Order Complaint No. 24 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 24 of 2025
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

ZRESTA Villa Owners Maintenance Mutually Aided Cooperative Society Ltd.
(Represented by its Secretary, Registered under Section 5 of
Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995
Vide Registration No. TS/RRD/MACS/2023-11/FOW&M
Having its offices at Club House, Zrestha Villas,
Door No. 10-67, Kokapet (V), Gandipet Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, 500075)

… Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Goldfish Abode Private Limited,
(Having its Registered office at7G,
7th Floor, Vaishnavi Cynosure,
Old Mumbai Highway,Hyderabad – 500032)

2. Sri Chandra Sekhar Vege
(Rep.by its Managing Director of M/s. Goldfish Abode Pvt. Ltd.,
S/o V.V Venkateshwar Rao, Aged about 43 years,
Occ: Business, Having its Registered office at
7G, 7th Floor, Vaishnavi Cynosure,
Old Mumbai Highway, Hyderabad, 5000322)

… Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein, came up for final hearing on
10.06.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant’s counsel Sri. Drupad
Sangwan, and none appeared on behalf of the Respondents, despite multiple opportunities
given to them to appear before the bench, hence they were set ex-parte and upon hearing the
submissions of the Complainant, this Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant society represented by its

secretary 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

1

---

It is submitted that the Respondent Company, having learnt of the intent of the members

of the Complainant Society to purchase villas, through its Managing Director (Respondent
No. 2), individually approached the members, introduced them to its ventures, and advertised
the supreme quality of its constructions, including those in the incubation stage. The
members were informed about the ongoing project under the name and style of “GoldfishZresta,” a gated community of 42 villas consisting of Ground + 2 upper floors, located at
Kokapet Village, Narsingi Municipality, Gandipet Mandal (earlier Rajender Nagar Mandal),
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. Additionally, the Respondents persuaded the
members to purchase villas with the intent of using their reputation and popularity for wider
publicity and customer attraction. The Respondents also obtained permission from
the(“HMDA”)

Hyderabad

Metropolitan

Development

Authority,

vide

Letter

No:104623/GHSLO/ORRGC/Plg/HMDA/2013 dated 21.02.2015 for developing the project.
The members of the Complainant Society are allottees, being sale deed holders, agreement
holders, or MOU holders, and are residing in their respective villas.
5.

It is submitted that the members of the Complainant Society have endeavoured to create

a community that has drawn significant attention and attracted several prominent and reputed
individuals of the city, thereby enhancing its prestige and status. Their decision to make this
community their home reflects the promises assured by the Respondents, including careful
planning, superior amenities, and a harmonious living environment. The Respondent
2

---

Sunrise & Sunset Watching
Bird Watching
Stargazing
Nature Walkes

B. Units
Unit Type
4 BHK VILLA
4 BHK VILLA

Built-Up Area
5797.0 sqft
5896.0 sqft

Bathrooms
4
4

C. Amenities
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.
xv.
xvi.
6.

Gym
Swimming Pool
Clubhouse
Yoga/ Meditation Hall
Jogging track
Basketball Court
Tennis Court
Indoor Games
Amphitheatre
Banquet Hall
Lakeside Bio-pool
Private Party Lounge
Billiards & Cards
Pet Park
Out Door Games
Other Amenities

Requirement of Registration of the present project under RERA: It is respectfully

submitted that the Respondents, through aggressive marketing and repeated assurances
regarding timely completion and provision of promised amenities, induced the members of
the Complainant Society to purchase villas in the project. The Respondents created a
legitimate expectation that the members would be able to occupy their homes within the
stipulated time. However, despite such assurances, the Respondents failed to fulfill their
3

---

The Complainant Societysubmits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Newtech

Promoters & Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [(2021) 18 SCC 1], categorically held that
all ongoing projects lacking a completion certificate must be retroactively registered under
RERA to safeguard the interests of allottees. The Respondents’ failure to register the project,
despite being legally bound to do so, violates this statutory mandate and deprives the
Complainant Society members of the protections guaranteed under the RE(R&D)Act.
8.

It is further submitted that the project was originally scheduled to be completed by

2018 under HMDA permission dated 21.02.2015, which, as per G.O. Ms. No. 276 MA dated
02.07.2010, required completion of developmental works within three years and submission
of a requisition for release ofplots/areas which were mortgaged in favour of HMDA.
However, the Respondents failed to complete the works and, instead, sold several villas to the
Complainant Society members and delivered possession without completing the project. As
of the commencement of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 on 01.01.2017, the HMDA permission was
still valid, thereby obligating the Respondents to ensure mandatory registration and
compliance with the provisions of the Act.
9.

It is submitted that the Respondents subsequently approached the HMDA without

informing the members of the Complainant Society and sought revalidation of the original
permission bearing Letter No. 104623/GHSLO/ORRGC/Plg/HMDA/2013 dated 21.02.2015.
The

HMDA,

vide

revalidation

letter

dated

15.04.2023

bearing

Lr.

No.

104623/GHSLO/ORRGC/P/H/2013, extended the project completion deadline until
31.03.2025. The Respondents deliberately suppressed this fact of revalidation to the
members, despite seeking it nearly five years after the earlier dated of completion of project.
This revalidation, in fact, gives a fresh cause for registration of the Project with RERA, which
has still not been done. When the members raised concerns about the delay, the Respondents
and their staff were unresponsive and displayed a lackadaisical attitude. A copy of the said
revalidation letter is filed as Document No. 6, and the Complainant Societyreserve its right to
submit representations against the same.

4

---

It is further submitted that by failing to register the Project under the RE(R&D) Act

2016, the Respondents have violated statutory requirements and deprived the members of the
Complainant Society of protections guaranteed under the Act. The proviso to Section 3
mandates that any ongoing project lacking a completion certificate at the commencement of
the Act must be registered. The Respondents were under a legal obligations to register the
Project and extend all safeguards to the members. Instead, they bypassed this obligation and
sought revalidation without disclosure or consent, clearly indicating their intent to evade their
legal responsibilities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters & Developers (P)
Ltd. v. State of U.P., [(2021) 18 SCC 1], has categorically held that RERA provisions have
retroactive

effect

and

cover

projects

commenced

before

the

Act

where

no

completion/occupancy certificate has been obtained, thereby protecting the interests of
allottees.
11.

It is submitted that at the time of executing sale deeds, the Respondents assured the

members of the Complainant Society that they would be entitled to possess and enjoy all
common areas, amenities, and facilities within the project land. However, despite the lapse of
several years, the Respondents have failed to complete the Project and deliver the promised
facilities.
12.

The Respondents to date did not form an Association as promised in the Sale Deed:

Moreover, the Respondents had an express as well as an implied obligation to facilitate the
formation of an Association or Society of the Villa owners in the Project, which was essential
for the proper management, maintenance, and administration of the community. This
obligation flows from the Sale Deeds executed by the Respondents in favour of the members
of the Complainant Society, as well as from the allotment of the Villas. Having executed the
Sale

Deeds/Agreements,

the

Respondents

were

duty-bound

to

create

such

an

Association/Society and to provide a structured and formal mechanism for addressing the
collective needs of the Villa owners, ensuring the delivery of essential services, and
maintaining the overall standards of living within the Project. However, the Respondents
wilfully neglected and, with ulterior motives, failed to form such an Association/Society as
assured. This deliberate failure constitutes a breach of their obligations and has resulted in
serious detriment to the Villa owners, who were thereby deprived of a unified platform to
redress grievances and manage the common areas and facilities.

5

---

The Respondents’ deliberate inaction compelled the members of the Complainant

Society to independently form the present Society solely to meet their basic requirements and
to ensure the continued upkeep of the Project. This step was taken out of absolute necessity,
as the Respondents failed to provide even the most basic amenities such as security, water
supply, and sanitation. The Respondents’ negligence and abdication of their responsibilities
forced the Villa owners to take matters into their own hands, thereby leading to the formation
of the Complainant Society.
14.

It is pertinent to highlight that the formation of the Complainant Society was not a

voluntary act, but a compelled response to the dire circumstances created by the Respondents’
failure to discharge their obligations. Owing to such failure, the Villa owners have suffered
undue hardship both financially and in terms of the quality of life within the Project. The
Respondents’ neglect and refusal to act, left the Villa owners with no option but to organize
themselves in order to safeguard their interests and ensure the continued habitability and
proper functioning of their community.
15.

Non-Execution of service Agreement and Illegal Collection of Reimbursement

Charges: It is submitted that the Respondents had assured the members of the Complainant
Society that a Service Agreement would be executed, under which essential services and
amenities would be provided in exchange for a maintenance fee. However, no such
agreement has been executed to date, nor have the Respondents produced any document
evidencing its existence. Despite this, they have continued to levy charges on the members
under the guise of “Reimbursement Expenses,” causing a severe financial burden while
failing to provide even basic facilities such as security, water supply, and sanitation.
16.

It is further submitted that the Respondents unlawfully collected substantial amounts

towards advance and deposit maintenance charges without executing a valid Service
Agreement or obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. This constitutes a clear breach of
contractual and fiduciary obligations, apart from being a violation of the provisions of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates promoters to execute
written agreements before collecting any such charges from allottees. The collection of these
sums, therefore, is illegal, arbitrary, and void ab initio.
17.

By misrepresenting that the charges were in accordance with a Service Agreement that

was never executed, the Respondents induced the members to make payments under false
pretences. Such conduct amounts to fraudulent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and a
6

---

Collection and siphoning of Corpus Fund: It is submitted that the Respondents have

further collected an amount of ₹250/- per sq. ft. from each villa owner between 2021 and
2023, towards a purported corpus fund, aggregating to ₹3,96,38,781/- (Rupees Three Crores
Ninety-Six Lakhs Thirty-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-One only). Shockingly,
this substantial amount has been wrongfully retained in the Respondents’ personal account
instead of being deposited in a designated corpus fund account meant exclusively for the
benefit of the members of the Complainant Society.
19.

The Respondents’ act of retaining the corpus fund in their personal account constitutes

clear misappropriation and a grave violation of their legal and fiduciary obligations. The
corpus fund is a collective asset intended to safeguard the long-term maintenance and
financial stability of the community. Its diversion and retention in a personal account
undermines the financial security of the members and constitutes an illegal act, making the
Respondents liable for criminal prosecution under provisions relating to misappropriation and
embezzlement under relevant laws.
20.

It is further submitted that the Respondents’ unlawful retention and control over the

corpus fund amounts to unjust enrichment at the expense of the villa owners. By holding and
benefiting from funds that do not belong to them, the Respondents have caused wrongful loss
to the members of the Complainant Society, who are entitled to immediate restitution of these
monies along with accrued interest and any profits earned during the period of such illegal
retention.
21.

The Complainant Society has reliable information that, after being questioned by the

members, the Respondents transferred the said corpus funds to another undisclosed bank
account, raising a serious apprehension of misuse. Such actions, coupled with the
Respondents’ continued failure to complete several promised works, amount to criminal
breach of trust, fraud, and misappropriation, each carrying grave legal consequences. The
Complainant Society reserves its right to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings to hold the
Respondents accountable for these illegal and unethical actions.
22.

Several Works promised but have not been completed: It is submitted that even after

more than 10 years since obtaining the necessary permissions, the Respondents have failed to
7

---

It is submitted that the members of the Complainant Society have raised these issues

with the Respondents on numerous occasions, including through an email dated 08.11.2023,
wherein detailed grievances were documented and supported by photographs. Despite these
repeated efforts, the Respondents have taken no action to address the concerns raised by the
residents. Furthermore, it is alarming that the Project remains incomplete even after the lapse
of 10 years since the Respondents obtained the necessary permits. This extended delay has
not only caused great inconvenience but has also created a hostile living environment. The
incomplete villas within the Project have become breeding grounds for mosquitoes, spiders,
ants, and other pests, and have attracted stray animals such as dogs and even snakes. The
abandoned and unfinished structures have turned into a source of nuisance, posing health
risks to the residents and creating a negative and eerie atmosphere. The incomplete and
deteriorating state of the Project has also adversely affected the rental returns of the
properties, causing financial losses to the residents.
24.

In particular, the Swimming Pool remains incomplete and unrepaired, with its external

wall damaged in May 2024, highlighting the Respondents’ use of substandard construction.
The deliberate refusal to hand over or complete these promised facilities constitutes a clear
breach of contractual and statutory obligations under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016subjecting the
residents to continued hardship, risk, and inconvenience.
25.

Failure to construct Road: It is submitted that the Respondents have failed to fulfil

their obligation to develop the 12.2-meter-wide BT road within the 30-meter Master Plan
Road, including securing the necessary NOCs from the Chief Engineer, HMDA, and other
authorities. Despite repeated requests by the members of the Complainant Society, the
Respondents have neither obtained the requisite approvals nor undertaken the construction,
leaving this vital infrastructure incomplete and causing severe inconvenience to the residents.
26.

Even after more than five years since the promised completion date, the Respondents

have not delivered the essential amenities and infrastructure, depriving the members of the
rightful use and enjoyment of their properties. The prolonged delays have resulted in
significant financial strain, frustration, and disappointment for the villa owners, who had
8

---

Furthermore, the Respondents continue to collect advance maintenance charges

illegally, despite not having obtained the mandatory Occupation Certificate and Completion
Certificate for the Project. Such unauthorized collections, without ensuring the Project’s
lawful completion, amount to unjust enrichment and constitute a breach of statutory
obligations under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. These unlawful acts have caused grave hardship
to the residents, who are being compelled to bear an unfair financial burden without enjoying
the promised facilities.
28.

Unauthorised Entry into the Electricity Panel Room and breach of peace: It is

submitted that individuals claiming to be employees or agents of the Respondents, including
Mr. Gokul, Ms. Sunitha, and another unidentified person, unlawfully entered the electricity
panel room of the Project without any authorization from the Complainant Society. During
this unauthorized entry, they engaged in an altercation with the security personnel and issued
threats, thereby creating fear and intimidation among the residents. The electricity panel room
is a sensitive and restricted area, and such forceful and unauthorized access not only violated
community security protocols but also endangered the safety of the residents by jeopardizing
the integrity of the electricity infrastructure.
29.

Further, on 16.07.2024 at around 11:30 AM, individuals associated with the

Respondents, accompanied by bouncers and private security guards, unlawfully trespassed
into the Project premises without any prior notice or consent. In the course of this intrusion,
the on-duty security guard was physically pushed and manhandled, constituting assault and
breach of peace. The deliberate use of bouncers to intimidate the members of the
Complainant Society created an atmosphere of fear and tension, clearly reflecting the
Respondents’ disregard for the rights and safety of the residents. A formal complaint was
filed with the Director General of Police on the same day.
30.

These incidents are not isolated but part of a pattern of unauthorized and aggressive

actions by or at the behest of the Respondents, who, instead of fulfilling their statutory and
contractual obligations, have resorted to coercive tactics. Despite the Complainant Society’s
9

---

Non-operational sewage Treatment Plant and water treatment Plant: It is submitted

that during the peak summer month of May 2024, the members of the Complainant Society
faced grave difficulties as the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and Water Treatment Plant
within the Project were found to be non-functional. The failure of these critical facilities
caused severe inconvenience and posed serious health and environmental hazards. In
particular, the non-operational STP led to the reckless discharge of untreated sewage into a
nearby lake, contaminating the water body in clear violation of environmental regulations and
the Respondents’ statutory obligations. Despite having collected STP and maintenance
charges from the members, the Respondents failed to ensure the proper operation and upkeep
of these facilities. The Water Treatment Plant was in a state of disrepair, with the water motor
requiring urgent repairs. The Respondents ignored repeated requests for corrective action,
forcing residents to depend on external water tankers for drinking water, thereby raising
grave concerns about the safety and quality of water being consumed during the critical
summer months.
32.

The Respondent’s consistent negligence and failure to address these essential services,

despite having received full payments from the residents, demonstrates a blatant disregard for
their contractual and statutory obligations. Their inaction has created unsanitary and unsafe
living conditions within the Project, amounting to gross negligence and a serious breach of
trust, thereby causing the residents undue hardship, health risks, and financial loss.
33.

Respondent’s deliberate disregard for the Complainant society’s communications: It is

submitted that the Respondents, despite receiving numerous emails and formal
communications from the Complainant Society detailing ongoing issues and grievances, have
wilfully chosen to ignore these legitimate concerns. Such deliberate disregard is not a mere
oversight but a calculated attempt to evade their obligations and exert undue pressure on the
members of the Complainant Society. This conduct is not only negligent but also in bad faith,
10

---

It is further submitted that FIR No. 44 of 2024 was registered on 05.09.2024 with the

Cyberabad Police, Economic Offences Wing, based on the Complainant Societyallegations of
unauthorized property registrations and large-scale misappropriation of funds, including
illegal diversion of amounts collected towards corpus and advance maintenance. The police
are actively investigating these allegations, with relevant financial documents under scrutiny.
The Complainant Society reserves the right to submit any further evidence as the
investigation progresses. While this complaint addresses collective grievances affecting the
entire community, each member expressly reserves the right to pursue separate legal remedies
for individual claims, ensuring their personal rights remain fully protected. Moreover, the
Respondents have escalated their intimidation by filing frivolous civil proceedings, including
O.S. No. 47 of 2024 (renumbered as O.S. No. 330 of 2024) before the Hon’ble XII Additional
District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and CMA No. 270 of 2024 before the Hon’ble High
Court, obtained through misrepresentation of material facts. The Complainant Society and its
members are actively contesting these proceedings in accordance with law.
B. Relief(s) sought:
35.

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

humbly prayed for the following reliefs:
a. Initiate penalty proceedings against Respondents for non-registration of the Project in
accordance with Section 3 of the RE(R&D)Act;
b. To direct the Respondents to transfer a total amount of Rs. 6,81,78,726/-collected
towards the corpus fund Rs. 3,96,38,781/-) and advance maintenance charges

(Rs.

2,85,39,945/-) to the Complainant Society with interest @24% p.a. to the
Complainant Society Bank Account;
c. To direct the Respondents to complete common amenities such as clubhouse, pool,
repairs, roads, etc.
d. To direct the Respondents to place on record all the necessary permissions obtain
from all the authorities;
11

---

In view of the facts above and the relief(s) sought, the following questions came up for

consideration before this Authority:
I.

Whether the Respondents have violated Section 3 of RE(R&D) Act in respect of the
project “Goldfish Zresta”?

II.

Whether the Complainant Society is entitled to the relief(s) sought? If so, to what
extent?

D. Observations and findings of the Authority:
37.

In the present case, notice was issued on 21.01.2025 directing the Respondent to file a

counter and appear before this Authority on 19.02.2025. Despite due service, the Respondent
remained absent on multiple occasions. Upon refusal to receive notice, service was effected
by affixation, and subsequently, by substituted service through publication in widely
circulated Telugu and English newspapers. As the Respondent still failed to appear, this
Authority, having satisfied itself of due service, proceeded to set the Respondent ex-parte on
10.06.2025.
Point I
38.

The Complainants have submitted that Respondent No. 2, representing the real estate

business of the Respondents, approached the allottees of the concerned project and assured
them of the superior quality, timely completion, and credibility of their proposed
development projects. Specifically, the Respondents represented that the project titled
“Goldfish Zresta”, comprising 42 villas (Ground + 2 Upper Floors), would be completed
within the stipulated period along with all promised amenities. The Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA) granted development permission for the said project vide
Letter No. 104623/GHSLO/ORRGC/Plg/HMDA/2013 dated 21.02.2015. Relying on such
representations, the allottees who hold registered Sale Deeds and/or Agreements of Sale
proceeded to take possession of their respective villas.

12

---

It is alleged that despite having received the entire sale consideration, the Respondents

failed to complete the project in all respects or obtain the requisite Completion Certificate or
Occupancy Certificate from HMDA. Several villas, along with common amenities and
infrastructure facilities, remain incomplete well beyond the originally stipulated completion
period of 2018. It is further submitted that the Respondents proceeded to sell and hand over
possession to the allottees, relying merely on the subsisting HMDA approval as of
01.01.2017, thereby acting in contravention of both statutory and contractual obligations.
Even as per G.O.Ms.No. 276, Municipal Administration and Urban Development
Department, dated 02.07.2010 whereunder the permissible period for layout completion was
extended by three years the Respondents were required to complete the project and obtain
necessary approvals by 21.02.2018, which they have admittedly failed to do.
40.

Under Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, any

project exceeding eight units or 500 square meters that has not received a Completion
Certificate or Occupancy Certificate as on the date of commencement of the Act is deemed
an “ongoing project” and falls within the regulatory jurisdiction of this Authority. The Sale
Deeds placed before this Authority indicate that transactions with certain allottees were
executed as late as 26.06.2021, which clearly establishes that the Respondents continued to
market and sell units in the project even after the Act came into force. It is an undisputed fact
that no Occupancy Certificate has been obtained to date.
For ease of reference, Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act stipulates 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:
Provided that projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of
this Act and for which the completion certificate has not been issued, the
promoter shall make an application to the Authority for registration of the
said project within a period of three months from the date of
commencement of this Act:
Provided further that if the Authority thinks necessary, in the interest of
allottees, for projects which are developed beyond the planning area but
with the requisite permission of the local authority, it may, by order, direct
the promoter of such project to register with the Authority, and the
provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder, shall
apply to such projects from that stage of registration.”
13

---

When read conjointly with Rule 2(1)(j) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Rules, 2017, which defines an “ongoing project” as one where “development
is in progress and for which the Occupancy Certificate or Completion Certificate has not been
issued as on the date of coming into force of the RE(R&D) Act,” it becomes manifestly clear
that the Goldfish Zresta project squarely falls within the ambit of an ongoing project.
42.
and

The Respondents own conduct corroborates this position. They approached HMDA
obtained

revalidation

of

the

earlier

permission

vide

Letter

No.

104623/GHSLO/ORRGC/Plg/HMDA/2013 dated 15.04.2023, extending the validity of the
development permission up to 31.03.2025. This clearly indicates that the project remains
incomplete and continues to be under development.
In view of the foregoing, this Authority finds that the project “Goldfish Zresta”

43.

qualifies as an ongoing project under Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The
Respondents, having executed Agreements of Sale and Sale Deeds as late as 2021, and
having failed to obtain an Occupancy Certificate while simultaneously obtaining revalidation
from the competent authority, were mandatorily required to register the project with this
Authority. Their failure to do so constitutes a clear violation of Section 3 of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016.
Point II
a. With regard to the relief, direct the Respondents to transfer a total amount of Rs.
6,81,78,726/- collected towards the corpus fund Rs. 3,96,38,781/- and advance maintenance
charges Rs. 2,85,39,945/- to the Complainant society with interest @24% p.a. to the
Complainants Bank Account;
44.

The Complainant Society has sought a direction to the Respondents to transfer a total

sum of ₹6,81,78,726/-, comprising ₹3,96,38,781/- collected towards corpus fund and

14

---

Upon consideration of the submissions and documents placed on record, including

copies of Sale Deeds executed between the Respondents and various allottees of the project,
it is the specific contention of the Complainant Society that the Respondents collected ₹250/per sq. ft. from villa owners during the period 2021–2023, aggregating to ₹3,96,38,781/towards corpus fund. It is further alleged that the said amount was retained by the
Respondents in their personal account instead of being transferred to a designated corpus
fund account of the Society.
46.

In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to Section 11(4)(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016, which mandates that the promoter shall be responsible for
providing and maintaining essential services on reasonable charges until the taking over of
maintenance by the registered Association of Allottees. Accordingly, Respondent No.1, being
the promoter, bears a continuing statutory obligation to ensure proper maintenance of the
project and judicious management of the maintenance amounts collected from allottees until
such responsibility is lawfully handed over to the registered association.
47.

It is a settled principle that the corpus fund collected from allottees is to be utilised

exclusively for the welfare and common benefit of the residents of the project, and not for
any personal or unrelated purposes. The promoter, upon completion of the project and
subsequent handover of maintenance responsibilities to the registered Association of
Allottees, is under an obligation to transfer the entire corpus fund collected from the allottees,
together with applicable interest, to the association’s designated account.
48.

The record further reveals that in O.S. No. 47 of 2024 on the file of the Hon’ble

Vacation Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the Respondents herein were the plaintiffs, and the
present Complainant was arrayed as Respondent No.33. In the said suit, an application in I.A.
No. 77 of 2024 was filed by the Respondents seeking interim relief, wherein the Hon’ble
Court, by order dated 21.05.2024, directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to
the schedule property till 05.06.2024. Subsequently, the Respondents preferred C.M.A. No.
270 of 2024 before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana and filed I.A. No. 1 of 2024 therein,
seeking ad-interim injunction to enable them to continue providing maintenance services and
to complete pending works within the villas owned by them in the project. The Hon’ble High
Court, while issuing notice, was pleased to observe that the status quo order
15

---

In view of the aforesaid directions, it is evident that the project has not yet attained

full completion, and the responsibility of providing maintenance continues to vest with the
promoter as of now. As per Section 11(4)(d) of the Act, the promoter is bound to provide and
maintain essential services at reasonable charges until the registered Association of Allottees
formally assumes charge of maintenance. Accordingly, so long as the project remains
incomplete and the handover has not been effectuated, the Respondents are obligated to
continue providing essential maintenance services and bear responsibility for their proper
execution in accordance with law.
51.

It is also imperative to note that the corpus fund collected from allottees constitutes a

trust-like obligation on the part of the promoter, meant for the collective welfare of the
project. The promoter is therefore duty-bound to preserve such funds and transfer them, along
with accrued interest, to the Association immediately upon completion and formal handover
of the project.
b. With regard to the relief to direct the Respondents to complete common amenities such as
clubhouse, pool, repairs, roads, etc:
52.

The Complainants have sought a categorical direction to the Respondents to complete

the pending common amenities and infrastructure works in the project “Goldfish Zresta”,
including the clubhouse, swimming pool, community hall, internal BT roads, master plan
road connectivity, and other facilities as explicitly promised in the brochure, sanctioned
plans, and the registered Agreements of Sale. The documentary record, including the
Agreements of Sale, project brochure, and registered sale deeds, unambiguously establishes
that these amenities form an integral and inseparable component of the overall project
consideration and constitute binding contractual assurances made by the Promoter to the
allottee.
53.

The Agreements of Sale specifically enumerate the project specifications, RCC

framed structure, imported flooring, centralized air-conditioning, solar power generation,
landscaped open spaces, swimming pool, internal roads, drainage and water supply lines,
among others. These representations and commitments in the agreement of sales are not mere
promotional statements but are statutorily enforceable obligations of the Promoter under
16

---

The Complainants have demonstrated through photographic and documentary

evidence that certain common amenities such as the clubhouse and swimming pool remain
incomplete and that several essential works have been abandoned midway. The prolonged
delay, despite full payments made by the allottees, deprives them of the legitimate enjoyment
of the project facilities forming part of the agreed consideration. Such conduct is contrary to
the very ethos of the RE(R&D) Act, which seeks to ensure timely completion and delivery of
all promised components of a real estate project.
55.

Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act casts a clear and continuing statutory obligation

upon the promoter, which reads as follows:
“Section 11(4)(a) – The promoter shall be responsible for all
obligations, responsibilities, and functions under the provisions of
this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the
allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of
allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the
apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or
the common areas to the association of allottees or the competent
authority, as the case may be.”
56.

This provision mandates that the promoter remains responsible for completion of all

common amenities, facilities, and infrastructure in accordance with the sanctioned plans and
the terms of the Agreement for Sale, until lawful conveyance of the common areas.
57.

The record discloses that the Respondent had committed to completing the project

within 30 months from the date of final approval from HMDA, and further publicized
December 2019 as the expected completion timeline. However, repeated extensions and
revalidations of approvals coupled with continued inaction on ground clearly reflect failure to
perform the fundamental obligations envisaged under the RE(R&D) Act. The inordinate
delay has caused undue hardship to the allottees and constitutes a violation of the statutory
duties imposed on the promoter.
17

---

This Authority further notes with grave concern that, keeping the allottees completely

in the dark, the Respondent proceeded to obtain revalidation of the project approval from
HMDA without obtaining the mandatory consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees, as
required under Section 14(2)(ii) of the RE(R&D) Act. The said provision explicitly prohibits
any alteration or addition in the sanctioned plan, layout plan, or specifications of the
buildings or common areas within the project without the prior written consent of not less
than two-thirds of the allottees. The Respondent, despite being fully aware of this statutory
requirement, neither sought nor obtained such consent, thereby acting in complete disregard
of the legislative mandate and the rights of the allottees.
59.

Even though the project is yet to be registered before this Authority, it squarely falls

within the ambit of the RE(R&D) Act as an ongoing project under Section 3(1) read with
Rule 2(1)(j) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.
Consequently, the Respondent is legally bound to comply with all obligations arising under
the RE(R&D) Act and the TG RE(R&D) Rules made thereunder. Instead, the Respondent has
taken undue advantage of successive revalidations, while simultaneously evading compliance
with the mandatory statutory framework. The Respondent has failed to complete the project,
has not obtained the Occupancy Certificate, and has continued to operate outside the fold of
regulatory oversight in blatant violation of the RE(R&D) Act.
60.

In light of the above findings, this Authority holds that the Respondent is in flagrant

violation of Sections 11(4)(a) and 14(2)(ii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, for failure to complete and deliver the promised amenities and infrastructure in
accordance with the sanctioned plans and for effecting material changes in project
permissions without requisite consent of the allottees. The Respondent cannot be permitted to
frustrate the legitimate expectations of the allottees, nor can such disregard of statutory
obligations be condoned in view of the consumer protection mandate embedded in the
RE(R&D) Act..
61.

Accordingly, this Authority directs the Respondent to complete pending common

amenities and infrastructure and all other promised amenities strictly in conformity with the
approved plans and specifications, within 90 (ninety) days from the date of this Order.

18

---

The relief sought by the Complainants squarely falls within the ambit of Section

11(3)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which casts
a mandatory statutory obligation upon the promoter to make available to the allottees, and to
this Authority, all sanctioned plans, layout plans, and specifications duly approved by the
competent authority. This requirement is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive
duty grounded in the object and spirit of the Act, which is to ensure transparency,
accountability, and protection of consumer interest in the real estate sector.
Section 11(3)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 reads as under:
(a) sanctioned plans, layout plans, along with specifications, approved
by the competent authority, by display at the site or such other place
as may be specified by the regulations made by the Authority;
In furtherance of this obligation, Section 19(5) of the RE(R&D) Act confers a corresponding
right upon the allottee, providing that::
“The allottee shall be entitled to have the necessary documents and
plans, including that of common areas, after handing over of the
physical possession of the apartment by the promoter.”
63.

The legislative intent underlying these provisions is explicit and unambiguous to

eliminate information asymmetry between the promoter and the allottees and to promote a
regime of full disclosure and transparency. The promoter cannot be permitted to withhold,
suppress, or selectively disclose any statutory approvals or permissions that form the basis of
the project’s legality and execution. Such non-disclosure would not only contravene the
provisions of the RE(R&D) Act but also undermine its consumer protection mandate as
enshrined in the Preamble, which emphasizes the need to “protect the interest of consumers
in the real estate sector and to ensure transparency in project execution.
64.

As in the present case, the Respondent has failed to register the concerned project

before this Authority, the allottees are deprived of even the basic facility of verifying project
details on the official RERA web portal a transparency mechanism available to every duly
registered project. Consequently, the concerns raised by the Complainants regarding the
19

---

Accordingly, Respondent No. 1 is hereby directed to make available to the

Association of Allottees, all requisite permissions, sanctioned plans, layout plans, building
permits, approvals, and specifications duly approved by the competent authorities, within a
period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of this Order.
66.

This Authority takes serious note of the conduct and attitude of the Respondent.

Despite having obtained revalidation of approvals and being fully aware of the statutory
framework governing real estate projects under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 and the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017, including the amendment to Rule 2(1)(j), the Respondent has chosen to remain
non-compliant. The Respondent has repeatedly disregarded the notices issued by this
Authority and has failed to appear even once before it. Such deliberate abstention and
disregard for the regulatory process reflect a willful and contumacious defiance of the law
and of the Authority’s directions.
67.

Accordingly, this Authority issues a final caution to the Respondent to forthwith

comply with the directions contained in this Order and to adhere strictly to the provisions of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Telangana Rules framed
thereunder. In the event of continued non-compliance, this Authority shall proceed to initiate
action under Sections 63 of RE(R&D) Act, including declaring the Respondent a defaulter for
willful violation of the statutory provisions and the orders of this Authority, without any
further notice.

20

---

In light of the foregoing discussion, findings, and conclusions recorded hereinabove,

and in exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the following directions are hereby
issued to the Respondents:
This Authority declares that the project titled “Goldfish Zresta” qualifies as an

i.

“ongoing

project”

under Section

3(1) of

the Real

Estate

(Regulation

and

Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 2(1)(j) of the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. The Respondents were under a
mandatory statutory obligation to register the said project with this Authority and have
failed to do so. Accordingly, the Respondents are hereby directed to forthwith apply
for registration of the project “Goldfish Zresta” with this Authority within 30 (thirty)
days from the date of this Order, in compliance with Section 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016.

a) The Respondent is hereby prohibited from advertising, marketing, booking, selling, or
offering for sale any plot, apartment, or building in any real estate project without
obtaining prior registration of the said project with the Telangana Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (TG RERA). The Secretary, TG RERA, is directed to initiate
appropriate proceedings for imposition of penalty against the Respondent for
contravention of Sections 3, 4, and 11(4) (a) of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016, read with
Sections 59, 60, and 61 of the said Act, subject to the approval of the Authority.

ii.

The Respondent no.1 hereby directed to transfer a total sum of ₹6,81,78,726/(Rupees Six Crore Eighty-One Lakh Seventy-Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and
Twenty-Six only), comprising ₹3,96,38,781/- collected towards corpus fund and
₹2,85,39,945/- collected towards advance maintenance charges along with applicable
interest once the project is handed over to the registered association of allottee of the
concerned project.

iii.

The Respondent no.1 is directed to complete all pending amenities and infrastructure
works in the project as assured to the complainants in the agreement of sale and in
accordance sanction plan, within 90 days from the date of this order.
21

---

The Respondent no.1 is directed to place on record before this Authority, and
simultaneously make available to the Complainant association, all requisite
permissions, sanctioned plans, layout plans, building permits, revalidation letters, and
specifications duly approved by the competent authorities, within 15 (fifteen)
days from

the

date

of

this

Order,

in

strict

compliance

with Sections

11(3)(a) and 19(5) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
v.

This Authority records its strong disapproval of the Respondent’s repeated noncompliance, disregard for statutory notices, and failure to appear despite due service.
Such conduct evidences a willful and contumacious defiance of the provisions of the
Act and of this Authority’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, a final caution is issued to the
Respondents to comply with all directions herein within the stipulated timeframes. In
the event of continued default, this Authority shall proceed to declare the Respondents
as defaulters for willful violation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016;

63.

Failing to comply with the above said directions by the Respondents No.1 and 2 shall

attract penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.
64.

The Complaint is disposed of in lieu of the above directions. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member

Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson

TG RERA

TG RERA

TG RERA

22

---