and
(iii) secure release of mortgaged plots within the said period. These conditions form an integral
part of the Respondent’s statutory and contractual obligations.
37.

Despite such clear mandates, the Respondent has miserably failed to comply with any

of the above obligations. The very act of entering into the Agreement of Sale with the
Complainant without obtaining release of mortgaged plots and without securing final approval
amounts to a blatant violation of the express conditions of HMDA. Further, even as of the date
of the present proceedings, the Respondent has not obtained the Final Layout. Although the
Respondent has submitted that he is “making efforts” to secure release of the plot, no
application for Final Layout has been placed on record to substantiate such claims. This
Authority therefore finds such submissions to be evasive, unsupported, and intended merely to
delay the inevitable compliance.
38.

The Authority also notes that in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 14.03.2024,

the Respondent expressly assured that registration would be completed by 14.05.2024.
However, even thereafter, the Respondent did not take the basic step of applying for release of
Final Layout, thereby demonstrating wilful non-compliance and continuous default.
39.

The Complainant has been waiting for years for possession, while the Respondent has

engaged in a pattern of providing repeated dates, assurances and shifting timelines, without
taking any consequential action to release the mortgaged plot or comply with statutory
requirements. The Respondent’s conduct, therefore, squarely attracts the consequences under
Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, as the Respondent has failed to complete the project
and deliver possession within the time prescribed under law. In such circumstances, the claim
for interest is not only justified but is legally warranted.
Page 9 of 10

---

Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016, this Authority holds that the Respondent is liable to refund the
entire amount received from the Complainant, together with interest at the rate as per Rule 15
of TG RE(R&D) Rules,2017, calculated from 13.06.2023, being the date of execution of the
Agreement of Sale, till the date of actual refund, without any delay. The liability to pay interest
shall continue until the Respondent fully satisfies the refund in accordance with this order.
Point No. II is answered accordingly.
F. Directions of the Authority:
41.

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 entire amount of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees
Twenty Lakhs only, along with interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI MCLR
of 8.75% + 2%) calculated from 13.06.2023, till 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.

42.

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.
43.

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 10 of 10

---