Order Complaint No. 287 of 2025​

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 287 of 2025
Dated: 4th February, 2026
Quorum:

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

Shaik Firoz Ahmed,
S/o Shaik Jeelani Basha, R/o. H.No: 3-3-66/9F, Burtonguda,
Bollarum, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500010.
…Complainant
Versus
1. K. Baburam Naik,
Managing Director of M/s Diamond Green Cities Pvt. Ltd,
R/o: H.No.10-103/6/2/40, Vijaya Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Nedurgul (Rural) Balapur
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 501510.
2. M. Chaturu Naik,
Director of M/s Diamond Green Cities Pvt. Ltd,
O/o: Flat No. 9, Cross Road No. 5, Opposite to Mamta Nagar,
Samathapuri Colony, Nagole, Hyderabad – 500035.
3. K.M. Kondiah Naidu,
Sales Manager of M/s Diamond Green Cities Pvt. Ltd,
R/o: Third Floor, Plot No. 8, H.No.32-67-81, Balaji Colony, Near GHMC Park, Sainikpuri,
RK Puram, Secunderabad.
4. M/s Diamond Green Cities Pvt Ltd,
Rep by Its Managing Director Mr. K. Baburam Naik,
O/o: Flat No.9, Cross Road No.5, Opposite to Mamta Nagar, Samathapuri Colony, Nagole,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500035.
…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned hereinabove, came up for
hearing before this Authority. The Complainant appeared in person; Respondent Nos. 1 and 4
were represented by their counsel, Mr. S. Sreenivas Nayak; Respondent No. 3 appeared in
person; and none appeared on behalf of Respondent No. 2. After hearing the submissions on
behalf of the parties present and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Authority
proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
Page 1 of 16

---

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

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

The Complainant submits that in the month of September, 2024, the Respondents

approached him stating that they were representing M/s. Diamond Green Cities Pvt. Ltd., a
company engaged in real estate business. The Respondents furnished photocopies of
pamphlets/leaflets indicating their office at Nagole and promoting a residential plotted venture
titled “Diamond Sai Teja Township” also referred to as “Sai Teja Township”, situated in Survey
No. 494, Nadargul Village, near Delhi Public School, Aadibatla. The said pamphlets
represented

that

the

layout

was

HMDA

approved

bearing

L.P.No.000271/LO/PLG/HMDA/2018.
4.

The Respondents also furnished a copy of a Registered Sale Deed pertaining to Plot

No. 25 admeasuring 240 Sq. Yards in the said venture, with a sale consideration of
Rs.68,90,000/-, registered as Document No. 236/2024 dated 06.01.2024 in the Office of the
Sub-Registrar, Champapet. The said Sale Deed was executed by Respondent No.1,Sri K.
Baburam Naik, as “Vendor” and representing himself as the Managing Director of Diamond
Green Cities Pvt. Ltd.
5.

Relying upon the said representations and documents, the Complainant agreed to

purchase Plot No. 69 admeasuring 364 Sq. Yards in the said project at a rate of Rs. 31,000/- per
Sq. Yard, and accordingly booked the plot on 06.10.2024. The Respondents demanded an
advance amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- at the time of booking. Pursuant thereto, the Complainant
paid Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash on 07.10.2024, for which Receipt No. 2851 dated 07.10.2024 was
issued, followed by Rs. 15,00,000/- through RTGS on 21.10.2024, acknowledged vide Receipt
No. 2852 dated 21.10.2024. Thus, the Complainant paid a total advance of Rs. 20,00,000/towards Plot No. 69.
6.

Thereafter, Respondent No.1, in his capacity as Managing Director of Diamond Green

Cities Pvt. Ltd., executed an Agreement of Sale dated 04.12.2024 in favour of the Complainant
in respect of Plot No. 69 admeasuring 364 Sq. Yards, acknowledging receipt of Rs. 20,00,000/as advance and further recording receipt of Rs. 60,00,000/- on the same day, with the balance
payable at the time of registration tentatively scheduled on 12.12.2024. The Agreement
Page 2 of 16

---

In furtherance of the Agreement of Sale, the Complainant paid Rs. 60,00,000/- through

an account payee bank cheque dated 05.12.2024, which was acknowledged by Respondent
No.4, vide Receipt No. 2867 dated 05.12.2024. With this, the Complainant had paid a total sum
of Rs. 80,00,000/-.
8.

As per the Agreement of Sale, the registration of Plot No. 69 did not take place on the

tentative date of 12.12.2024. The Respondents subsequently informed the Complainant that
Plot No. 69 was not available and instead offered Plot No. 72 admeasuring 382 Sq. Yards in
the same project. The Respondents demanded payment of the remaining consideration of
Rs.35,00,000/- for proceeding with registration of Plot No. 72.
9.

Believing the assurances of the Respondents and to expedite registration, the

Complainant paid Rs. 25,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- through account payee cheques dated
30.12.2024, which were acknowledged vide Receipt No. 2868 dated 30.12.2024, Receipt No.
2869 dated 04.01.2025, and Receipt No. 2878 dated 04.01.2025. Thus, as on 04.01.2025, the
Complainant had paid a total amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- towards Plot No. 72 and requested
the Respondents to complete the registration.
10.

Despite receipt of the entire sale consideration, the Respondents failed to proceed with

registration, raising serious apprehensions. The Complainant thereafter obtained an
Encumbrance Certificate for Plot No. 72 in Survey No. 494, Nadargul Village, for a period of
30 years from 01.05.1995 to 06.02.2025, which revealed that the said plot stood registered in
the name of one Mr. B. Vikram Reddy since 19.02.2020, who was the absolute owner.
11.

Upon confronting the Respondents, Respondent No.1 claimed that he was in the process

of obtaining the plot through an Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA from the said owner and assured
that registration would be completed shortly. On the same day, the Respondents visited the
Complainant’s residence and executed a written assurance on Rs. 100/- stamp paper, enclosing
six undated cheques signed by Respondent No.1 for an aggregate amount of Rs. 1.15 Crores,
promising to complete registration by 25.02.2025, and also took a group photograph as
evidence.
12.

When the assurance date also lapsed without registration, the Respondent No.1

requested the Complainant to return the six cheques citing insufficient funds, and instead issued
Page 3 of 16

---

As on the date of filing of the present complaint, despite payment of the entire

consideration amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/-, the Respondents have failed to register Plot No. 72
in favour of the Complainant.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
14.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

i.

Direct the Respondent to register the property i.e., Plot No. 72 mentioned above in the
name of the Complainant in a time bound manner as fixed by the Regulating Authority
and direct the Respondent to bear the registration charges for the inordinate delay of
more than 7 months for registering the above property.

ii.

Alternatively, direct the Respondent to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,15,00,000.00/paid by the Complainant immediately.

C. Counter on behalf of Respondent No.1:
15.

Respondent No.1 has filed a counter denying all the allegations made in the complaint,

except those specifically admitted. It is stated that after observing the reputation and standing
of Respondent No.1 in the real estate business, the Complainant expressed his willingness on
06.10.2024 to purchase Plot No. 69 admeasuring 364 square yards in the project of Diamond
Green Cities Private Limited, namely Diamond Sai Teja Township, at a rate of Rs.31,000/- per
square yard.
16.

It is stated that the Complainant entered into the Agreement of Sale after due

satisfaction and that Respondent No.1 expressed readiness to execute the Sale Deed on
payment of the balance sale consideration. However, it is alleged that the Complainant
suddenly changed his version and showed interest in Plot No. 72 situated at Nadargul Village
in Survey No. 494. Respondent No.1 claims that he considered the request of the Complainant,
but the Complainant failed to perform his part of the contractual obligations despite repeated
requests and demands.
17.

It is further stated that thereafter the Complainant approached him with a request to

cancel the Agreement of Sale by expressing his financial crisis and sought refund of the amount
received. Considering the said request on humanitarian grounds, Respondent No.1 issued two
Page 4 of 16

---

It is further stated that on one hand the Complainant received the amounts by way of

the said cheques and on the other hand filed the present premature complaint by suppressing
the above facts for wrongful gains and to defame Respondent No.1 in society. It is contended
that the claim of the Complainant is whimsical and not based on any rational grounds and that
the Complainant is not entitled to any relief.
19.

Respondent No.1 further states that he is ready to execute the Sale Deed in favour of

the Complainant in respect of Plot No. 72 on payment of the balance sale consideration and
return of the said cheques issued by him. Accordingly, it is prayed that the complaint be
dismissed by imposing costs and fine on the Complainant, in the interest of justice.
D. Counter on behalf of Respondent No.3:
20.

Respondent No.3, namely Sri K.M. Kondiah Naidu, has filed his counter stating that

the rebuttal filed by the Complainant is correct. He has acknowledged the correctness of the
version put forth by the Complainant.
21.

Respondent No.3 has stated that the Complainant paid the full and timely sale

consideration amount of Rs.1.15 Crores in his presence towards the purchase of Housing Plot
No. 72 in the Diamond Sai Teja Township project from Respondent No.4, M/s Diamond Green
Cities Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Sri K. Baburam Naik, who is
Respondent No.1. It is further stated that after receipt of the full and final payment of Rs.1.15
Crores, Respondent No.1 unnecessarily delayed the registration of Plot No. 72 despite repeated
assurances.
22.

Respondent No.3 has further stated that thereafter he, along with Sri K. Baburam Naik

(Respondent No.1) and Sri M. Chaturu (Respondent No.2), visited the residence of the
Complainant, during which an assurance was given on Rs.100/- stamp paper, enclosing six
signed cheques without date issued by Sri K. Baburam Naik for a total amount of Rs.1.15
Crores, with a promise to complete the registration of Plot No. 72 on or before 25.02.2025. It
is also stated that a group photograph was taken during the said meeting as evidence of the
assurance.
Page 5 of 16

---

It is further stated that when the assurance date of 25.02.2025 passed without

registration, the Complainant again approached Respondent No.1, at which stage Respondent
No.1 requested the Complainant to return the earlier six undated cheques on the ground that
there were no funds available in the said bank account. In place thereof, two fresh cheques
were issued by Respondent No.1 from Axis Bank, LB Nagar Branch, bearing Cheque No.
353137 dated 15.03.2025 for Rs.85,00,000/- and Cheque No. 353136 dated 15.03.2025 for
Rs.60,00,000/-, which were handed over only as an assurance with a fresh promise to complete
the registration of Plot No. 72 by 15.04.2025.
24.

It is submitted that on verification, it was observed that the signatures on the said two

cheques were different from the usual signature of Sri K. Baburam Naik, which according to
Respondent No.3 indicates an intention to delay and frustrate the registration process.
25.

It is stated that the Complainant has duly paid the entire sale consideration, but

Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 have failed to register the property, and has requested
this Hon’ble Authority to take the said counter on record and to pass appropriate directions in
the interest of justice.
E. Rejoinder filed on behalf of Complainant to Counter of Respondent No.1:
26.

The Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the counter and rebuttal filed by Respondent

No.1. It is stated that the present case clearly demonstrates that despite the Complainant having
made full and timely payment of Rs.1.15 Crores towards the purchase of Housing Plot No.72,
he was denied registration of the said plot by M/s Diamond Green Cities Private Limited,
represented by its Managing Director, Respondent No.1. It is asserted that the Housing Plot
Nos. 69 and 72 offered for sale were never in the possession of M/s Diamond Green Cities Pvt.
Ltd., represented by Respondent No.1, from the beginning and continue to remain so till date.
27.

It is submitted that Respondent No.1 deliberately suppressed material facts, ignored the

documentary evidence filed along with the complaint as well as the Additional Evidence
submitted to the Authority vide letter dated 26.06.2025, which was acknowledged by the
Respondent’s own counsel on 01.07.2025, and attempted to mislead this Hon’ble Authority.
28.

With regard to the two cheques bearing Nos. 353137 dated 15.03.2025 for

Rs.85,00,000/- and 353136 dated 15.03.2025 for Rs.60,00,000/- issued by Respondent No.1,
the Complainant has clarified that the said cheques were not deposited for specific reasons. It
is stated that Respondent No.1 had initially issued six cheques acknowledging receipt of
Page 6 of 16

---

It is further stated that the signatures on the two cheques dated 15.03.2025 materially

differ from the signatures on the earlier six cheques as well as from the signature of Respondent
No.1 on the affidavit executed on non-judicial stamp paper. It is also stated that the said cheques
were issued without mentioning the name of the payee and that issuance of such blank cheques
for huge amounts clearly indicates lack of funds in the account of Respondent No.1. It is alleged
that depositing the said cheques would have inevitably resulted in dishonour and would have
enabled Respondent No.1 to divert the dispute into cheque bounce proceedings under the
Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby mischaracterising the present case. It is asserted that the
conduct of Respondent No.1 in issuing blank cheques, signing them differently and without
sufficient balance was intentional and aimed at creating a civil dispute, and therefore the
Complainant refrained from presenting the said cheques to protect the integrity of the present
proceedings.
30.

The Complainant states that he submitted Additional Evidence to the Authority vide

letter dated 26.06.2025, receipt of which was acknowledged by the Respondent’s counsel on
01.07.2025. It is stated that Respondent No.1 deliberately ignored the said additional evidence
in his rebuttal. According to the Complainant, the said additional evidence includes a recorded
call message dated 08.05.2025 in which Respondent No.1 admitted receipt of full payment and
stated that the delay in registration was due to his own financial difficulties and not due to any
fault on the part of the Complainant. It is further stated that due to the Respondent’s delay in
registering the property before 31.03.2025, the Complainant was burdened with additional
capital gains tax of Rs.17,04,750/-, as evidenced by the Income Tax payment receipt, which is
stated to be a direct financial loss caused to the Complainant. It is alleged that Respondent No.1
deliberately ignored all this evidence in his counter, thereby suppressing material facts.
31.

With regard to ownership of Plot Nos. 69 and 72, the Complainant states that as per the

Encumbrance Certificates and the approved layout plan submitted, Plot No.69 stands registered
in the name of one Mr. Sreeram Reddy represented by K. Devender Reddy and Plot No.72
Page 7 of 16

---

Therefore, it is prayed that the counter filed by Respondent No.1 be rejected as

misleading and suppressing crucial evidence, that Respondent No.1 be directed to refund the
sum of Rs.1.15 Crores received towards Plot No.72 which was never in the possession of M/s
Diamond Green Cities Pvt. Ltd., and that Respondent No.1 be directed to reimburse the
financial loss of Rs.17,04,750/- incurred towards capital gains tax. The Complainant has further
sought imposition of costs on Respondent Nos.1 and 4 for suppression of material facts and
harassment, imposition of costs on Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for aiding and abetting Respondent
No.1, award of interest, compensation and costs.
F. Rejoinder filed on behalf of Complainant to Counter of Respondent No.3:
33.

The Complainant has filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by Respondent No.3. It is stated

that the counter filed by Respondent No.3 contains clear and categorical admissions which
confirm the core allegations made by the Complainant. According to the Complainant,
Respondent No.3 has expressly admitted the full and timely payment of Rs.1.15 Crores by the
Complainant towards purchase of Plot No.72 and has also admitted his presence and
participation in the assurance meeting along with Respondent Nos.1 and 2, during which an
affidavit on Rs.100/- stamp paper was executed confirming receipt of Rs.1.15 Crores towards
sale of Plot No.72, issuance of six signed cheques for Rs.1.15 Crores by Respondent No.1 as
assurance, and a promise to complete registration by 25.02.2025, along with taking of a group
photograph as evidence.
34.

It is further stated that Respondent No.3 has also admitted the subsequent issuance of

two replacement cheques dated 15.03.2025 for Rs.85,00,000/- and Rs.60,00,000/- by
Page 8 of 16

---

The Complainant has further contended that the admissions made by Respondent No.3

attract the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is stated that Section 12 of the RERA Act prohibits misleading
advertisements and representations by promoters, and that Respondent No.3’s presence and
participation along with Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in providing assurances, despite knowing that
the plots were not owned or possessed by Respondent No.1, amounts to aiding false
representation of ownership. It is further stated that under Section 18(1)(a) of the RERA Act,
an allottee is entitled to refund with interest if the promoter fails to complete or give possession
of the plot, and that Respondent No.3’s involvement in the assurances and replacement cheques
links him to the failure to complete registration of Plot No.72. Reference is also made to
Sections 35 and 38 of the RERA Act, contending that the admissions of Respondent No.3
strengthen the grounds for inquiry into coordinated actions and enable issuance of directions,
including punitive action. The Complainant has further relied upon Order VIII Rules 3 and 5
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, stating that general denials are deemed admissions and
that Respondent No.3, by affirming and admitting key facts, effectively supports the
Complainant’s case.
36.

It is further alleged that Respondent No.3 aided and abetted fraudulent

misrepresentation by personally witnessing and confirming assurances relating to a property
not owned by Respondent No.1, thereby violating Section 12 of the RERA Act. It is stated that
Respondent No.3 failed to disclose material facts regarding the actual ownership of Plots
Nos.69 and 72 despite having knowledge thereof, amounting to suppression of material facts
in violation of Sections 12 and 18 of the Act. The Complainant has also alleged that Respondent
No.3’s participation facilitated the Complainant’s additional capital gains tax liability of
Rs.17,04,750/- and mental distress, attracting Sections 18(1)(a), 38 and 71 of the RERA Act. It
is further stated that by endorsing inconsistent cheque issuance and delays, Respondent No.3
contributed to creating circumstances intended to mischaracterize the dispute as a chequebounce issue, thereby obstructing justice.

Page 9 of 16

---

In view of the admissions made by Respondent No.3 and the alleged violations, the

Complainant has prayed that the admissions of Respondent No.3 be taken as corroborative
evidence in support of the original complaint and the rejoinder dated 08.09.2025 along with
Annexure A, that Respondent No.3 be held jointly and severally liable along with Respondent
Nos.1 and 4 for fraudulent misrepresentation, harassment and financial loss, and that costs,
compensation and punitive measures be imposed under Sections 35 and 38 of the RERA Act.
The Complainant has further sought a direction for reimbursement of Rs.17,04,750/- towards
capital gains tax with applicable interest and has prayed that all other reliefs sought in the
rejoinder dated 08.09.2025 be upheld.
G. Points to be determined:
38.

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

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Respondent has violated Sections 3 & 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 by not
registering the project, Diamond Sai Teja Township?

II.

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

H. Observations of the Authority:
Point I
Whether the Respondent has violated Sections 3 & 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 by not
registering the project, Diamond Sai Teja Township?
39.

Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents and material placed on record,

this Authority observes that the Complainant booked a residential plot in a project styled as
“Diamond Sai Teja Township” / “Sai Teja Township”, situated in Survey No. 494 of Nadargul
Village, near Delhi Public School, Aadibatla. It is evident from the complaint, the Agreement
of Sale dated 04.12.2024, the receipts issued by Respondent No.4, and the promotional material
placed on record that the Respondent No.4, actively advertised, marketed and offered for sale
plots in the said project and collected substantial amounts from the Complainant towards sale
consideration.
40.

This Authority notes that the project “Diamond Sai Teja Township” was projected as a

HMDA-approved plotted layout bearing L.P. No. 000271/LO/PLG/HMDA/2018 and was
represented as a legitimate venture. The Complainant had entered into the transaction and had
parted with large sums of money on the basis of these representations. The materials on record
Page 10 of 16

---

It is further noted that this Authority had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.07.2025

to the Respondent No.4, calling upon him to explain the violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016 in respect of the project “Diamond Sai Teja Township.” Despite multiple
opportunities afforded during the course of the proceedings, the Respondent No.4 has failed to
submit any reply or explanation to the said notice. In the absence of any response from the
Respondent, this Authority is constrained to proceed on the basis of the material available on
record.
42.

Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 categorically provides that no promoter shall

advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any
plot, apartment or building in any real estate project or part thereof in any planning area,
without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established
under the Act. Section 3(2)(a) of the Act carves out a limited exemption from registration only
in cases where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square metres
or the number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight.
43.

In the present case, it is evident from the layout plan, brochures and promotional

material placed on record that the project “Diamond Sai Teja Township” consists of 94 plots
and is spread over a total extent of approximately 10.37 acres. The scale and extent of the
project are far in excess of the statutory thresholds prescribed under Section 3(2)(a) of the
RE(R&D) Act. Therefore, the project does not qualify for the exemption from registration and
squarely attracts the mandatory requirement of registration under Section 3 of the said Act.
44.

This Authority further observes that despite the clear statutory mandate, the Respondent

No.4, proceeded to launch, market and sell plots in the said project and collected substantial
amounts from the Complainant without obtaining registration. Such conduct amounts to a
direct and clear contravention of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act.
45.

Further, Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act mandates that every promoter shall make an

application for registration of the real estate project with the Authority, accompanied by all
requisite approvals and disclosures, before undertaking any activity contemplated under
Section 3 of the Act. In the present case, a perusal of the records maintained by this Authority
clearly demonstrates that no application for registration of the project “Diamond Sai Teja
Page 11 of 16

---

In view of the above, this Authority holds that the Respondent No.4, has violated

Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by launching,
marketing and offering for sale the project “Diamond Sai Teja Township” without registration
with this Authority and by collecting booking amounts and sale consideration from the
Complainant in clear contravention of the statutory mandate. Therefore, the Secretary,
Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority, is directed to initiate steps against the
Respondent No.4, under Section 59 of the RE(R&D) Act for violation of Sections 3 and 4 of
the said Act.
Point II
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?
47.

At the outset, this Authority notes that Respondent No.4, namely M/s Diamond Green

Cities Private Limited, is represented by Respondent No.1, Mr. K. Baburam Naik, as its
Managing Director. The Agreement of Sale in the present case has been executed by
Respondent No.4, represented by Respondent No.1, and all receipts acknowledging payment
of sale consideration have also been issued by Respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 has acted
throughout in his capacity as Managing Director of Respondent No.4, and the counsel
representing Respondent No.1 has also represented Respondent No.4. Accordingly, the counter
filed by Respondent No.1 is treated as the counter on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 4.
48.

It is further observed that despite due service of notice through registered post as well

as personal service, Respondent No.2 has failed to appear before this Authority and has neither
filed any counter nor made any submissions to contest the allegations raised by the
Complainant. Being satisfied that due process has been followed and adequate opportunity was
afforded, this Authority was constrained to proceed ex parte against Respondent No.2.

Page 12 of 16

---

The case of the Complainant is that he entered into an Agreement of Sale with

Respondent No.4 for purchase of Plot No.69 and subsequently shifted to Plot No.72 in the
project “Diamond Sai Teja Township,” and that pursuant thereto, he paid an aggregate amount
of ₹1,15,00,000/-. The Complainant asserts that despite receipt of the entire consideration
amount and repeated assurances, the Respondents failed to register the plot in his favour. The
Complainant further contends that upon verification through the Encumbrance Certificate, it
came to light that Plot No.72 stands registered in the name of a third party and was never owned
by Respondent Nos.1 or 4. It is alleged that the Respondents, despite being aware of the lack
of title, continued to collect money, issued assurance cheques without sufficient funds, and
repeatedly postponed registration. The Complainant therefore seeks either registration of the
plot or, in the alternative, refund of the entire amount paid.
50.

Respondent No.1, who represents Respondent No.4 as its Managing Director, in his

counter and during the course of arguments, has contended that the Agreement of Sale stood
cancelled at the request of the Complainant and that two cheques bearing No.353137 dated
15.03.2025 for ₹85,00,000/- and No.353136 dated 15.03.2025 for ₹60,00,000/- were issued
towards refund of the amount received. It is contended that once the said cheques were issued,
the transaction stood settled, the Agreement of Sale stood cancelled, and the Complainant
ceased to have any right under the said Agreement. According to Respondent No.1, if the
Complainant had any grievance, the same ought to have been pursued on the basis of the
cheques and not under the Agreement of Sale. Respondent No.1 has also stated that he is ready
to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant in respect of Plot No.72, subject to
payment of the balance sale consideration and return of the cheques issued.
51.

On a careful consideration of the material on record, it is evident that the Complainant

has paid a total sum of ₹1,15,00,000/- to Respondent No.4. The receipts evidencing such
payments have been placed on record and the factum of receipt of the said amount is not
disputed by Respondent Nos.1 and 4. The counter filed by Respondent No.3, who has supported
the Complainant, further corroborates the payment of the entire sale consideration by the
Complainant.
52.

Upon perusal of the Encumbrance Certificate placed on record, it is evident that Plot

No.72 stands registered in the name of one Sri B. Vikram Reddy, and not in the name of
Respondent Nos.1 or 4. The assertion of the Complainant that the said plot belongs to a third
party has not been disputed by Respondent Nos.1 and 4. Significantly, Respondent Nos.1 and
Page 13 of 16

---

The Complainant has submitted that he did not encash the cheques issued by

Respondent No.1 as there were no sufficient funds in the account of Respondent No.1. It is also
stated that the cheques were replaced subsequently and were again given only as assurance.
This version of the Complainant stands fully corroborated by the counter filed by Respondent
No.3, who has categorically stated that the cheques were issued only as assurance. In such
circumstances, the Complainant cannot be expected to encash cheques which were admittedly
not issued towards actual refund.
54.

It is observed from the Agreement of Sale dated 04.12.2024 and the subsequent

agreement between the parties, that the tentative date for registration was initially fixed as
12.12.2024 and was subsequently extended to 25.02.2025. Despite receipt of the entire sale
consideration, Respondent Nos.1 and 4 failed to register Plot No.72 in favour of the
Complainant within the stipulated or extended timelines. This clearly establishes failure on the
part of Respondent Nos.1 and 4 to fulfil their contractual obligations.
55.
that:

In this regard, attention is drawn to Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, which provides
“If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an
apartment, plot or building,—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case
may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of
suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other
reason,
he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to
withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available,
to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot,
building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed
in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this
Act.”

56.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil

Appeal Nos. 3581-3590 of 2022, Civil Appeal Diary No. 9796/2019, M/s Imperia Structures
Limited vs. Anil Patni & Others, wherein it was held:
Page 14 of 16

---

Similarly, in Civil Appeal Nos. 6745-6749 of 2021, M/s Newtech Promoters and

Developers Private Limited vs. State of UP & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed:
“Section 18(1) of the Act spells out the consequences if the promoter fails to
complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building either
in terms of the agreement for sale or to complete the project by the date specified
therein or on account of discontinuance of his business as a developer either on
account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any
other reason, the allottee/home buyer holds an unqualified right to seek refund of
the amount with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf.”
58.

In the present case, this Authority is of the considered view that the Complainant,

having paid a substantial amount in anticipation of registration of Plot No.72, has been
wrongfully deprived of the same due to the failure of Respondent Nos.1 and 4. The
Complainant cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for registration of a plot over which the
Respondents themselves do not hold title. The Complainant has categorically expressed that he
is no longer interested in registration of Plot No.72 and seeks refund of the entire amount paid
along with interest.
59.

Since the Agreement of Sale has been executed by Respondent No.4 and the receipts

acknowledging the payments have also been issued by Respondent No.4, the liability to refund
the amount rests solely on Respondent No.4. Respondent No.2 has not participated in the
transaction and Respondent No.3 has acted only as a witness/sales representative and has not
received any portion of the sale consideration. Accordingly, no liability can be fastened upon
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Page 15 of 16

---

In view of the above, this Authority holds that the Complainant is entitled to the relief

sought to the extent of refund along with interest. Respondent No.4 is directed to refund the
entire amount of ₹1,15,00,000/- paid by the Complainant, along with interest at the rate of State
Bank of India’s Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum, calculated from
the respective dates of payment made by the Complainant until the date of actual refund by the
Respondent.
I. Directions of the Authority:
61.

In exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of the

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and in furtherance of the findings and
conclusions drawn hereinabove, the following directions are hereby issued:
i.

The Authority, taking note of the Respondent No.4's violations of Sections 3 and 4 of
the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, hereby directs the Secretary,
Telangana RERA, to immediately initiate steps under Section 59 of the RE(R&D) Act,
for imposition of appropriate penalty upon the Respondent No.4, subject to the approval
of the Authority, for the aforesaid violations.

ii.

The Respondent No.4, is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,15,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Fifteen Lakhs Only) along with interest at the rate of 10.70% per
annum (SBI MCLR of 8.70% + 2%) calculated from the respective dates of payment
made by the Complainant until the date of actual refund by the Respondent. The said
refund together with interest shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of
receipt of this order.

62.

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by Respondents shall attract penalty in

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
59.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

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

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

Page 16 of 16

---