Order Complaint No. 256 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 256 of 2025
3rd November 2025
Quorum:

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

Venkata Krishna Moorthy Kavaturu
Plot. No. 2,5 Omkarnagar, Phase-ll,
Nagarjuna Sagar Road, Hyderabad-500074

… Complainant
Versus
M/s. Ramanuja Temple county Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep by its M.D. Koteshwara Rao Machineni
H.No. 19, Sai Sadan, Road No. 1,
R.T.C. Colony, Near Saibaba Temple,
Benz Circle, Vijayawada-520008

… Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final hearing on
26.08.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant and none appeared on behalf
of the Respondent, 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 under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “RE (R&D)
Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE (R&D) Rules”) seeking appropriate
relief(s) against the Respondent.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent had proposed to construct certain

commercial suite apartments situated in Survey Nos. 239/A, 239A1/2, 239A1/3, and 239/A3
at Saidapur Village, near Yadagirigutta, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District, Telangana State (near
Hyderabad), by promising good returns.

1

---

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent distributed pamphlets exhibiting the

photographs of the proposed apartments detailing the size measurements such as 1 BHK 481 sq. ft. and 2BHK - 725 sq. ft., and represented that the said units would fetch an amount
Rs.10,000/-, Rs.13,000/- and Rs.15,000, Rs.18,000/- respectively with a rental guarantee.
5.

The Complainant further stated that, the displayed a pamphlet highlighting certain

attractions to secure investments from customers. Whereas, the complainant paid an amount
of Rs.3,00,000/- by paying Rs.10,000/- on 01-05-2022, Rs.2,00,000/- on 24-05-2022, and
Rs.90,000/- on 13-07-2022. The Complainant enclosed copies of the receipts acknowledging
the said payments.
6.

The Respondent initially remitted certain amounts to Complainant bank account

towards monthly interest, namely Rs.1,123/- on 01-06-2022, Rs.1,123/- on 30-06-2022,
Rs.1,605/- on 31-08-2022, Rs.1,605/- on 30-09-2022, Rs.1,605/- on 01-11-2022, Rs.1,605/on 02-12-2022, Rs.1,604/- on 10-01-2023, and Rs.1,605/- on 02-02-2023, but thereafter
stopped making further payments without any justification. Further, the Complainant stated
that the Respondent executed an Agreement of Sale dated 23.06.2022 on a Non-Judicial
Stamp Paper for a total consideration of Rs.28,00,000/-, but despite repeated requests, failed
to perform his obligations under the said agreement.
7.

Further, the Complainant stated that upon suspecting the Respondent’s conduct and

his intention to defraud, he addressed two letters dated 19-09-2023 and 09-11-2023
requesting refund of the invested amount, citing personal difficulties. The first letter was duly
acknowledged by the Respondent’s Hyderabad office, which was subsequently vacated, while
the second letter was returned unserved with postal remarks as “Unclaimed.”
8.

Moreover, the Complainant had also sent several text messages on 17-05-2023, 05-06-

2023, 20-06-2023, 21-06-2023, 02-09-2023, 15-10-2023, 19-03-2024, 08-05-2024, 15-072024, and 06-05-2024, requesting refund of his investment, but the Respondent failed to
respond to any of them.
9.

The Complainant stated that he even personally met the Respondent at his residence in

Vijayawada and explained his financial distress, but no action was taken by the Respondent
to redress the grievance or return the invested amount. Despite his consistent efforts, all his
attempts proved futile, and he lost hope of recovering his hard-earned money. Additionally,
the Complainant finally stated that he is not the sole victim of the Respondent’s fraudulent

2

---

In view of the facts mentioned above, the complainant sought for the following

reliefs:
a. To instruct the Respondent to refund the amount along with compound interest at the
rate of 24% per month till date.
b. It is requested to arrange for the payment of the interest amount from the date of
stoppage of payment of the said interest till date.
c. It is requested to arrange for compensation for the period during which the
Complainant suffered humiliation.
C. Observations and findings of the Authority:
12.

In the present case, notice was issued on 04.07.2025 directing the Respondent to file a

counter and appear before this Authority on 05.08.2025. Despite due service, the Respondent
remained absent on multiple occasions. Upon refusal to receive the notice, service was
effected by affixture at the Respondent’s residence situated at Vijayawada. Thereafter, this
Authority ordered substituted service, and the Complainant duly effected service through
registered post as well. Despite due service of notice, including the Show Cause Notice also
issued which pertains to the project “Sri Ramanuja Temple County Pvt. Ltd.,” the Respondent
neither appeared before this Authority nor filed any counter or explanation. No justification
for such continued non-appearance or non-compliance was forthcoming. Accordingly, this
Authority, being satisfied with the sufficiency of service and the material available on record,
proceeded to adjudicate the matter ex parte on 26.08.2025.
13.

This Authority now proceeds to examine the issue of whether the Respondent has

contravened the mandatory registration requirement under Section 3 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, imposes a categorical bar against any promoter advertising,
marketing, booking, selling, or offering for sale any plot, apartment, or building in a real
estate project without prior registration of the project with the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority. Registration under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 ensures that a project adheres to
essential regulatory safeguards including sanctioned plans, lawful title, financial prudence,
3

---

The only statutory exemption to the mandate under Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act,

is provided in Section 3(2) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 which exempts projects where the land
proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square meters or the number of apartments
does not exceed eight. However, in the present case, the documentary evidence available on
record clearly establishes that the scheduled property admeasures an extent of 9 acres and
comprises 1,080 commercial suite apartments, which equates to approximately 36,421 square
meters. Therefore, the said project squarely falls within the ambit of Section 3(1) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and does not qualify for exemption under
Section 3(2) of the RE(R&D) Act thereof. Consequently, registration of the project with the
Authority was a mandatory pre-condition prior to undertaking any form of advertisement,
marketing, agreement, or collection of advances from allottee.
15.

The relevant portion of Section 3(1) of the RE (R&D) Act is extracted below for

reference:
“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.”
16.

In the present case, a careful scrutiny of the material on record shows that the

Respondent advertised and marketed the project, without obtaining requisite registration or
approvals as mandated by the RE(R&D) Act. It is further evidence that the Respondent
executed an Agreement of Sale dated 23.06.2022 with the Complainant in respect of a 2BHK
unit, DB-1, Flat No.12, First Floor, admeasuring 725 sq. ft., in the project named as “Sri
Ramanuja Temple County Pvt. Ltd.” and collected an advance amount towards part payment
of the total sale consideration of Rs.28,00,000/-.
17.

Additionally, the Complainant has submitted the bank statements substantiating that

the Respondent had initially remitted certain monthly returns to his account, thereby
4

---

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the project undertaken by the Respondent

squarely falls within the ambit of RE (R&D) Act, 2016, and that the Respondent’s conduct
does not constitute an isolated lapse in the present case but reveals a continuing modus
operandi which undermines the very objectives of transparency, accountability, and consumer
protection envisaged under the said Act.
19.

Further, the Complainant in the Form - ‘M’ complaint, has stated that he paid a total

amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondent towards part of the sale consideration for the said
flat. However, a perusal of the Agreement of Sale dated 23.06.2022 reveals a discrepancy in
the payment details, as the said document records that an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- was
received by the Respondent from the Complainant towards advance payment.
20.

The Complainant has enclosed copies of certain payment receipts evidencing payment

of an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/–, along with extracts of bank statements reflecting a transfer of
Rs. 90,000/– to the Respondent. However, no further documentary evidence has been placed
on record to substantiate the payment of the remaining amount as paid. Likewise, no
conclusive proof has been furnished establishing the total quantum of consideration stated in
the Agreement of Sale.
21.

Further, the Complainant has also placed on record a copy of a Sale Deed dated on

22.01.22 purportedly executed in favour of the Respondent in respect of a portion of the
project land. However, the said document is incomplete, and the operative clauses of the said
Sale Deed are missing. The only available page reflects a reference to land in Survey No.
239A1/3, without disclosing the essential recitals, consideration particulars, or the nature of
the transaction. In the considered view of this Authority, there appears to be a possibility that
the said Sale Deed and the Agreement of Sale executed between the parties may be
interlinked transactions wherein the Complainant has sold a portion of the project land to the
Respondent and, almost contemporaneously, entered into an Agreement of Sale for purchase
of a unit in the same project. However, owing to the incomplete and fragmented nature of the
5

---

Though the Agreement of Sale placed on record prima facie establishes that the

Complainant was allotted a residential unit in the said project and, therefore, falls within the
definition of an ‘allottee’ under Section 2(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, the Authority notes that the total consideration paid towards such allotment, and
the interrelation of the said Agreement with the Sale Deed executed in respect of part of the
project land, remain unclear. In the absence of complete and coherent documentary evidence
to ascertain the nature of these transactions and reconcile the total consideration paid, the
Authority finds it premature to proceed with the claim for refund. The quantum of
consideration paid and interlinkage between the land sale and unit allotment remain unclear
due to incomplete records.
23.

Accordingly, the Authority deems it appropriate to grant the Complainant liberty to

file a fresh complaint in Form ‘M’, enclosing all requisite supporting evidence including (i)
complete payment receipts, (ii) detailed bank transaction statements, (iii) the full and legible
copy of the executed Sale Deed, and (iv) any correspondence or documentary proof
substantiating the total consideration paid, so as to enable proper adjudication on merits.
24.

In view of the foregoing, the present complaint stands disposed of with liberty to the

Complainant to refile in accordance with the prescribed procedure, upon submission of the
complete documentary record as directed herein.
D. Directions of the Authority:
25.

In light of the findings of the Authority as recorded above, the following directions are

issued under Section 37 of the RE(R&D) Act to ensure compliance with the obligations
imposed upon the promoter as per the functions entrusted to the Authority under Section 34(f)
of the RE(R&D) Act:
i.

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 steps for imposition of penalty against the Respondent for contravention

6

---

The Complainant hereby directed to file a fresh complaint in Form - ‘M’ along with
all requisite documentary evidence substantiating the total amount paid to the
Respondent, to enable proper adjudication on merits.

26.

Failure to comply with this Order shall attract Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

27.

In light of the above findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed of.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

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

Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

7

---