Order Complaint No. 290 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 290 of 2024
Dated:
Quorum:

29th November 2025

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

Between:
Vadla Radha
(R/o. Plot No. 399, Flat No
Road No 3,South End Park Colony,
Mansoorabad, L.B. Nagar,
Hyderabad – 500068)

…Complainant
Versus

1. M/s.Emerald Constructions
(Rep by S. Durga Reddy and V. Srinivas
315,3rd floor, Sanali Mall, Abids, Hyderabad- 500 001)

2. S. Durga Reddy (AGPA)
(315,3rd floor, Sanali Mall, Abids,
Hyderabad- 500 001)

3. V.Srinivas(Manager)
(315,3rd floor, Sanali Mall, Abids,
Hyderabad- 500 001)

…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person and learned counsel for Respondent Sri
N.S.V. Nageswara Rao, C Naga Ramanjulu appeared upon due service of notice; and upon
hearing the submissions of the Complainant and Respondents, 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 “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 she purchased Plot No.130 in the project “L Emerald”

bearing LP No. 000004/LO/PLG/HMDA/2018, developed by the Respondent, on 04.02.2019
Page 1 of 10

---

Accordingly, the Complainant sought for the following reliefs:
I.

Direct the Respondent to pay the interest amount for the delay from the purchase @24%
per annum.

II.

Delivery of possession with all amenities, i.e., development of roads, drainage system,
street lights, etc., within 1 month (since it is registered)

C. Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
5.

The Respondent No. 2, S. Durga Reddy, submitted that he is the partner of M/s.

Emerald Constructions, and he is a duly authorized agent of the firm vide authorization dated
06.09.2024, and as such, well acquainted with the facts of the case, and filing a counter on
behalf of the Respondent firm and on behalf of the Respondents.
6.

The Respondents submitted that the Complainant has remitted total sale consideration

and the Respondent company has executed the sale deed vide sale deed no. 3264/2019 on
04.02.2019 with S.R.O., Ibrahimpatnam, R.R. Dist., and the sale deed original was handed over
to the Complainant on 23.02.2019.
7.

That on 28.12.2016, the layout subject land was converted from agriculture to non-

agriculture.

Respondent

filed

an

application

vide

application

no.

00710/SMD/LT/U6/HMDA/17042017, dated 17.04.2017 for approval of the layout in the site
admeasuring 1,27,657.28 Sq. Mtrs in Sy. No.261/p & 262/p, situated at Ibrahimpatnam Khalsa
Village and mandal of R.R. District. The said application was processed after the requisite
payment

was

made

by

the

Respondent

and

a

draft

layout,

vide

LP

No.

000004/LO/Plg/HMDA/2018, was issued on 19.01.2018. On 04.09.2018, Municipality
Ibrahimpatnam has approved the draft layout, and the Respondent has registered the subject
venture with TG RERA Vide certificate date 11.02.2019.

Page 2 of 10

---

The Respondents submitted that a complaint was filed before the SECRETARY,

HMDA, by Sri D. Sanjeeva Rao & 3 Others against the Respondent based on old pahani
documents. The Secretary of HMDA requested the respondents to provide updated pahani
documents, but they were unable to do so, as the revenue officials were preoccupied with online
revenue record updates, and the revenue portals were not functioning properly due to outdated
information and the COVID-19 pandemic. Hearings were conducted on 19-10-2019, 23-112019, 28-12-2019, 25-01-2020, 21-03-2020, 21-05-2020, 20-06-2020, 18-07-2020, 27-012021 and 13-02-2021. During the process of hearings, the Secretary, HMDA issued stay orders
on 26-11-2019, and stay orders were communicated to the Sub-Registrar also on 20-07-2020.
Between 19-01-2018 and 26-11-2019, the Respondent submits that they have completed the
50% development (road works, water tank, parks) of the layout site as per the prescribed
HMDA norms and the draft layout issued by HMDA was cancelled under section 22-A of the
HMDA Act on 24-07-2021 (Ex:B-8). After updating revenue records, we submitted dharani
record of the subject land on 06-08-2021 (Ex:B-9) and on 09-02-2022 (Ex:B-11) the respondent
requested to revoke of the draft layout cancellation orders dated 24-07-2021, and the HMDA
has restored the draft layout orders vide letter dt: 19-02-2022 (Ex:B-12) and copy was served
to Sub-Registrar, Ibrahimpatnam for information and necessary action and The Municipal
Commissioner, Ibrahimpatnam Municipality, Ranga Reddy District after paying the additional
layout fee to the HMDA and in turn Ibrahimpatnam Municipality further levied Rs.21,13,420/(Rupees Twenty One Lakh Thirteen Thousand Four Hundred Twenty Only).
9.

The Respondents submitted that the HMDA has issued a show cause notice dated

20.02.2020 to check and restore the check dams and vagu in Sy.Nos. 261 & 262 in
Ibrahimpatnam khaslsa and demanded a compliance report, and after this, Emerald
Constructions has approached the irrigation officials and asked for the details of any check dam
or water bodies. The Irrigation officials visited the site and earmarked the stream and a buffer
zone for the water body on the layout plan. They gave specifications for the construction of a
drain for the nala and for the buffer zone and advised some alterations in the layout pattern.
The Respondents submitted an undertaking to Irrigation department and got permission for the
above construction and upon the above advise the Respondents have incorporated the
alterations complied with the HMDA parameters as demanded in the above said show cause
notice by restoring the same and in the process of restoring the management has altered the
layout without much disturbance, in the order of the plots and their dimensions because some
of the plots were already sold by the management. So, without affecting the purchaser's interest
Page 3 of 10

---

The Respondents further submits that the draft layout in Sy. Nos. 261 & 262 of khalsa

Ibrahimpatnam, there was a cadastral mistake, and the 150-feet road was shown as it was going
through Sy. No. 262, and it was supposed to go along with the existing Zilla Parishad road, a
70-foot road, which is on the edge of Sy. No.261, this 150-feet road mistakenly shown in the
master plan 2031 and later master plan was corrected, and the same has been brought to the
notice of HMDA, wide letter dated 19-01-2023 by Emerald Constructions all these can be
evident from the layout dated 19-01-2018 L.P. No.000004/LO/Plg/HMDA/2018 and the
revised layout plan dated 06.01.2024 having an understanding about the mistake the
Respondents have sold plots situated in Sy. No.262 only, and as per the revised plan, the plots
situated in 262 remained undisturbed. This is one of the major causes of differing with the
developmental activity.
11.

The Respondents submitted that again the Emerald Constructions applied for a revision

of above approved layout with the irrigation permission and got revised layout approval upon
paying additional layout fee on 06-01-2024 by the HMDA, and as per the letter sent to the
commissioner, Ibrahimpatnam municipality, R.R. Dist., by the HMDA, the general condition
no.7 is reproduced here:
"7. The layout applicant is directed to complete the above developmental
works within a period of THREE (3) YEARS as per G.O. Ms.No.201, MA
dt.16.11.2020 and submit a requisition letter for release of mortgage
plots/area which is in favour of Metropolitan Commissioner, HMDA and for
approval of final layout duly enclosing letter of Local Body with regard to
roads, open spaces taken over by the Local Body."

12.

The Respondents further submits that the Executive authority, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga

Reddy Dist., has issued a letter to Respondent company to pay the balance layout fee of
Rs.9,61,120/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Sixty One Thousand One Hundred Twenty Only) vide letter
dated 17-01-2025 and enable them to sanction and release of draft layout plan, accordingly the
Respondent company has paid the said balance layout fee of Rs.9,61,120/- (Rupees Nine Lakh
Page 4 of 10

---

The respondents further submitted that has developed further HMDA Layouts namely

B-Emerald, E-Emerald, H-Emerald and R-Emerald Layouts in the same relevant time and all
the developments were completed and sold out to the prospective purchasers and the
Respondent humbly submits that even in the present venture 60% of the developmental
activities have been executed instead of legal impediments and remaining works will be
completed within a short period and the respondents is having the capacity and having funds
to develop the project, only for the administrative permissions the development has been
stopped for the past four years and the respondent company is keenly perusing the
developments at the site on day to day basis which is evident from the photos filed by the
respondent. The respondents are once again registering the subject layout with RERA.
14.

The Respondents submitted that Respondent No. 3, i.e., V. Srinivas, is not a director as

the complainant mentioned in the cause title, but the Respondent No. 3 is a manager.
15.

The Respondents submitted that the deficiency of service would arise only if the

respondent fails to register the plot in spite of complete payment of sale consideration by the
complainant or if there is any defect in the title of the said property in favour of the complainant
and there is no willful default or intentional act of the respondent and the respondent is not at
fault, the complainant is not entitled for repayment with interest or buying back of the subject
plot by the respondent or any other relief(s) as prayed for and hence in conclusion, the
Respondent prayed this Hon’ble Authority to dismiss the complaint.
D. Rejoinder
16.

The Complainant in her rejoinder submitted that the Respondent failed to complete the

development of the L Emerald layout before the due date, 18.12.2020, as per RERA No.
Page 5 of 10

---

After deliberating upon the contentions of the parties, the following issues arise for

consideration by the Authority: Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed
for? If yes, to what extent?
E. Observations of the Authority:
18.

From the documentary material placed on record, it stands established that the

Complainant purchased Plot No. 130, admeasuring 200 Sq. Yards (167.28 Sq. Mtrs) in the
layout known as “L-Emerald, Dream City-II”, situated in Sy. No. 262 of Khalsa,
Ibrahimpatnam Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The transaction was duly
completed through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No. 3264/2019 dated 04.02.2019
at SRO, Ibrahimpatnam. The said Sale Deed remains valid and undisputed, and no allegation
of fraud, suppression, or vitiating circumstances has been raised by either party.
19.

The Complainant has stated that he paid a total sum of Rs. 10,50,000/-, comprised of

Rs. 1,50,000/- towards sale consideration and Rs. 9,00,000/- towards development charges.
The project was scheduled to be completed by 18.12.2020, as per the RERA registration. It is
the Complainant’s case that the development remains incomplete. The Respondent, in its
written and oral submissions, contends that the delay was neither intentional nor mala fide, but
attributable to circumstances beyond its control. It is submitted that the project commenced in
2018 with due approvals, with 363 plots demarcated and 116 plots sold. The Respondent argues
that force majeure events impeded development, and further contends that the Complainant is
not entitled to interest because possession of the plot was delivered at the time of registration

Page 6 of 10

---

The Respondents, however, unequivocally admits that development at the site remains

incomplete. It attributes the delay to multiple external factors, including an HMDA stay order,
objections from the Irrigation Department, and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Respondent
reiterates that despite earnest efforts, these impediments have hindered progress. Nevertheless,
such submissions do not alter the admitted fact that the promised development works remain
pending to date.
21.

The Respondents has filed certain photographs alleging ongoing development activities

such as road formation and installation of street-light poles. It is also submitted that a revised
draft layout was issued by HMDA on 06.01.2024 and that the final layout approval is expected
shortly. The Respondent further states that it has filed a fresh application for RERA registration
extension, however, records of this Authority confirm that the said application was returned
with shortfalls on 11.06.2025 and that the Respondent has not complied with those deficiencies
till date.
22.

Upon careful consideration, this Authority notes that although physical possession of

the plot may have been delivered contemporaneously with execution of the sale deed, delivery
of possession without completion of development works does not amount to fulfilment of the
promoter’s statutory obligations. The project’s RERA registration expressly stipulated
18.12.2020 as the completion date, by which the promoter was required to complete all
development obligations, including internal roads, electricity, drainage, water facilities, and
other approved infrastructure. Mere delivery of an undeveloped plot cannot extinguish the
promoter’s liability under the RE(R&D) Act.
23.

The Respondent No. 1 seeks to justify the delay by attributing it to external

circumstances, including the revocation of the HMDA layout plan on 24.07.2021 due to alleged
misrepresentation, which was later restored on 19.02.2022. Additionally, records show that the
Irrigation Department raised objections due to encroachment upon the Kocheruvu Kalva stream
and check dam, wherein the Respondent was compelled to provide an undertaking not to
undertake any construction within the buffer zone. These circumstances, on the contrary,
demonstrate a lack of due diligence and regulatory awareness at the time of launching the
project and executing sale deeds. A promoter is expected to verify all regulatory constraints
Page 7 of 10

---

The records further show that the RERA registration of the project lapsed on

18.12.2020. The Respondent No. 1 filed a fresh registration application after obtaining the
revised draft layout, but the same was returned with shortfalls on 11.06.2025, which remain
unaddressed. This continued non-compliance reflects promoter negligence and a disregard of
statutory obligations. The Respondent No. 1 cannot claim unforeseen circumstances while
simultaneously ignoring mandatory compliance requirements for project continuation.
25.

Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 mandates

that where a promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or
building by the date specified, he shall be liable, at the option of the allottee, either to return
the amounts received with interest, or, where the allottee does not intend to withdraw from the
project, to pay interest for every month of delay till handing over possession, at the prescribed
rate. Thus, once delay is admitted, liability under Section 18(1) operates automatically,
irrespective of whether possession was delivered without completion of promised
development.
26.

Considering that the Complainant has been awaiting completion since 2020, and in

view of the Respondent’s own admission that the development works remain incomplete, this
Authority is of the considered view that the statutory liability under Section 18(1) of the
RE(R&D) Act stands unequivocally attracted. Although the original project completion date
under the RERA registration was 18.12.2020, which the promoter failed to adhere to, it is noted
that the Government of Telangana granted a uniform extension of project timelines by oneand-a-half years owing to the Covid-19 pandemic. Extending the benefit of such relaxation to
the Respondent No. 1, the delayed period shall accordingly be computed from 18.06.2022.
Consequently, the Complainant becomes entitled to interest at the prescribed rate under Section
18(1) from 18.06.2022 until the Respondent No. 1 completes all promised development works
in accordance with the sanctioned layout and hands over the plot as a fully developed plot in
terms of the obligations disclosed at the time of sale.
27.

The Respondents have submitted that a revised draft layout approval was issued by

HMDA on 06.01.2024 and that the final approval is presently under consideration. In order to
safeguard the interests of the remaining allottees and to ensure that the project does not remain
Page 8 of 10

---

Further, the Respondents shall continue to pay interest to the Complainant, calculated

at the prescribed rate under Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, from 18.06.2022 until such
time as the final layout approval is obtained, all the promised development works are fully
completed, and the plot is handed over to the Complainant as a fully developed plot strictly in
accordance with the sanctioned plan.
29.

In addition, the Respondents is hereby restrained from undertaking any marketing,

selling, advertising, inviting of purchasers, or offering to sell any plots in the said project until
a valid and fresh RERA registration is duly obtained. Any act in contravention of Section 3 of
the RE(R&D) Act shall attract penal consequences under Section 63, and continued noncompliance may also warrant initiation of proceedings for declaring the Respondent No.1 as a
defaulter for persistent disregard of the statutory mandate and the directions issued by this
Authority.
J. Directions of the Authority:
30.

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)

The Respondent No. 1 is directed to pay interest for the period of delay in completing
the development of the plot, calculated from 18.06.2022, being the date arrived at after
granting the Respondent No. 1 the benefit of 18 months of extension due to Covid-19,
as allowed by the Government of Telangana, over and above the assured completion
date of 18.12.2020 and the rate of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall
be at the highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) of the State Bank of India
plus 2%, which amounts to 10.75% per annum until the Respondent No.1 secures final
layout approval from the competent authority

Page 9 of 10

---

The Respondent No.1 is restrained from advertising, marketing, offering for sale,
inviting purchasers, or effecting any sale transactions in respect of any plot within the
said project until a valid and fresh RERA registration is obtained in accordance with
Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act. Any act in contravention of this direction shall
constitute a violation of Section 3 and shall render the Respondent No.1 liable for penal
action under Section 63, apart from any other statutory consequences, including
initiation of proceedings for being declared a defaulter for continued non-compliance.

c)

In addition, the Respondent No. 1 is directed to immediately comply with the shortfalls
communicated by the Authority in 11.06.2025 in respect of the Respondent’s
application for RERA registration. The Respondent No. 1 shall comply and submit all
requisite documents and clarifications without delay, failing which this Authority shall
be constrained to initiate proceedings under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 for noncompliance of regulatory directives.

d)

Failure to comply with the above directions shall attract penal consequences in
accordance with the provisions of 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

31.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. 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 10 of 10

---