Order Complaint No. 255 Of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
11th Day of April 2025
Corum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO. 255 Of 2024

M/s. Saket Pranamam Senior Citizens Friends Association
(Regd. 368 of 2024, Rep by General Secretary, Dr.C.R.Vallabhendra Reddy, falt no.
406, Saket Pranamam, B block, Gowdavali, Medchal Mandal, Hyd- 501401)

…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Saket Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
(M/s Saket Engineers Pvt.Ltd, 207,Ashok Bhoopal Chambers,Begumoet,
Secundrabad-500003)

…Respondent
This matter was taken up for hearing before this Authority on
29.01.2025 with the complainant association represented by their counsel
Mr.Inaganti Pentushah. While the respondents were represented by their
counsel Mr. C. Prabhakar Rao. Having heard both parties on 29.01.2025,
this Authority now proceeds to deliver the following ORDER:
2.

The complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and 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"). The Complainant is seeking appropriate relief from this Authority.
A.

The Brief facts of the case as per allegations/averments contained in the

complaint are as follows:
3.

The complaint arises out of grievances put forth by the Complainant

Association, representing senior citizen flat allottees, who assert having
invested their life savings into the Respondent’s residential project with
expectations of a comfortable retired life. They allege multiple deficiencies
1 of 22

and lapses committed by the Respondent developer in fulfilling obligations
and promises made at the time of sale.
4.

The Complainant Association alleges several specific grievances.

Submitting that the Respondent has failed to ensure timely provision of
basic promised amenities essential to senior citizens' quality of life,
including potable drinking water sourced from the Godavari river, reliable
electrical infrastructure to prevent frequent power outages, timely gas
pipeline connections, and adequate functioning of lifts. Additionally,
common areas, particularly corridors, reportedly experience frequent
rainwater leakages, posing slipping hazards that jeopardize residents' safety.
5.

That there was substantial delay in handing over possession of the

flats beyond the assured timelines, resulting in considerable inconvenience
and financial strain upon elderly residents. Consequently, some allottees
had to arrange alternative interim accommodations, including renting
residences in other blocks. Despite explicit requests for compensation and
interest payments on account of delayed possession, the Respondent
allegedly neither compensated nor replied satisfactorily.
6.

Moreover, the Complainant Association contends that the Respondent

repeatedly disregarded individual grievances raised by flat owners. As a
result, allottees from Block-B collectively formed and duly registered the
Complainant Association under the Telangana Societies Registration Act,
2001, in the year 2024, with the express intent of protecting their collective
interests. The Respondent, however, refused to acknowledge or recognize the
legally constituted Association during a meeting held on 05-06-2024.
Instead, the Respondent proposed the formation of an alternative entity—a
Mutually Aided Cooperative Housing Society—and initiated an ad-hoc
committee with the Respondent’s Chief General Manager as its chief
promoter.
7.

The Complainant Association alleges this action to be a deliberate

attempt by the Respondent to sideline the legally formed welfare association,
substituting it with a cooperative society model incongruous with the
2 of 22

original assurances given to the allottees. The Association expresses
apprehension that the Respondent’s cooperative model involves commercial
activities and cumbersome procedural obligations (such as compulsory filing
of affidavits and potential membership cancellations for non-adherence to
society rules), thereby defeating the very purpose of peaceful senior living
originally assured.
8.

Further, the Complainant contends that from March 2024 onward,

the Respondent unilaterally began deducting monthly maintenance charges
from the maintenance deposit made by individual flat owners, despite many
assured services and facilities not being operational. In response, the
Association

sought

transparency

by

requesting

periodic

accounting

statements detailing the collected maintenance charges (including the
Respondent’s proportionate share for unsold or under-construction flats),
the accrued interest on the corpus fund, and clear disclosures on
expenditures incurred. They also sought copies of agreements with thirdparty service providers, as concerns over quality and safety arose among the
elderly residents. These requests, however, remained unanswered by the
Respondent, leaving the residents without transparency or accountability
regarding maintenance expenditures.
9.

That the Respondent proceeded to formally register a cooperative

society named "Saket Pranamam Flat Owners’ Maintenance Mutually Aided
Co-operative Society Ltd." under the Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative
Societies

Act,

1995,

on

26-10-2024.

The

Complainant

Association

responded by filing Interim Application (I.A. No. 94 of 2024) seeking urgent
intervention to prevent dilution of their rights.
10.

The Interim Application specifically refers to Clause 19(a) of the

original Agreement for Sale, which explicitly stipulated formation of an
Association of Allottees as a registered society under the Societies
Registration Act, 2001, within two months from the date of obtaining
Occupancy Certificate. The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s
subsequent registration of a cooperative society is not only in breach of this
explicit contractual commitment but also violates the fundamental intent of
3 of 22

RE(R&D) ACT. Additionally, the Complainant raises concern that the
cooperative society’s adopted bye-laws, providing voluntary membership
(even allowing non-allottee residents) and enabling decisions on common
property

management

without

participation

from

all

owners,

could

potentially be detrimental and contrary to the residents’ collective interests.
B. Relief Sought:
1. The Builder should recognize “Saket Pranamam Senior Citizens Friends
Association" which is registered under the provisions of the Act and Rules.
The Association thus acquires rights and benefits as a Consumer and welfare
measures as provided in the legal provisions of the relevant Consumer and
Senior Citizens Acts and under the principles of Natural Justice. The proposal
of the Builder to form an Ad hoc Committee along himself as Chief Promoter, a
commercial one, is not required for peaceful living for seniors.
2. The Builder should take up necessary actions to settle all issues raised like
rectifying infrequent Electrical breakdowns, prevention of rainwater in
corridors, controlling dog and monkey menace particularly happening in the
corridors, prevention of pollution and dust, etc., which is causing health
hazards to resident senior citizens in the apartments.
3. The Statement of total collection of monthly maintenance charges through
deductions from Deposits, including Builder’s share (due to continuation of his
project in stages), interest gained on Corpus Fund and other Deposits, should
be displayed in Notice Board. The Builder should make liable the copies of all
the Service Agreements entered by him to the Petitioner. This will provide
transparency in financial dealings. The stage-wise time schedule of
completion of the project, including amenities and services as agreed upon,
should also be displayed by the Builder in the said Notice Board.
4. The monthly maintenance charges should be made proportionately to the
facilities made available to the residents and give credit for the extra collection
made hereto, to the deposits paid by the petitioners.
5. Any other appropriate relief/s that the Hon’ble Adjudicating Officer may
feel appropriate in the present case.
4 of 22

C: Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
11.

The

Respondent,

through

its

detailed

counter-affidavit

and

submissions, has raised objections regarding both the maintainability of the
complaint and the substantive merits of the allegations advanced by the
Complainant. At the outset, the Respondent contends that the complaint
itself is not maintainable, asserting that the Complainant Association, being
registered merely as a "Friends Association" under the Societies Registration
Act, 2001, does not have legal standing to represent all the allottees of the
Saket Pranamam Project. The Respondent points out that the said
Association comprises only 17 members who are exclusively residents of
Block-B, whereas the total project consists of nearly 300 flats spread across
Blocks A, B, C, and D. Consequently, the Respondent asserts that the
Complainant Association represents merely a minority group without the
consent or participation of the majority of flat owners.
12.

It is further averred by the Respondent that, in terms of the

Agreements of Sale executed with all the allottees, it was the Respondent’s
obligation to form an official association of allottees under the Mutually
Aided Cooperative Societies (MACS) Act, 1995, subsequent to obtaining an
Occupancy Certificate. In compliance with this obligation, the Respondent
registered the "Saket Pranamam Flat Owners’ Maintenance Mutually Aided
Cooperative Society Ltd." on 26-10-2024, after obtaining the requisite
Occupancy Certificate for Block-B. The Respondent emphasizes that this
cooperative society was formed following consultations with, and with the
consent of, the majority of the flat owners. Consequently, this registered
cooperative society, according to the Respondent, is the sole legitimate body
entitled to represent the interests of allottees, and not the Complainant’s
separate association.
13.

The

Respondent

further

relies

upon

Circular

Memo

No.

SOC/7124/2018 dated 28-01-2019, issued by the Commissioner and
Inspector General of Stamps & Registration, Telangana, reflecting directions
issued by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 3319 of 2013. As per this
circular, associations formed exclusively for apartment maintenance must
5 of 22

necessarily be registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, and not under
the Societies Registration Act, 2001, as registration under the latter would
be void ab initio for want of “public purpose.” In view of this legal position,
the Respondent submits that the Complainant’s society, registered under
the Societies Act, lacks legal validity. Therefore, the Respondent maintains
that the Complainant has no locus standi to initiate proceedings for projectwide grievances or maintenance issues on behalf of all the flat owners.
14.

Without prejudice to the above objection, the Respondent has also

addressed the merits of the allegations raised by the Complainant. The
Respondent asserts that it has fulfilled all its contractual and statutory
obligations under the RE(R&D) Act, and disputes any deficiency in providing
facilities and amenities promised for the senior-living community. The
Respondent specifically highlights that facilities such as the Godavari river
water supply, necessary electrical infrastructure including power backup,
piped gas connections, and functional lifts have all been provided, duly
evidenced by obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. The Respondent states
that any minor or temporary issues, such as electrical interruptions or
routine maintenance, have been promptly addressed as part of posthandover support and cannot be construed as breach of obligations.
15.

Regarding

allegations

of

delay in

possession,

the

Respondent

categorically denies responsibility for any unreasonable delay. It clarifies
that the initial construction timelines were adversely impacted by the
COVID-19 pandemic during the years 2020-2021, resulting in governmentissued general extensions of approximately one year to all real estate
projects. Within the extended timelines authorized by the regulatory
authorities, the Respondent asserts that Block-B was completed, and
possession was duly offered to all the flat purchasers. The Respondent
underscores that at the time of handover, all allottees, including many
members of the Complainant Association, signed possession letters
confirming their satisfaction with construction quality and amenities.
Consequently, the Respondent rejects any claim for compensation or

6 of 22

interest arising from alleged delays, as the stipulated and approved
extensions were duly complied with.
16.

The Respondent disputes the Complainant’s portrayal of neglect in

responding to grievances, submitting that it maintains a dedicated on-site
team, including engineers and a Facility Manager, to promptly address any
issues raised by residents. The Respondent suggests that the Complainant's
grievances arose not from genuine deficiencies but rather from the
Respondent’s refusal to recognize and endorse the separate association
created by the Complainant. The Respondent further submits that the
majority of the flat owners have not joined the Complainant Association and
continue to reside comfortably, thereby demonstrating the absence of
genuine unresolved grievances within the project.
17.

On the issue of association formation, the Respondent acknowledges

the existence of Clause 19(a) of the standard Agreement of Sale, which
mirrors Section 11(4)(e) of RE(R&D) ACT and provides for registration of an
allottees' association under the Societies Registration Act, 2001, subject to
certain conditions. However, the Respondent clarifies that subsequent legal
developments, including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Nugget
Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of A.P. (W.P. No. 3319 of 2013) and
subsequent government circulars, mandated the registration of flat-owner
associations for maintenance exclusively under the Cooperative Societies
Act,

effectively

superseding

the

earlier

contractual

provision.

The

Respondent insists that its decision to register the cooperative society was
taken transparently and democratically, after duly informing and obtaining
the consent of the majority of the flat owners.
18.

Regarding the maintenance and handover obligations under RE(R&D)

ACT, the Respondent reiterates its commitment to maintaining the project
premises and affirms readiness to hand over all relevant documents,
financial records, and accounting exclusively to the officially recognized
cooperative society. The Respondent categorically refuses to transfer any
maintenance-related

documents

or

accounts

to

the

Complainant’s

7 of 22

association, reiterating that such action would be improper and contrary to
law.
19.

Finally, in responding specifically to the Complainant’s interim

application (I.A. No. 94/2024), the Respondent reaffirms its previous stand
and additionally highlights jurisdictional objections, asserting that issues
concerning the validity of the cooperative society’s bye-laws fall exclusively
within the domain of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who is not a
party before this Authority. The Respondent maintains that the present
proceedings under RE(R&D) ACT are inappropriate for adjudicating such
disputes concerning the bye-laws of a registered cooperative society.
Moreover, the Respondent disputes the Complainant's request to mandate
handover of maintenance responsibilities to the Complainant's separate
association, emphasizing its legal obligation to deal exclusively with the
officially recognized cooperative society.
D: Points for Consideration:
I.

Whether the complaint filed by the Complainant Association is

maintainable under RE(R&D) ACT, 2016?
II.

Whether the Respondent has complied with its obligations under

Section 11(4)(e) of RE(R&D) ACT and the Agreements for Sale regarding
facilitating the formation of an Association of Allottees?
III.

Whether the Respondent has failed to provide the promised amenities

and to maintain essential services as per the standards advertised and
agreed upon?
IV.

Whether the Respondent should be directed to furnish accounts of the

maintenance charges?
E.Observation by the Authority:
20.

Having carefully considered the submissions, evidence on record, and

the relevant provisions of the RE(R&D) Act and Rules, this Authority records
the following findings on each of the points for consideration:

8 of 22

Point 1:
21.

At the outset, we hold that the present complaint filed by the

Complainant Association is maintainable. Section 31 of the RE(R&D)Act
confers the right upon “any aggrieved person” to approach this Authority
seeking redressal of grievances arising from violations of the Act or Rules
framed thereunder. The term “person” in legal parlance is expansive enough
to include individual allottees, and by logical extension, their collective
representation

through

an

association

formed

to

address

common

grievances is also permissible. It is pertinent to highlight that there exists no
explicit prohibition in RE(R&D) ACT against a group of homebuyers coming
together and forming an association to represent their collective grievances.
Such practices, in fact, serve the objective of avoiding multiplicity of
proceedings by consolidating the issues of similarly situated aggrieved
parties. In the present scenario, the Complainant Association comprises
several flat owners of Block-B who have individually entered into
Agreements for Sale with the Respondent and who undeniably possess a
direct interest in ensuring compliance with the provisions of RE(R&D) ACT.
Individually, each member of the Complainant Association unquestionably
qualifies as an "aggrieved person," especially given their allegations
concerning project delays and deficiencies in obligations by the Respondentpromoter. Thus, their collective decision to form an association to jointly
present their grievances does not curtail their rights; rather, it exemplifies
procedural efficiency and convenience.
22.

We find no merit in the Respondent’s objection that the Complainant

Association lacks standing merely because it is not a formally registered
association

under

the

Cooperative

Societies

Act.

RE(R&D)

ACT,

fundamentally a beneficial and consumer-centric legislation, prioritizes
substance over procedural technicalities. The substance of the matter before
us is clearly that 17 individual allottees have expressed dissatisfaction and
lodged a complaint concerning significant grievances. Whether these
allottees have chosen to style themselves collectively as an association does
not diminish the legitimacy or genuineness of their grievances. Furthermore,
9 of 22

the Respondent has already engaged with the complaint substantively on its
merits, thereby implicitly recognizing the real parties in interest as the
individual flat purchasers represented by the Complainant Association.
Thus, the absence of formal registration under another statute, such as the
Cooperative Societies Act, cannot serve as a valid ground for ousting the
jurisdiction of this Authority under RE(R&D) ACT.
23.

The Respondent’s argument emphasizing that the cooperative society

constitutes the official or de jure association is misplaced at this preliminary
stage. Even if accepted as a point of fact, such a consideration primarily
relates to the merits, specifically concerning the promoter’s compliance with
Section 11(4)(e) of RE(R&D) ACT, rather than to the threshold question of
maintainability. Moreover, it is an admitted position that the cooperative
society itself was registered only in late October 2024, subsequent to the
filing of the present complaint. As of the date of the complaint and even
currently, the cooperative society has neither assumed control nor
represented the interests of these aggrieved allottees before this Authority.
In such a situation, denying the Complainant Association standing would
render the individual members without remedy or compel them to file
separate complaints individually, defeating the objectives of both procedural
efficiency and access to justice.
24.

Importantly, Section 19(9) of the RE(R&D) Act explicitly places an

obligation upon allottees to actively participate in the formation of an
association. The present Complainant Association represents a genuine
attempt by its members to fulfill this statutory obligation, particularly given
that the promoter failed to facilitate formation of any such body. Even if the
form or legal status of the association might evolve later, the interim
arrangement or association formed by the aggrieved allottees undoubtedly
retains the right to seek enforcement of their statutory entitlements. Such
collective representation aligns with the underlying consumer protection
objectives of RE(R&D) ACT, wherein associations of allottees are envisaged
as key stakeholders.

10 of 22

25.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the authority unequivocally rejects

the Respondent’s objection regarding maintainability and holds that the
Complainant Association, representing aggrieved allottees, is fully entitled
and competent to maintain this complaint before the Authority. While
acknowledging that certain specific reliefs related to the Association’s legal
status vis-à-vis the cooperative society, as prayed in relief no. 1 and in the
interlocutory application, may involve further legal analysis and are matters
to be considered on merits, such considerations do not detract from our
clear conclusion on maintainability. Consequently, the first point is
answered affirmatively in favor of the Complainant Association.
Point 2:
26.

The question regarding the promoter's obligation to form an

association and the dispute over forming it as a society under the Societies
Registration Act, 2001 versus a cooperative society under the Cooperative
Societies Act, is indeed central to the present case. Under Section 11(4)(e) of
the RE(R&D) Act, the promoter is explicitly required to facilitate the
establishment of an Association of Allottees (AoA). This obligation must be
executed within three months from the date a majority of allottees book
their respective units, unless local laws dictate otherwise.
27.

Furthermore, the contractual terms between the parties, specifically

Clause 19(a) of the Agreement for Sale, explicitly stipulated the formation of
the association under the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. According to
this clause, the promoter was required to apply for registration of the AoA as
a society within two months of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate (OC),
provided that at least 60% of the allottees had taken possession and fully
paid the consideration. It further clarified that although possession might be
granted block-wise, ultimately, a unified association covering all blocks
would be established. Undeniably, this contractual provision bound the
promoter to proceed specifically under the Cooperative Societies Act, 2001.
28.

However, the sequence of events demonstrates a significant deviation

from this agreed course. The Occupancy Certificate for Block-B was likely
11 of 22

secured around early or mid-2024, given that possession to allottees
commenced during this period. Therefore, according to the binding
contractual clause, the promoter should have initiated registration of the
society by mid-2024. Contrarily, the promoter conducted a meeting on 0506-2024, proposing instead to form a cooperative society, eventually
resulting in the registration of a cooperative society on 26-10-2024. Clearly,
this registration exceeded the agreed timeline. Conversely, the Complainant
Association proactively registered itself under the Societies Act in August
2024, which aligns more closely with the agreed terms.
29.

To justify this deviation, the Respondent relies substantially on the

2013 Hon’ble High Court judgment and a 2019 administrative Circular.
Upon scrutinizing these documents, it emerges that the Hon’ble High Court
held that a society solely tasked with apartment maintenance activities does
not fulfill the criteria of "public purpose" under Section 3 of the Societies
Act, rendering its registration void. Consequently, the Circular recommends
registration under the Cooperative Societies Act as an appropriate
alternative, thereby reflecting an implicit governmental preference or policy
direction within Telangana. The G.O.Ms. No. 42 dated 02-02-2013 and the
Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (alongside MACS Act 1995),
further reinforce the applicability of cooperative societies to apartment
maintenance.
30.

Nevertheless, the interplay between these local requirements and the

statutory mandate of RE(R&D) ACT requires careful examination. Under
RE(R&D) ACT's proviso to Section 11(4)(e), the association must be
constituted according to local laws if such provisions exist; otherwise, the
three-month RE(R&D) ACT timeline becomes operative. In the present
scenario, the local law in question the Apartment Ownership Act of 1987 did
not explicitly mandate the exclusive formation of a cooperative society,
although it generally contemplated such arrangements. It was the Hon’ble
High Court's judgment and the subsequent administrative circular of 2019
that crystallized the policy preference towards cooperative societies,
effectively transforming it into a de facto requirement for promoters by 2020.
12 of 22

Evidently, the Respondent promoter was aware of this situation, hence its
inclination towards forming a cooperative society.
31.

Despite this awareness, the promoter should have transparently

informed the allottees about this change in the mode of association
formation. However, the Agreement for Sale remained unamended, and the
promoter did not formally consult the allottees in writing regarding the
decision to register a cooperative society instead of a society under the
Societies Registration Act. Although the Respondent alleges that consent
from the purchasers was obtained in a meeting, no concrete evidence, such
as minutes or resolutions duly signed by the allottees, was produced to
convincingly

demonstrate

informed

and

collective

consent.

Merely

presenting an idea at a meeting does not satisfy the requirement of informed
consent necessary to amend contractual terms. Furthermore, the prompt
action by the Complainant's members in registering their own society clearly
indicates their lack of consent to the cooperative society arrangement.
32.

Nonetheless, the factual reality confronting the Authority is that two

separate associations currently exist—a smaller society registered by the
Complainant under the Societies Act and a larger cooperative society backed
by

the

promoter

under

the

Cooperative

Act.

Maintaining

parallel

associations for the same project is neither practical nor desirable, given the
need for coordinated administration and unified representation before
authorities. Considering the prevailing legal position and policy preference,
the cooperative society seems more viable and acceptable, particularly
because the Registrar may refuse to recognize a society under the Societies
Act

for

managing

common

areas

and

related

maintenance

issues.Consequently, the long-term management and coordination of the
apartment complex appear best served through the cooperative society
model as envisaged by the state's existing legal and administrative
framework.
33.

Our observation is that while the Respondent’s intention to comply

with the Hon’ble High Court’s directive is understandable, its execution,
should have been tactful with all the allottees including complaint
13 of 22

association members. Ideally, the Respondent should have persuaded
allottees, including those who formed the Complainant Association, to merge
into one platform. Instead of the alleged open announcement stated to have
been made in the allottees meeting on 05.06.20202 that the Complainant
association could not be recognised, the Respondent/Promoter could have,
for instance, invited its office bearers to join the ad-hoc committee for the
cooperate or to contribute to the bye-laws draft. Unfortunately, it appears
the Respondents officials took a dismissive approach (“will not recognize the
said Association” in the meeting), which fostered mistrust.
34.

From a RE(R&D) ACT compliance perspective, Section 11(4)(e) was

eventually complied with in letter by registering an association (the
cooperative society) within roughly 3 months of majority possession (if we
count majority when Block-B got filled, and Block-A already delivered). But
it was not complied with in spirit vis-à-vis taking all allottees on board. The
provision’s intent is to have an association that truly represents all the
allottees. Here, because of the clash, we have a segment of allottees feeling
unsatisfied with the registration of a Cooperative society.
35.

The Complainant’s plea that maintenance could be handled by a

Society under the 2001 Act is, in our view, beyond our jurisdiction. The
Registrar of Co-operative Societies is not a party, and the validity of that
society or its bye-laws falls under the domain of the Co-operative Societies
Act. If the Complainant believes the bye-laws are ultra virus or oppressive,
the remedy lies in challenging those under the cooperative law. This
Authority cannot rewrite the bye-laws of a cooperative society via an order in
a RE(R&D) ACT complaint. Hence, we decline that specific relief due to
jurisdictional limitations.
36.The ultimate guardians of the society’s functioning are the members
themselves. The cooperative society is governed democratically. We note that
membership in the cooperative is voluntary and open to all allottees; thus,
the Complainant’s members are free to join it. We would strongly encourage
them to do so – to ensure their voice is heard in the general body

14 of 22

37.

We also observe that the Complainant’s Association, being a Society

under the 2001 Act, could still serve as a cultural and social club for the
senior residents – nothing stops them from continuing those activities. But
for the formal purpose of maintenance takeover, the cooperative society is
the vehicle recognized by law. The Complainant must recognize that
insisting solely on their Society might prolong the stalemate. On the other
hand, we desire thatthe Respondent must ensure the cooperative society is
inclusive and accessible to all the allottees. The Respondent’s role should
diminish once the society’s elected board takes over; the Respondent should
not seek to dominate it (the Respondent, not being an allottee, should ideally
not hold any position in the society once it’s handed over, except to the
extent of unsold units’ representation).
38.

We hold that the Respondent appears to have notadhered to the

agreed mode of forming the association but instead formed a cooperative
society ostensibly in line with government directives. While this deviation is
understandable legally, it seems it was done without unanimity and hence
created conflict. The Respondent’s refusal to recognize the Complainant’s
Association may be technically justified by law, but the concerns of those
allottees remain valid and must be addressed. The appropriate course is not
to disband the cooperative society nor to elevate the Complainant’s Society
as the official one against the Hon’ble High Court’s order, but to facilitate a
convergence. All allottees including Complainant’s members should be part
of one association framework.
39.

We will therefore direct measures to achieve that ensuring the

cooperative society includes all willing allottees, that it takes over
maintenance in a timely manner, and that the Respondent hands over
control to it. The Respondent must also hand over all documents and funds
to that association as per Section 11(4)(e) and Section 17 of the Act. In
essence, we uphold that the Association of Allottees must be in place and
must be strengthened, and the promoter should step aside after facilitating
this. The Complainant’s prayer that their specific association be “recognized”
is not granted in the literal sense but we will ensure that the spirit behind
15 of 22

their formation – i.e., owners controlling maintenance – is realized through
the cooperative society route.
40.

Thus, while the Respondent’s action of constituting the cooperative

society was within the bounds of legal directives, the lack of proactive and
inclusive measures has resulted in dissatisfaction among a segment of
allottees. Moving forward, the Respondent is obliged to undertake genuine
steps to promote cohesion and inclusion among the allottees, actively
involving the members of the Complainant Association in the cooperative
society’s

functioning.

The

Respondent

is

expected

to

demonstrate

transparency by promptly handing over all relevant records, funds, and
responsibilities to the cooperative society duly elected representatives. The
cooperative society itself must function democratically, ensuring that every
allottee has an equal voice in decision-making, particularly with respect to
maintenance issues.
41.

The Complainant Association and its members, while encouraged to

join and participate actively in the cooperative society, remain free to
continue their separate existence for cultural or social purposes under the
2001 Act. Nevertheless, they must recognize the legal constraints that
preclude their Association from formally managing maintenance services.
Any substantive grievance with respect to the bye-laws or functioning of the
cooperative society should be pursued through appropriate channels under
cooperative law or constitutional remedies.
42.

It is our considered view that harmonious coexistence and effective

participation within a single, legally recognized cooperative framework is the
most viable and legally sound solution to this dispute. We therefore reiterate
the need for cooperation, inclusivity, and mutual respect among all
stakeholders. The Respondent is specifically instructed to facilitate and take
steps to promote process of unification and democratization.
Point 3.
43.

The Complainant has highlighted numerous concerns regarding

deficiencies in amenities and services provided by the Respondent. The
16 of 22

foremost among these pertains to the water supply. Although the
Respondent claims to have supplied potable water sourced from the
Godavari pipeline as marketed, the Complainant's grievances suggest
persistent problems such as intermittent supply or insufficient water
pressure. Given that the Occupancy Certificate has been issued, basic
provisioning of water must presumably be functional; nonetheless, initial
rationing or supply limitations are not uncommon in large residential
projects. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon the Respondent to establish
adequate water storage and treatment facilities ensuring consistent
availability of safe drinking water, round-the-clock, as committed to buyers.
44.

Concerning electricity and power backup, the Complainant has raised

serious issues regarding frequent power disruptions and hazards arising
due to alleged faulty electrical installations. Although the Respondent
attributed certain construction delays generally to the COVID pandemic, the
specific allegations concerning electricity disruptions and associated safety
risks,

notably

potential

electric

shocks

from

water

seepage,

were

inadequately rebutted, save for a general assertion of providing "proper
electrical fittings." Considering the demographic targeted—senior citizens—
the Respondent is obligated to ensure safe and uninterrupted power supply
until complete handover. Any repeated breakdowns, especially those
attributable to defective internal wiring, transformers, or diesel generators,
must

be

urgently

addressed

and

rectified.

Furthermore,

if

power

fluctuations stem from external grid instability, it is imperative that the
Respondent maintains reliable generator backup. The safety of senior
residents, who are particularly vulnerable, must be prioritized, and
compliance with essential service obligations must be uncompromisingly
ensured.
45.

The issue of rainwater leakage in common areas such as corridors,

substantiated through photographs provided by the Complainant, highlights
significant design or drainage inadequacies resulting in slippery and unsafe
conditions during rains. Under Section 14(3) of RE(R&D) ACT, the
Respondent is duty-bound to rectify such structural or waterproofing defects
17 of 22

under the stipulated five-year defect liability period. Therefore, prompt
corrective actions, including the installation of adequate awnings or shajjas,
effective guttering, weather-stripping, or door sill adjustments, must be
executed without delay. These measures are critical to ensuring residents'
safety, particularly in preparation for the forthcoming monsoon season.
46.

On the matter of dust and pollution emanating from ongoing phased

construction of Blocks C and D, the Respondent must diligently comply with
its obligations under RE(R&D) ACT to ensure minimal inconvenience and
nuisance to existing allottees. This includes enforcing robust dust control
measures such as covering exposed construction areas, regular water
sprinkling, and scheduling heavy construction activities during periods least
disruptive to residents. Additionally, recognizing that seniors often have
compromised respiratory health, provision of air purifiers in common indoor
spaces or expediting project completion to minimize exposure to dust and
particulate matter would reflect sensitivity and adherence to commitments
made towards ensuring a peaceful and health-conscious retirement
environment.
47.

Lastly, concerning wellness or club facilities referred to ambiguously

as the "Wellness Hub" in the context of cooperative society documentation—
it is crucial that the Respondent clarifies the current status and timeline for
completion and operational readiness of this amenity. Completion of
common amenities as per sanctioned plans and agreements remains a
primary obligation of the Respondent. Transparency through timely
communication of completion schedules via public notices or circulars is
essential in addressing any uncertainty among residents regarding promised
services.
Legally, Section 14(3) of RE(R&D) ACT explicitly provides a five-year
warranty post-handover covering structural defects and other deficiencies.
The enumerated issues such as water leakage, electricity disruptions, and
others identified, if unresolved, fall squarely within the ambit of this
statutory obligation and must be rectified without imposing additional
charges upon residents. Furthermore, pursuant to Section 12, the promoter
18 of 22

remains liable for adherence to advertised claims, including representations
promising "senior-friendly amenities" and a "peaceful retirement life."
Though these terms may appear broad, substantial deviations or absence of
critical facilities, such as a functional medical unit or other advertised
amenities, potentially constitute actionable misrepresentation under Section
12, thereby obligating the Respondent to ensure strict compliance with every
representation upon which buyers placed reliance.
48.

We find that deficiencies and shortcomings indeed exist within the

project. Although these deficiencies do not fundamentally undermine overall
compliance.

The

Respondent

remains

unequivocally

responsible

for

addressing and rectifying these persistent problems that materially impact
the residents' comfort, safety, and quality of life. Appropriate directions to
that effect will accordingly follow.
Point 4:
49.

On consideration of transparency regarding maintenance funds and

related documents, the Authority finds itself in complete concurrence with
the position articulated by the Complainant that maintaining transparency
is of paramount importance. Irrespective of the specific association formally
recognized at present, it remains an unequivocal right of every allottee to be
fully informed about how the corpus of maintenance deposits and monthly
maintenance charges are being utilized.
50.

The Respondent has submitted that relevant financial details will be

disclosed to the elected body of the cooperative society at an appropriate
future juncture. However, this Authority does not see any compelling reason
to delay the disclosure of this critical information in the interim. As matters
currently stand, a cooperative society, even if operating through an ad-hoc
committee

or

provisional

governing

body,

is

already

in

existence.

Consequently, there is no plausible justification why the Respondent cannot
forthwith

begin

the

practice

of

regularly

sharing

detailed

monthly

statements of accounts with the cooperative society’s current committee,
while simultaneously making these statements transparently accessible to
19 of 22

all the residents. Such proactive disclosure will, undoubtedly, go a long way
in fostering trust among the allottees.
51.

This approach finds support in Section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act,

which clearly mandates that the promoter bears responsibility for all
obligations, responsibilities, and functions until formal conveyance of the
apartments to the association of allottees. This statutory obligation
inherently carries a fiduciary responsibility, implying that the promoter
must manage the collected maintenance funds prudently and transparently,
as these are held in trust primarily for the ultimate benefit of all allottees. In
this context, the request by the Complainant seeking disclosure of the
detailed statement of accounts is entirely reasonable and aligns perfectly
with the principles of good governance and accountability.
52.

Furthermore, the Authority has observed that the Complainant

specifically

highlighted

certain

items

which

require

clarity

and

accountability from the Respondent. These include details about any
interest accrued on the corpus fund, as well as a transparent record of
expenditures incurred from the maintenance fund. By way of illustration, if
a specific sum of money was collected as advance maintenance for two years
per apartment, and the Respondent has been utilizing such amounts since
March 2024 to meet ongoing expenses, the Respondent is obligated to
transparently disclose the remaining balances, inclusive of interest accrued,
which rightfully belong to the allottees.
53.

Additionally, the Authority emphasizes the significance of Section

19(5) of RE(R&D) ACT, which clearly establishes the entitlement of allottees
to receive relevant documents, including plans and approvals, subsequent to
the

handover.

Although

maintenance

contracts

are

not

expressly

enumerated within this provision, the Authority recognizes them as
documents

intrinsically

linked

to

the

overall

maintenance

and

administration of the project.
54.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Respondent bears an

immediate and enforceable obligation towards transparency and directs the
20 of 22

Respondent to promptly furnish to the designated representatives of the
cooperative society with comprehensive statements of accounts relating to
maintenance funds as well as copies of all service agreements, and copies
thereof to the complaint as specifically requested. Further, the Authority
orders

that

henceforth,

monthly

details

pertaining

to

maintenance

expenditures be prominently displayed on the notice board of the residential
complex, or alternatively, made accessible through a digital platform
available to all allottees. This measure will significantly mitigate any existing
distrust among allottees and ensure that the owners' association is wellprepared with adequate knowledge of ongoing financial commitments at the
time of the formal transition of responsibility from the Respondent.
F: Directions of the Authority:
55.

In light of the discussions made herein above and findings given on

Points 1 to 4, this Authority by virtue of the powers vestedin it under
Sections 37 & 38, issue the following orders and directions:
(a) This Authority refrains from “recognizing” the Complainant’s
Society under the Societies Registration Act, 2001 as the exclusive
entity to handle the project’s maintenance and administration.The
Complainant’s members may continue their existing society for social,
cultural, or welfare activities, but for the purpose of maintenance and
project-wide administration, the cooperative society is the recognized
statutory entity as per local law and the Hon’ble High Court directives.
(b) The Respondent is directed to rectify, at its own cost, all
outstanding construction-related defects and deficiencies notified by
allottees,

particularly

corridors,

power

those

supply

concerning

rainwater

leakages

in

disruptions,

improper

sealing

or

waterproofing, and any structural or electrical hazardswithin sixty
(60) days from the date of of this Order.
(c) The Respondent shall promptly furnish the monthly statements of
all maintenance-related income and expenditure, including the
accrued interest, on advance deposits or corpus funds. These
21 of 22

statements shall also be displayed on the project’s notice board for the
benefit of all residents.
56.

Respondent is hereby informed that failure to comply with this order

shall attract Section 63 of the RE (R&D) Act.
57.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of. No order as to costs.

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdDr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

22 of 22