Order Complaint No. 270 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]

COMPLAINT NO. 270 of 2024
20th Day of November 2025
Coram:

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

Vamshidhar Mothipali S/o M. Chandrasekhar
Rep by GPA Holder M. Chandrashekar
(R/o, H.No. 1-11-126/10, Shamla Buildings, Begumpet
Hyderabad, Telangana-500 072)

…Complainant
Versus

M/s. Aditya Constructions Company Pvt Ltd.
Rep by its director Mr. Thota Satya Narayana.
(Aditya Mansion, Plot No. 29/A, Road No. 5,
Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 033)

…Respondent
The present matters filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of the learned counsel for Complainant Maheedhar Puppala and
learned Counsel for Respondent P.V. Aruna Kumari, upon hearing submissions made by both
parties, and the matter reserved over for consideration till this date, this Authority passes the
present Complaints 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 “Act”) read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.

Page 1 of 23

---

The Complainant respectfully submits that the Respondent Company is a Private

Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which has taken land for
development from one M/s Savera Constructions Private Limited and Mrs. C. Kasthuri Bai,
who claim to be the joint-owners of the land admeasuring Ac. 10.00 guntas situated in Sy. No.
78 at Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The Respondent
Company, represented by its Director, entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General
Power of Attorney dated 01.01.2012. Under the said Development Agreement, the Respondent
Company/Developer agreed to develop a multistoried residential apartment complex under the
name and style of "Aditya Capitol Heights" (hereinafter referred to as the "Project").
4.

The Complainant submits that based on the Respondent Company's prospectus and

representations by its sales and marketing personnel, the Complainant intended to purchase
Flat No.1107, 11th Floor, B-Block, admeasuring 2,125 sq. ft., with two car parking spaces and
an undivided share of 49.06 sq. yards situated at land admeasuring Ac.. 10.00 guntas in Sy.
No.78, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. That the
Respondent Company offered to sell the said flat for a total sale consideration of
Rs. 1,02,62,500/-.
5.

Accordingly, the Complainant entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 23.03.2018 and

as on the date of the Agreement, the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.85,55,367/-, out of
which Rs.11,26,250/- was paid directly as advance, and Rs.74,29,117/- was disbursed by PNB
Housing Finance Limited under a Tripartite Agreement dated 20.02.2018 and thus, 2nd
Respondent has received a total sum of Rs.85,55,367/- from the Complainant towards the
purchase of the scheduled flat.
6.

That under Clauses 4 and 5 of the Agreement of Sale dated, the Respondent Company

offered a "Pre-EMI Payment Scheme," which the Complainant opted for. As per the scheme,
the Respondent Company undertook to pay the EMI amounts to the Bank on the disbursed loan
until completion of the flat, after which the Complainant would commence EMI payments.
However, the Respondent Company has failed to honour its obligation to pay the Pre-EMIs as
agreed.
7.

That, under the Pre-EMI Scheme, the Respondent Company was obligated to pay the

EMIs to PNB Housing Finance Limited. However, the Respondent has failed to pay even a
Page 2 of 23

---

That upon raising concerns through emails dated between 02.05.2018 and 24.08.2018,

the Respondent Company provided evasive replies, falsely claiming that the Pre-EMI amounts
would be adjusted towards GST payments, even though Complainant states he has paid more
than the applicable GST as per the rules in force till date in the name of Pre-EMI and the
Complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 26,62,436/- (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Sixty Two
Thousand Four Hundred and thirty six only) by way of Emis till date.
9.

That the Agreement of Sale was drafted in a misleading and one-sided manner, without

providing any specific timeline or assurance for the completion and delivery of possession of
the flat. Despite a lapse of over six years from the date of the agreement. The Respondent
Company has neither completed the construction nor obtained the Occupancy Certificate.
10.

That construction has progressed at an extremely slow pace, and the Respondent

Company has failed to take concrete steps to complete and hand over the flat. The original
building permission granted by GHMC vide File No. 38072/30/04/2013/HO, Permit No.
40195/HO/WZ/Cir-12/2015 dated 19.03.2015, expired in March/May 2020. The Complainant
is unaware of any valid extensions. Moreover, the Respondent Company has obtained revised
building permissions without obtaining consent from the flat owners, in clear violation of the
provisions of the RERA Act.
11.

That he was induced into executing a Tripartite Agreement with the Bank and the

Respondent Company for the disbursement of loan amounts, without being provided any
specific commitment on the date of delivery of possession.
12.

That, as per Clause 17 of the Agreement of Sale, the Respondent Company had assured

that the land on which the project was being constructed was free from all encumbrances and
has a marketable title. However, the Complainant subsequently discovered that the land,
bearing the relevant Survey Number, is included in the prohibited list under Section 22-A of
the Registration Act, 1908, as per the records of the Stamps and Registration Department, State
of Telangana. Further, the said Survey Number is involved in a long-pending litigation before
the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in C.S. No.14 of 1958.

Page 3 of 23

---

That the Respondent Company, despite being fully aware of the title dispute, wilfully

concealed this material fact, causing severe mental agony and financial hardship to the
Complainant. The Respondent also made false representations in the Agreement of Sale. It is
pertinent to mention that there was a blanket ban on registrations of flats in the said Survey
Number and thus depriving the Complainant of a clear and marketable title. That the
Complainant is now under tremendous mental distress, having invested his hard-earned money
based on the false assurances given by the Respondent Company.
14.

That PNB Housing Finance Limited, the project financier, issued a letter dated

29.10.2019 to the Complainant, expressing concern over the lack of any demand request from
the Respondent Company for over a year and questioning the slow progress of construction.
Pursuant thereto, the Complainant sent an email dated 07.12.2019 to the Respondent Company
seeking clarification regarding the construction status and Pre-EMI dues; however, no response
was received. Subsequently, although the Respondent issued a demand notice dated
02.01.2020, the Complainant replied demanding an explanation for the inordinate delay, to
which there has been no reply till date.
15.

That, through his counsel, a legal notice was issued to the Respondent Company and

its Directors in November 2023, seeking an explanation for the delay in handing over of the
flat and regarding the violations observed. However, the Respondent Company chose not to
respond to the said notice.
16.

That the Respondent Company is carrying out the construction of the project in a sub-

standard manner, contrary to the quality standards promised through their advertisements
(including YouTube videos) and the project brochure circulated during the launch stage.
17.

That there is a delay of nearly six years in completing the Project, including the

specifications, amenities, facilities, and obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. In light of this
delay, the Complainant is entitled to claim compensation as envisaged under Section 18 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
18.

That, despite repeated requests to the Respondent Company to deliver the promised

specifications, amenities, and facilities as per the agreement and prospectus, the Respondent's
personnel evaded the Complainant. When the Complainant inquired about the project
completion to plan his residence, the Respondent's staff responded rudely and evasively,

Page 4 of 23

---

That he is entitled to compensation for the delay in handing over the flat in a habitable

condition, as well as compensation/damages for deviations from agreed specifications,
including the use of inferior, sub-standard, and low-grade materials in construction. Further,
the Complainant is entitled to compensation for the misrepresentation and concealment of facts
regarding the title of the land on which the project is being constructed.
20.

Apart from the above, the Complainant submits that the Respondent Company has

grossly failed to comply with the provisions of Section 11 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (RERA Act). The violations committed by the Respondent Company
under Section 11 are as follows:
a) The Respondents have failed to register the project with this Hon'ble Authority, despite the
mandatory requirement for registration under the RERA Act.
b) The Respondent has failed to adhere to the sanctioned plans and project specifications. As
per Section 14(2)(ii) of the RERA Act, the Respondents are prohibited from making any
alterations to the sanctioned plan without obtaining the prior written consent of two-thirds of
the allottees. However, the Respondents have deviated from the sanctioned plan without any
such consent, in clear violation of the statutory provisions.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
21.

Therefore, aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent, Complainants prayed as under:
a) To direct the Respondent company to return the amount of Rs. 85,55,367/- (Rupees
Eighty-five lakhs fifty-five thousand three hundred and sixty-seven rupees only) which
was paid by the complainant along with interest @18% per Annum from 23.03.2018 to
till date, Under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, r/w Rule 15 RERA Rules. To
conduct an enquiry about the irregularities committed by the Respondents and take
appropriate action against the Respondents, by imposing maximum penalty for
contravention of section 4 of RERA Act;
b) To impose a penalty for deviating from the sanction plan without obtaining prior written
permission as mandated under Section 14 of RERA Act;
c) To conduct enquiry for diverting the fund of allottees in contravention to sub-clause
(D) of clause (1) of sub-section 2 of section 4 of RERA Act, and impose penalty.
Page 5 of 23

---

The Respondent categorically denied all allegations made in the Complaint, except

those expressly admitted herein. It has submitted that the Complaint has been filed against the
Respondent on false, speculative, and baseless grounds, and with an ulterior motive to harass
the Respondent without any substantial proof. i.e., Flat No. 1107 ("Subject Flat") in "B" BlockAditya Capitol Heights of Aditya Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., (Aditya Capitol Heights is
hereinafter referred to as the "Project").
24.

That the Complainant is put to strict proof of the allegations made with respect to the

promises of the sales and marketing personnel of the Respondent Company before booking the
Subject Flat i.e., Flat No. 1107 ("Subject Flat") in "B" Block- Aditya Capitol Heights of Aditya
Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., (Aditya Capitol Heights is hereinafter referred to as the
"Project"), and the Complainant's version of events and payments. It is contended that the
Complainant has been a defaulter since the inception of his booking of the Flat in the Project.
Repeated delays in the payment of the booking amount and subsequent instalments caused
significant financial strain on the Project. Furthermore, the Complainant was fully informed of,
and consented to, the terms, conditions, and obligations under the Agreement of Sale. The
Complainant's attempt to evade these obligations is wholly untenable. The Complainant has
falsely stated that he has paid an amount of Rs.85,55,367/- to the Respondent company as on
the date of Agreement of sale dated 23-03-2018, while it can be clearly seen that the
Complainant has paid only an amount of Rs. 10,26,250/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Twenty Six
Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty only) and has agreed to pay the balance amount through
bank loan and further balance amount at the time of handover for interiors, as such the
Page 6 of 23

---

That the Complainant's averments in Para III of the Complaint are devoid of a complete

and whole set of facts. It is submitted that the Complainant was disqualified from the Pre-EMI
payment scheme due to consistent defaults in payments. The continuous delays by the
Complainant-spanning months across several instalments, rendered him ineligible for any
benefits under the scheme. The Complainant not only delayed the payment of the booking
amount but also failed to adhere to subsequent payment schedules, thereby causing significant
financial strain on the Project, being a defaulter from the outset, stopped making payments
midway during the construction and instigated the banker against the Respondent causing
stoppage of funds from the Banker to the Respondent It is false and audacious for the
Complainant to allege that the Respondent failed to pay Pre-EMIs, especially when the
Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of payment under the Agreement
for sale. The Complainant is malafide and intentionally omitted to mention that clause 5 of the
Agreement of Sale clearly stipulates that "If the Purchaser fails to make the payments as per
the demand letters issued by the company and becomes a defaulter, the purchaser shall not be
entitled for pre-EMI payments." It may be noted that the Complainant lost the eligibility of
Pre-EMI payment due to his defaults in making the timely payments and as such the
Complainant is not entitled to any benefit under the Pre-EMI scheme, as the same was extended
as an incentive for purchasers who make prompt payments and not for the defaulting
purchasers.
26.

That it denies the baseless allegations made by the Complainant in Para IV of the

complaint regarding the drafting of the Agreement of Sale. The terms were very well read and
agreed upon by the Complainant who took approximately more than 82 days to review and
consider the draft Agreement of Sale before signing on 23-03-2018. It is respectfully submitted
that the construction period had to be extended due to Covid and therefore, it is not true to state
that there is 6 (six) years delay. It is also not true to state that the Flat is not completed till this
Page 7 of 23

---

That the averments made in Para V of the Complaint are baseless, false and aimed only

to cause financial loss to the Respondent Company. That the Project is completed and the
Respondent Company has already made an application for occupancy certificate. The flats are
ready for possession as the installation of lifts is also completed by the Respondent Company.
The Complainant's assertion regarding revised building permissions is misleading as the
Respondent Company got the extension of time automatically pursuant to the permission
granted by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.107 as part of a suo-motto extension due to
the force majeure event of the COVID-19 pandemic.
28.

That the averments made in Para VI of the Complaint are false and invented only for

the purpose of this complaint. That the Complainant has demonstrated a consistent pattern of
default right from the booking stage. The Respondent highlights that the Complainant delayed
payments across multiple instalments, as follows:
2nd instalment: 56 days
3rd instalment: 56 days
4th instalment: 851 days (28 months)
5th instalment: 1026 days (34 months)
6th instalment: 482 days (16 months)
7th instalment: 449 days (15 months)
8th instalment: 1076 days (36 months)
29.

These delays resulted in unpaid delay charges amounting to 26,21,838/, The Payment

Schedule with dates of payment and delay charges are filed for consideration of this Authority.
The Complainant's defaults disrupted the financial flow of the Project and are the root cause of
any inconvenience claimed. The Bipartite Loan Agreement between the Complainant and
Punjab National Bank Housing Finance Limited is independent of the Respondent, who bears
no liability for bank-related matters much less any amount as alleged to be claimed by Punjab
National Bank Housing Finance Limited of Rs.74,000/-every month.
30.

That the averments made in Para VII are false and are denied by the Respondent.

Further, the Complainant's allegations about the adjustment of GST payments are false and do
not commend any merit for consideration by this Hon'ble Real Estate Regulatory Authority.
Page 8 of 23

---

That the Complainant's averments in Para VIII of the Complaint are baseless and untrue

as the Complainant must have knowingly signed the Tripartite Agreement as part of the loan
process, which was mandated by the bank. The Complainant was fully aware of the terms and
conditions associated with securing a loan. As the Complainant has opted to avail a loan from
the bank to finance the cost of the Subject Flat, the Complainant, as a matter of standard
procedure, must have been required to sign the Tripartite Agreement. This requirement stems
directly from the bank's conditions and was not a part of any stipulation imposed by the
Respondent. The Complainant's attempt to attribute this requirement to the Respondent is
factually incorrect and baseless. Further, this kind of allegation reflects the Complainant's
vindictive mind-set, which seems focused solely on placing blame on the Respondent without
regard for the factual circumstances. It is denied and not true to say that the Tripartite
Agreement was entered into by the Complainant for the purpose of construction, however, the
same must have been executed for the purpose of borrowing money from the Bank for availing
loan facility by the Complainant.
32.

That the allegations made in Para IX of the Complaint are denied as false and baseless.

That the Respondent affirms as conveyed through Clause 17 of the Agreement of Sale dated
23.03.2018 that the land in question is free from encumbrances and has a marketable title. Any
claim otherwise is baseless and misleading as the land in question is as per the records is free
from any legal issues, and no on-going litigation affects its title or status. The Complainant's
reference to the Project in connection with survey number being on a prohibited list under
Section 22-A of The Registration Act, 1908, is false and claimed with an intention to mislead.
The Complainant had ample time and opportunity to verify the legality of title before entering
into any Agreement with the Respondent and it is out of his own volition that he had booked
the said Flat in the Project. Further, the Project has undergone rigorous due diligence by
independent banks, confirming its legal and technical compliance. The Complainant is
selectively presenting half-truths, intending to confuse the authorities.
33.

The Respondent has further submitted that it strongly denies all allegations made in

Para X of the Complaint concerning knowledge or concealment of any title dispute. As
previously submitted, the fact that several banks, equipped with their high-end legal teams,
have independently reviewed and cleared the Project both legally and technically further
Page 9 of 23

---

That the allegations made in Para XI of the Complaint regarding correspondence with

Punjab National Bank is denied. That the Complainant has deliberately halted payments to the
bank despite pending dues since 2019. The averments with regard to the letter dated 29 -102019 from the Punjab National Bank are hereby denied and the Complainant is put to strict
proof of the same. Further, that there was no inordinate delay in completion of the construction
and the construction was carried out as per the building permit obtained from time to time and
therefore, it is not true to mention that there was any inordinate delay in construction and the
Complainant has only invented certain allegations to wrongfully claim compensation from the
Respondent company only to cause financial loss and hardship to the Respondent company.
35.

That the averments in Para XII and XIII of the Complaint alleging that a legal notice

was sent to the Respondent and its directors in November 2023, seeking an explanation for
delay in handing over of the Subject Flat and alleged violations is not true and is a blatant lie.
That the Respondent did not receive any such notice from the Complainant or his counsel.
Therefore, the allegation that the Respondent failed to respond to the notice is baseless and
without foundation. Allegations about substandard construction and deviations from advertised
standards are also false and unsupported by evidence. This Complaint is an attempt by the
Complainant to make wrongful gain citing baseless unfounded false accusations and
allegations against the Respondent to camouflage his defaults in making timely payments to
the Respondent Company.
36.

That the Complainant's claim for compensation under Section 18 of the Act as per

averments made in para XIV is without basis and is a mockery of the legislation made with a
Page 10 of 23

---

That, the allegations made by the Complainant in Para XV regarding the Respondent's

staff are categorically denied as false and malafide. That the Respondent has always ensured
that its staff maintain the highest level of professionalism and respect in all dealings with
customers, including the Complainant. The Company's personnel have consistently been
courteous and responsive to all queries and inquiries the Complainant raises. The assertion that
the Respondent's staff was rude or evasive is completely false and unfounded. The Company
has made every effort to address the Complainant's concerns appropriately and promptly.
38.

That the averments made in Para XVI of the Complaint wherein the Complainant put

forth claim for compensation against alleged delays and use of substandard materials is baseless
and meritless. That the Complainant, being the defaulter, is liable for damages to the
Respondent. The Complainant is making false allegations pertaining to the quality of
construction without any basis and is thus causing irreparable loss and severe injury to the
Respondent Company as the Respondent Company is a reputed builder and has a reputation
for the quality of construction. It is highly deplorable that the Complainant for his own benefit
made these baseless allegations affecting the other buyers' faith and trust in the Respondent
company that could lead to severe business losses to the Respondent Company. Therefore, the
Respondent Company has claimed that the allegations made by the Complainant are far
fetching and intimidating the business prospects and sentiments of many home buyers and
hence prayed to reject the same as unfounded and false by this Hon'ble Authority.
39.

That with regard to averments in Para XII(Sic. XVII) of the complaint, it has submitted

that the respondent project is prior to the implementation of RERA act, and Rule 2(j) of the
Telangana Real Estate Rules, 2017 has clearly exempted all the projects to which permissions
were approved prior to its implementation. That it denies in toto complainant allegation
pertaining to deviation from the sanction plan, as it is a mere allegation for the sake of this
present case and is strictly subjected to the proof of the same.
Page 11 of 23

---

That in the light of all the facts and circumstances as stated above, it has submitted that

the Complainant has consistently defaulted in making the timely payments to the Respondent
Company and has invented these baseless, false and unfounded allegations for the purpose of
this complaint. The Respondent has already applied for the Occupancy Certificate and is ready
to hand over possession of the subject Flat.
41.

Therefore Respondent has prayed that this Honourable Authority may be pleased to

dismiss the Complaint with costs under the circumstances of the case by considering the facts
and submissions made by the Respondent, with substantial reasoning as to why the
Complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed therein, in the interest of justice.
E. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
42.

In reply to Para No.1 of the Written statement filed by the Respondent, the

Complainant has submitted that all the claims made by the Complainant herein in the complaint
are genuine and true.
43.

In reply to Para No.2 of the W.S filed by the Respondent, the Complainant humbly.

That the Respondent's allegations made against the Complainant herein in para 2 of the written
statement are utterly false and baseless. That he has availed a loan of Rs. 90.36,282/- from
PNBHFL, out of which an amount of Rs. 74,29,117/- has been disbursed to the Respondent's
bank account- HDFC Bank A/c No 57500000078592 and the Complainant has paid an amount
of Rs.11.26,250/- as booking amount from his hard-earned savings and the Respondent
company is in receipt of Rs.85,55,367/- from the complainant till date. The above facts are
clearly substantiated from the Loan disbursement letter dated 27-03-2018 filed by the
Complainant herein. The Complainant herein is filing the Tripartite agreement along with this
rejoinder as the same could not be filed at the time of filing of this complaint
44.

That in response to averments in Para No.3 of the W.S filed by the Respondent, the

Complainant humbly submits that the Respondent Company has cleverly carved out a
malicious scheme in the name of 'Pre-EMI payments' only to lure-in customers. That even
though the Complainant herein has made more than 84% payment out of the total sale
consideration of Rs. 1,02,62,500/-as per the Agreement of sale by 23-03-2018, the Respondent
company has cheated the Complainant by making false and dubious statements

Page 12 of 23

---

That in reply to Para No.4 of the W.S, it is submitted that the Agreement of sale

prepared by the Respondent company is in gross violation of guidelines laid down in The Rera
Act 2017. That the Complainant humbly submits that the Respondent company has started
construction of the project in the year 2018 and is now making lame excuses by citing Covid19 pandemic which was prevalent from March, 2020 to February 2021. That the Respondent
company has promised possession by the year 2021 and inordinate delayed in completing the
project and has thus adversely affected his(Complaint) interests.
46.

That in reply to Para No.5 of the W.S, the Complainant has submitted that the

Respondent company is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Authority by making false claims and by
citing G.O M.S No. 107 issued by the MA&UD dated. 08-07-2020 As per the above G.O, the
extension was only valid for a period of 12 Months for approvals expiring on or before
25.03.2020. The Respondent has proceeded with the construction without valid construction
approval since the construction approval was granted in the year 2018, and further has failed
to furnish the approval extension, if any, before the Hon'ble Authority. The Respondent's
actions of trying to mislead the Hon'ble Authority is highly deplorable and for that reason alone,
any claims made by the Respondent should be invalidated
47.

That in reply to Para No.6 of the W.S, the Complainant humbly submitted that the

Complainant has disbursed amounts totalling to 84% of the agreed sale consideration till date
(Including bank loan and booking advance) as per the Agreement of sale 23-03-2018. The
delay charges cited by the Respondent herein is misleading since the same is not applicable to
the Complainant. That the Agreement of sale was created in a manner to benefit the Respondent
company's interests and the same cannot be attributed to the Complainant herein.
48.

That in reply to Para No.7 of the W.S, the Complainant humbly submitted that the

Respondent company has failed to disclose the GST payments made by the Respondent
company as mentioned in the W.S. That the Complainant is also speculative whether the
Respondent company has a valid GST registration. That levying GST charges without a valid
E-Invoice generated from the GST portal is an offence in itself as per the GST Act 2017. There
is no mention of GST No., GST tax rate, HSN Code etc.. which are to be mentioned in the EInvoice. The complainant states that the Respondent is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Authority
by making unsubstantiated claims about GST payments.

Page 13 of 23

---

That in reply to Para No.8 of the W.S, the Complainant submits that the Respondent

company has cleverly roped in financiers like PNBHFL who have been introduced as Project
Financiers to lucrative buyers and the so-called Project Financiers have been acting hand in
glove with the Respondent company and have been disbursing loans to buyers based on their
financial capacity without verifying the marketable title / title disputes on the land in which the
project is being constructed.
50.

That in reply to Para No.9 of the W.S, the Complainant humbly submits that the

Respondent company has violated Clause 17 of the Agreement of sale by 23 -03-2018 by
constructing the project on land with a disputed title and the same is substantiated by the court
order of the Hon'ble High court of Telangana filed by the Complainant citing that the subject
land is part of land involved in long standing dispute in C.S No. 14 of 1958 and any kind of
registration is prohibited in the land parcel in which the project is being constructed as per the
orders of the Hon'ble District Collector, R.R District, since the Survey No 78 is included in
Section 22-A of the prohibited lands register as per The Registration Act, 1908.
51.

That in reply to Para No. 10 of the W.S, the Complainant submits that the Respondent

company is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Authority by citing cases which are unrelated to this
current project. That whereas the Complainant submits that the litigation is evident from the
High court W.P order copy filed by the Complainant at the time of filing of the complaint.
52.

That in reply to Para No.11 of the W.S, the Complainant submits that the Complainant

has received an E-mail dated 05-07-2024 asking him(complainant) to deposit the Sale
deed/conveyance deed executed by the Respondent in favour of the Complainant. The claims
made by the Respondent company stating that there was no delay in construction of the project
is utterly false and misleading since there has been a delay of more than 6 years till date in
completion and handing over of possession to the Complainant
53.

That in reply to Para No.12 of the W.S, the Complainant humbly submits that the

Respondent company has received the legal notice dated 27-11-2023 vide Registered post No.
RN055495632IN and the Respondent company has failed to reply to the legal notice. The
tracking report is filed for the perusal of the Hon'ble Authority.
54.

That in reply to Para No.13 of the W.S, the Complainant humbly submits that the

Respondent company is trying to mislead the Hon'ble Authority with false facts and claims and
the Complainant who has paid more than 84% out of the total agreed sale consideration of Rs
Page 14 of 23

---

That in reply to Para No.14 of the W.S the Complainant submits that it is evident from

the E-mails received by the Complainant from the Respondent company's employees which
are filed along with the complaint that the Complainant has been threatened that his flat
booking will be cancelled without any refund and by levying penalty charges. All of these
actions have caused severe mental agony and distress to the Complainant
56.

That in reply to Para No.15 of the W.S, the Complainant submits that the Respondent

company has been changing its sub-contractors who were roped in by the Respondent company
for execution of the project from time-to-time since they are in no position to keep up their
payment commitments to their sub-contractors. This act of changing sub-contractors on a
regular basis affects the quality of the ongoing work in the project and the same may be
considered by this Hon'ble Authority.
57.

That in reply to Para No. 16 of the W.S., the Complainant submits that the Respondent

company is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Authority by stating that RERA approval is not
required for the present project since the project has commenced prior to the implementation
of RERA Act, 2017. The Respondent company is well aware that all on-going projects which
come under the purview of the act and which have not obtained completion certificate by the
time of the implementation of RERA Act.2017 are mandated under law to obtain a RERA
registration certificate/ approval. However, the present project in question does not have a valid
RERA registration certificate/approval, and the same is a gross violation of the provisions laid
down in the RERA Act, 2017, and the Hon'ble Authority is requested to enquire into the same.
58.

That in reply to Para No.17 of the W.S filed, the Complainant humbly submits that the

same is repetitive and as such does not warrant any reply. The Respondent company may be
put to strict proof pertaining to the question of obtaining occupancy certificate from GHMC
since the construction approval granted for the present project has expired way back in the year
2021.
59.

Hence prayed to pass necessary orders by taking into consideration the documents filed

with rejoinder in the interest of justice.
Page 15 of 23

---

Upon a careful perusal of the record and the submissions advanced by both parties, oral

as well as written, this Authority is of the view that the following issues arise for determination
in the present complaint:
I. Whether the Respondent Violated any provision of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016?
II. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? If yes, to what extent?
G. Observations of the Authority:
Point-I
61.

The Authority has carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and submissions placed

on record by both the Complainant and the Respondent in the present matter. Upon such
examination, it is pertinent to observe that the principal grievance raised by the Complainant
pertains to the alleged violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, by the Respondent, in relation to the project titled “Aditya Capitol
Heights.” The Complainant contends that the said project has been developed and promoted
without obtaining mandatory registration under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act.
62.

It is further noted that this very issue concerning the unregistered development and

promotion of the project “Aditya Capitol Heights” had already been examined by this Authority
in a series of connected complaints filed in Form–M, vide Complaint Nos. 267/2024/TGRERA,
275/2025/TGRERA, and 276/2025/TGRERA. Consequent upon such complaints, this
Authority, having found a prima facie case of violation of Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the
RE(R&D) Act, had initiated suo motu proceedings in Case No. D6/3163/TGRERA and issued
a Show Cause Notice to the Respondent, calling upon it to explain as to why penal action under
Sections 59 and 60 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. should not be initiated for the said
contraventions.
63.

In response to the said Show Cause Notice, the Respondent submitted its explanation

contending inter alia that the building permission for the project had been sanctioned vide
Permit No. 40195/HO/WZ/Cir-12/2015, dated 19.03.2015, which was prior to the
commencement of the Act, that the project was completed in all respects and that the flats were
proposed to be handed over to the purchasers shortly, and that the Respondent had already
Page 16 of 23

---

Accordingly, this Authority, while examining the matter in the suo motu proceedings,

held that in terms of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
and the Rules framed thereunder, as well as in light of the subsequent amendments, even those
projects whose building permissions were approved prior to 01.01.2017, but which had not
been issued either a Completion Certificate or an Occupancy Certificate as on that date, would
not qualify for exemption from registration. Consequently, the Authority held that the project
“Aditya Capitol Heights” squarely falls within the purview of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act,
and therefore, the Respondent–Promoter, M/s Aditya Constructions Company India Pvt. Ltd.,
represented by its Directors, Sri Thota Satyanarayana and Sri T. Anirudh, was directed to apply
for registration of the said project under Section 4 of RE(R&D) Act. Since the very issue raised
in the present complaint relating to the violation of section 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act of the
said project has already been duly examined and adjudicated upon in the aforesaid suo motu
proceedings, this Authority refrains from making any further observations or findings on the
same aspect again. Point 1 answered accordingly.

Point - II
65.

The Complainant seeks refund of the amount paid by him to the Respondent on several

grounds, the principal being the abnormal delay in completing the project and handing over
possession of the flat purchased under the Agreement of Sale dated 23.03.2018 entered into
with the Respondent.
66.

In order to examine the entitlement of the Complainant to refund, it is pertinent to refer

to Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which reads as
follows:

Page 17 of 23

---

As discussed while answering Point No. 1, this Authority, in the earlier suo motu

proceedings, has already held that the project titled “Aditya Capitol Heights” remains
incomplete and therefore constitutes an ongoing project under the RE(R&D) Act.
68.

The Respondent has not placed on record any Completion Certificate or Occupancy

Certificate to substantiate its plea that the project has been completed. Even an application for
the issuance of such a certificate, if filed, has not been produced. Mere assertion without proof
cannot be accepted, particularly when the Respondent seeks exemption from statutory liability.
69.

In the absence of any cogent material or documentary proof to the contrary, the only

reasonable inference is that the project continues to remain incomplete. Accordingly, the
contention of the Complainant that the project has not been completed even after a lapse of
several years, and that the Respondent has delayed its completion, stands corroborated and is
therefore sustained as true.

Page 18 of 23

---

The Complainant has further submitted that the Respondent had offered a Pre-EMI

Scheme but failed to honour its commitments. The Respondent, on the other hand, contended
that the Complainant was disqualified from the Pre-EMI scheme owing to his consistent
defaults in making timely payments. However, it is observed that the Complainant has not
sought any specific relief in the present complaint in relation to the Pre-EMI scheme, other
than asserting that the Respondent failed to abide by its assurances under the Agreement of
Sale. Therefore, delving into the details of the Pre-EMI arrangement serves no substantive
purpose in the adjudication of this complaint.
71.

Another ground urged by the Complainant for seeking refund is that the Respondent

deliberately drafted the Agreement of Sale in a manner that was vague, one-sided, and silent
on the time frame for completion and delivery of possession. Except for a bald denial, the
Respondent has not offered any convincing explanation for the absence of a possession clause.
72.

A perusal of the Agreement of Sale dated 23.03.2018 reveals that no specific clause

mentions the period within which the project would be completed or possession delivered. This
is contrary to Section 13(2) of the RE(R&D) Act, which mandates that every agreement for
sale shall specify, inter alia, the particulars of development, the schedule for payment, and the
date of handing over possession.
73.

It is therefore evident that the Agreement of Sale dated 23.03.2018 is deficient in

essential particulars, particularly with respect to the date of possession. The absence of such a
material term violates the mandate under Section 13(2) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, which
requires that every agreement for sale shall, inter alia, specify the date on which possession is
to be handed over. This Authority notes that agreements drafted unilaterally by promoters
without any possession clause are often vague, uncertain, and overwhelmingly one-sided,
leaving the allottee in an unequal bargaining position with little scope for negotiation. Such
drafting patterns are clearly designed to dilute or evade the statutory consequences that flow
from Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act.
74.

In the present case, since the project is unregistered and the Agreement of Sale does not

specify the date of possession, the allottee is entitled to rely upon other contemporaneous
documents that indicate the timeline within which the promoter was required to complete the
project. In this regard, reference is invited to Permit No. 40195/HO/WZ/Cir-12/2015 (File No.

Page 19 of 23

---

The Respondent has failed to complete the project even as on the date of this

adjudication let alone by the sanctioned completion date of 18.03.2020. In such circumstances,
where the Agreement of Sale does not stipulate a possession date, the sanctioned completion
date under the approved building permit constitutes the only legally ascertainable and objective
benchmark. The possession date in such cases cannot, by any logic or interpretation, extend
beyond the validity of the sanctioned permit.
76.

The Respondent has attempted to justify the delay by relying on the onset of the

COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is an admitted and undisputed fact that COVID-19 related
restrictions commenced only in March 2020. By that point, the project ought to have already
been completed as per the sanctioned permit. Hence, the plea that the entire delay is attributable
to COVID-19 is not acceptable, as the Respondent was already in default well before the
pandemic began.
77.

The Respondent has further attempted to attribute fault to the Complainant by alleging

payment defaults. However, a promoter who has himself failed to complete the project within
the approved timelines and who has failed to even specify the possession date in the Agreement
of Sale, cannot turn around and allege that the allottee is a defaulter. A promoter in breach of
his own obligations forfeits the moral and legal right to accuse the allottee of default,
particularly when the allottee was kept uninformed regarding the project’s true progress and
when even the sanctioned permit had already expired.
78.

In fact, the record reveals that the Respondent did not provide any clarity or

transparency to the allottee regarding delay, revised timelines, or steps taken to complete the
project. The allottee was effectively left in the dark while the project continued to remain
incomplete. In such circumstances, the blame for the delay cannot be shifted onto the allottee.
79.

Accordingly, this Authority finds that it is the Respondent who is solely responsible for

the abnormal and unjustified delay in completion of the project. The Respondent has failed to
honour the obligations imposed by law, failed to comply with the sanctioned development
timelines, failed to provide a possession date in the Agreement of Sale, and failed to complete
the project even to date.
Page 20 of 23

---

The Complainant has also asserted that, under Clause 17 of the Agreement of Sale, the

Respondent had assured that the property, namely Flat No. 1107, Block B, admeasuring 2125
sq. ft. with two car parking’s and proportionate undivided share of 49.16 sq. yds. in land
admeasuring Ac.. 10–00 gts. in Sy. No.78 of Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, was free from all encumbrances and possessed a marketable title.
However, the Complainant subsequently discovered that the said land falls under the prohibited
category under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908, and is part of long-pending
litigation before the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana in C.S. No. 14 of 1958.
81.

It is alleged by the complainant that the Respondent, despite being aware of the said

litigation and restriction, concealed this fact, causing severe mental agony and financial
hardship to the Complainant. The Respondent, however, denied these allegations, contending
that the land in question is free from all encumbrances, that no legal dispute affects its title, and
that the Complainant’s references are misleading.
82.

Upon careful examination, it is observed from Letter No. E1/480/2023 dated

04.04.2023, issued by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District to the District Registrar,
that in light of the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. No. 24115 of 2022 and subsequent
status quo orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 7154 of 2021, instructions were
issued not to permit registration of properties in Sy. No.78, Hafeezpet Village until further
orders. The Respondent has not produced any document to show that the if operation of this
direction has been suspended.
83.

In view of the above findings, this Authority is of the considered view that the allottee’s

request for refund is legally valid and deserves to be allowed. The Respondent, having failed
to complete the project within the sanctioned period and having deprived the allottee of timely
possession, is liable under Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act to refund the entire sale
consideration received from the allottee, together with interest as prescribed under the
RE(R&D) Act, calculated from the respective dates of each payment made by the allottee to
the Respondent in respect of the subject unit.
84.

The Complainant has claimed refund of Rs. 85,55,367/-, comprising Rs. 11,26,250/-

paid as booking and advance amount and Rs. 74,29,117/- disbursed through Punjab National
Bank as part of the sanctioned home loan. A perusal of the Agreement of Sale and the bank
disbursement statements reveals that Rs. 10,26,250/- was paid as advance and Rs. 74,29,117/Page 21 of 23

---

The Respondent, while denying the claim amount of Rs. 85,55,367/-, has not

specifically disputed or produced any record contradicting the figures supported by
documentary proof. On the contrary, the Respondent’s own records reflect receipt of Rs.
81,36,249/- from the Complainant. Thus, it stands reasonably established that the Complainant
has paid a total of approximately Rs. 82,43,085/- to the Respondent.
86.

In view of the prolonged delay, incomplete project status and in absence of clear

timelines, this Authority holds that the Complainant cannot be made to wait indefinitely and is
entitled to refund of Rs. 82,43,085/- along with interest under Section 18(1)(a), calculated from
the respective dates of each payment made by the allottee to the Respondent in respect of the
subject unit.
87.

With regard to the Complainant’s further prayer seeking imposition of penalty for

alleged deviations from the sanctioned plan, it is observed that no documentary proof or
technical evidence has been produced before this Authority to substantiate such allegation.
88.

In the absence of credible evidence, this Authority is constrained to hold that no finding

can be recorded on the alleged deviation from the sanctioned plan, and accordingly, this relief
cannot be granted.
89.

Similarly, the Complainant’s prayer for an inquiry into the alleged diversion of project

funds also remains unsupported by material evidence, and therefore cannot be considered or
allowed.
90.

In view of the facts, findings, and observations discussed in the foregoing paragraphs,

this Authority concludes that the Respondent is liable to refund the amount of Rs. 82,43,085/to the Complainant along with applicable interest under Section 18(1)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act,
while the other reliefs relating to deviations and diversion of funds are rejected for want of
evidence. Accordingly, point–II stands answered in the above terms.

Page 22 of 23

---

91.

In view of the detailed observations made hereinabove and upon careful consideration

of the pleadings, documents placed on record, the submissions made by both parties, and
applicable provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, this Authority is of the considered opinion
that the Complainant is entitled to the following reliefs:
a) In view of the findings above, the Respondent is directed to refund Rs. 82,43,085/- to
the Complainant along with interest at 10.75% p.a. (SBI MCLR + 2%) calculated from
the respective dates of each payment made by the allottee to the Respondent in respect
of the subject unit., in terms of Section 18(1)(a) read with Rule 15 of the Telangana
Rules, within 60 days from this Order.
92.

It is further made clear that failure to comply with the directions contained in this Order

shall attract the consequences stipulated under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
93.

The complaint is disposed of with these directions. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon'ble Chairperson,
TG RERA

Page 23 of 23

---