Order Complaint No. 299 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 299 of 2024
Dated: 30th July, 2025
Corum:

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

Ch. Venkateswara Rao
R/o- Door No. 2-65/AA Flat No. 718/818, Ace Altantis
…Complainant

Khajaguda, Hyderabad, 500089
Versus
M/s Green Space Properties
R/o- 6-39/1, Padmavathi Colony, Yenugonda Mahabub Nagar,
Telangana-509001
Rep. by
1.Kundeti Ravi Chandra Babu, Managing Partner
2.U. Mahesh Kumar, Managing Partner

...Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on 10.04.2025 before this
Authority in the presence of Complainant and Respondent in person, and after hearing the arguments, this
Authority passes 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 Respondent.

A. Brief Facts of the Case:
3.

The complainant submitted that he had purchased ten plots for his personal use in the

project named “Bagiratha,” being developed by M/s Green Space Properties, represented by its
Managing Director Sri U Mahesh Kumar and Sri Kundeti Ravi Chandra Babu. The project is
located at Survey No. 18/P, Aurangabad Village, Havelighanpur Mandal, Medak Municipality
District, with a total layout area of 4.04 acres. The complainant and other purchasers were induced

1

---

The complainant alleged that despite execution of the sale deeds between July 2021 and

February 2022 for the plot no. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37 & 38, the developer has failed to
complete the layout development even by October 2024. As per the DTCP Layout Permission No.
TLP 93/2021/H dated 01.04.2021, the project was to be completed by 31.03.2022. However,
considering the RERA guidelines, a grace period was available up to 31.03.2023. Even this
extended timeline has not been adhered to. The delay is not only unjustified but has resulted in
immense mental, financial, and emotional hardship for the complainant.
5.

The complainant further submitted that the quality of the work completed thus far is

extremely substandard and several infrastructural components remain incomplete. There is visible
decay and deterioration in the layout due to lack of proper finishing and poor maintenance. The
complainant has recorded video evidence of the layout’s current condition, which can be produced
upon request during the hearing or via email.
6.

The complainant submitted that the developer’s conduct reflects a blatant disregard for

applicable legal obligations. As per the Telangana State rules and the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, all DTCP-approved layout projects are mandatorily required to be
registered under RERA. The developer, being fully aware of this legal requirement, has
nevertheless failed to comply. This is not due to ignorance, as the developer is actively undertaking
construction in other RERA-registered building projects such as “Greenspace Orchid, Plot 12, Flat
401,” Pin code 500055.
7.

The complainant stated that when questioned about the RERA compliance status of the

Bagiratha project, the developer plainly responded that he would not apply for RERA registration,
citing it as expensive and unnecessary for a DTCP layout. The complainant submits that such a
statement is a deliberate and fraudulent misrepresentation, intended to divert funds and deliver
substandard work while evading regulatory oversight.
8.

The complainant also submitted that repeated attempts were made to contact the developer

and seek updates and clarifications regarding the status of development and RERA registration.
2

---

9.

the reasons for failure to apply for and furnish the RERA registration number of the project. If
RERA registration has not been applied for, the developer should be directed to justify the violation
of the mandatory statutory requirement.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
10.

Aggrieved by the acts of the Respondent, the Complainant pray for the following:
I.

To complete the project (Green Space Bagiratha), as per the norms of the brochure, and
get the NOC and display the DTCP Draft Layout Plan with TLP No (As per Clause 15
of the TLP of above reference)

II.

To blacklist the company Green space properties from embarking on any immediate or
future layout, residential complexes, plans for period not less than 6 years or as deemed
fit by the learned bench.

C. Counter Filed by the Respondent
11.

The Respondent submitted the complaint filed by Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao against

GREEN SPACE PROPERTIES contains various allegations which are not true and are null and
void. The Respondent stated that the construction has been completed in accordance with the
guidelines and as per the agreement made with the landowner.
12.

The Respondent further submitted that although the application for RERA registration was

not made earlier, the same has now been submitted after attending the present proceedings. The
Respondent is also submitting the receipt of payment made towards RERA registration for the
kind perusal of the Authority. Photographs showing the present status of the project are also being
submitted for record.

3

---

The Respondent also brought to the notice of the Authority that the delay in the project

occurred due to the presence of two temples in the layout, which led to objections from the village
residents. The landowner had to take significant time to resolve the issue amicably with the
villagers, which caused the delay in the ongoing work.
14.

The Respondent submitted that currently only the installation of electrical street lights and

a transformer is pending. The Respondent assures the Authority that the remaining works will be
completed within four months, i.e., by 15th August 2025.
15.

In view of the above, the Respondent requested the Authority to drop the complaint filed

against them, and stated that they would be grateful for such an action.
D. Observation of the Authority
16.

The Complainant has sought for completion of the project with amenities mentioned in the

brochure and sale deeds. Based on materials on records, it is evident that the Complainant has
purchased the following plots in survey no. 18/ అ(A) and 18/ ఆ(AA), in the layout known as
“Green Space Bhagiratha”, layout TLP no.93/2021/H, situated at Aurangabad Village, Medak
Municipality, Haveli Ghanapur Mandal, Mdeak district.

17.

Sl. No

Plot No

Registration Date

Plot Extent

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

27
28
29
30
31
34
35
36
37
38

05.07.2021
05.07.2021
05.07.2021
05.07.2021
05.07.2021
28.02.2022
28.02.2022
28.02.2022
28.02.2022
28.02.2022

231
201.66
201.66
201.66
201.66
235.22
228.88
224.88
221.33
289.33

Total
Sale
Consideration
Rs.4,15,000/Rs. 3,63,000/Rs. 3,63,000/Rs. 3,63,000/Rs. 3,63,000/Rs.4,24,000/Rs.4,12,000/Rs.4.04,000/Rs.3,99,000/Rs.3,41,000/-

The said project is approved by DTCP bearing No. TLP No.93/2021/H, dated 01.04.2021.

The sale deeds were executed between July 2021 and February 2022, and the Complainant has

4

---

40’ C.C. Roads
Underground drainage
Underground electricity with street lights
Water connection point for each plot.
Avenue plantation along footpath.
Grand entrance arch
Lush green park developed with gym cycles.

Further no such date has been specified in any of the agreements for the completion of the

project. The Authority notes that it has been more than three years have since the DTCP approval
was obtained, and yet the Respondent has failed to complete the promised development works.
The Respondent, while admitting the delay, attributed the same to local objections arising out of
the presence of two temples within the layout. However, no documentary evidence has been
furnished by the Respondent to substantiate this claim, nor any record of efforts made or
communications exchanged with the relevant stakeholders to resolve the purported obstacle.
19.

The Authorities notes that the Complainant herein has purchased the mentioned plots and

the parties have executed the sale deeds whereas it is mentioned that vacant possession of the
concerned plots have been handed over to the Complainant. Further, the Complainant’s relief
circles around completion of the project with amenities which the Respondent has assured in sale
deed, such as lush green park, footpath, club house, swimming pools etc.
20.

Additionally, the Respondent has failed to substantiate any verifiable evidence to rebut the

specific allegations made by the Complainant regarding incomplete infrastructure, poor-quality
development, and lack of transparency. While oral submissions were made during the hearing
stating that the remaining works would be completed by 15th July 2025, the written submissions
filed earlier mentioned a different date that is 15th August 2025; as the projected timeline for
completion. This inconsistency, coupled with a lack of supporting documents, undermines the
credibility of the Respondent and reflects a casual and evasive attitude toward both the legal
process and the rights of the allottees.

5

---

In light of the above facts, it becomes imperative to assess the legal implications of the

Respondent’s admitted delay and ongoing non-compliance. In the view of this Authority, once the
full sale consideration has been paid and the sale deeds executed, the Complainant becomes legally
entitled to possession of fully developed plots along with the amenities assured at the time of sale.
There lies no justifiable reason why the innocent purchaser should continue to suffer on account
of the Respondent’s inaction, delays, and regulatory non-compliance. The prolonged delay has not
only caused financial loss to the Complainant but has also led to considerable mental agony and
loss of faith in the viability of the project.
22.

The Preamble to the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 makes it abundantly clear that the legislation was

enacted with a consumer-centric objective to establish the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for
regulating and promoting the real estate sector in an efficient and transparent manner, and above
all, to protect the interests of consumers in the real estate sector. This protective intent is central to
the interpretation of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 and informs the understanding of the substantive
rights and remedies available under it.
23.

In furtherance of this legislative objective, the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 imposes specific

obligations on promoters to ensure that the interests of allottees are not prejudiced after execution
of sale deeds. Section 11 wherein mandates the promoter to be responsible for all the obligation
and function implied on the promoters. Section 11(2) mandates that any advertisement or
prospectus issued by a promoter shall be prominently published on the webpage. Section 12 also
obligates the promoter that, where any person makes any advance on the basis of the information
contained in the prospectus or on the basis of any model apartment/plot/building, as the case may
be, and the promoter fails to deliver the same, the allottee shall be compensated as per law by the
promoter. These two sections envisage the intention of the legislation that any such information
provided by the promoter in the prospectus/brochure, he shall be obligated for the same.
24.

In the present case, while it is observed that the Complainant was executed sale deeds and

has paid the entire sale consideration, it is also evident that the promised amenities forming an
integral part of the layout has not been completed even after a considerable lapse of time. The
Respondent’s failure to develop roads, underground drainage, electricity, water lines, green parks,
and other amenities advertised in the brochure and promised in the executed sale deeds amounts
6

---

Further, Section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 reinforces the obligation upon the promoter

to execute the project strictly in accordance with the sanctioned layout, plans, and specifications
approved by the competent authority and as represented to the allottees. In the present case, the
project was marketed and sold based on DTCP-approved layout plan No. TLP No.93/2021/H and
the accompanying brochure, which clearly outlined amenities such as 40’ C.C. roads, underground
electricity, water connections, drainage, parks, and a grand entrance arch. The Complainant’s
investment was made in reliance upon these representations. The Respondent’s failure to provide
such amenities, even several years after registration of the plots, constitutes a direct violation of
Section 14.
26.

However, it is clarified that the Respondent is liable to complete the project strictly in

accordance with the sanctioned layout and specifications approved by the competent authority.
Insofar as any amenities or assurances have been made by the Respondent which are not part of
the sanctioned plan or not approved by the competent authority, the Complainant shall be entitled
to seek appropriate compensation in accordance with law. The promoter's obligations are coextensive with the approved plan, and any deviation therefrom attracts liability in the form of
compensation, not specific performance.
27.

Moreover, the Complainant has not sought to cancel the transaction but has instead prayed

for enforcement of the promises made at the time of sale. In such circumstances, the promoter
cannot be permitted to alter, delay, or dilute the agreed specifications. The dual failure under
Sections 11 and 14 highlights not only a dereliction of statutory duties but also demonstrates the
pressing necessity for immediate regulatory intervention to ensure compliance and to safeguard
the legitimate rights of the allottee.
28.

Therefore, the relief sought by the Complainant to complete the concerned project under

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, is found to be legally tenable. The
Complainant has not chosen to withdraw from the project and continues to seek possession of the

7

---

Further, the Complainant raised the issue of the Respondent’s failure to register the

concerned project under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. It is evident from the Brochure
and the 10 sale deeds that the Respondent had advertised, marketed, booked, sold or offered for
sale, or invited persons to purchase plots forming part of a real estate project without obtaining
prior registration from the competent Authority, despite the project exceeding the statutory
threshold of 500 square meters as stipulated under Section 3(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Therefore, the Respondent was under a legal obligation to obtain
requisite approvals and register the project with this Authority prior to executing the sale deeds
with the Complainant. The failure to do so constitutes a clear violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
30.

The Authority notes from the record that the Respondent submitted an application seeking

registration of the concerned project under Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, only after
attending the present proceedings. However, the said application was found to be incomplete and
lacking several mandatory documents as required under the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Rules, 2017. Owing to these material deficiencies, the Authority declined to
process the application any further. Mere submission of a defective application after initiation of
the present proceedings does not exempt the Respondent from liability under the Act.
31.

In view of the admitted fact that the Respondent had marketed and sold units, and collected

substantial amounts from the Complainant prior to obtaining valid registration, the Respondent is
found liable for penalty under Section 59 and Section 60 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, for
contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the said Act respectively.
32.

Therefore, considering the aforementioned provision of Section 11 &14 of the RE(R&D)

Act, 2016 this Authority is of the opinion that the Complainant, having invested a substantial sum

8

---

While the conduct of the Respondent in the present matter reveals significant lapses in

compliance with statutory obligations and has caused undue hardship to the Complainant, the
Authority, taking a broader view in the interest of the allottees, notes that the Respondent has
submitted before this Authority an undertaking to complete the development of the project on or
before 15.08.2025. Considering this assurance, and the fact that this appears to be the first
complaint of such nature received against the Respondent in relation to the said project, the
Authority is of the view that it would be premature at this stage to initiate blacklisting or debarment
proceedings. Accordingly, in the interest of fairness and proportionality, the Authority refrains
from blacklisting the Respondent from undertaking future real estate projects.
34.

However, the present order shall serve as a cautionary precedent, and in the event any

further complaints or violations are brought to the notice of this Authority concerning the
Respondent’s conduct in the present or other projects, the matter shall be reviewed afresh, and
appropriate action including debarment or blacklisting may be taken in accordance with law. The
Authority shall keep this violation on record, and any recurrence shall be dealt with stringently to
uphold the sanctity of the regulatory framework.
E. Directions of the Authority:
35.

Based on the facts submitted, evidence on record, and the findings given thereon by us as

discussed herein above, this Authority holds that the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed
by him, and the same is allowed in his favour, and the Respondent is hereby directed as follows:
I.

The Respondent is directed to complete the development of the project and hand over
possession of the respective plots to the Complainant, strictly in accordance with the
sanctioned plan, within a period of forty (40) days from the date of this Order.:

II.

For violation of Sections 3 and 4, the Respondent is liable for penalty under Sections 59
and 60 respectively, therefore, the Respondent is directed to pay a total penalty of Rs.
3,37,800/-(Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Seven Thousands Eight Hundred Rupees Only)
9

---

The Respondent hereby is also directed to comply with the directions of the Authority for
registration of the Project “Bagiratha” with application no. REA01000085306 before this
Authority in accordance with Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 and the Rules
thereunder with immediate effect and till the registration is granted by this Authority, the
Respondent shall, strictly, not to advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite
persons to purchase in any manner any units of the project, “Bagiratha”.

IV.

The Respondent is specifically directed to prominently display the current status of the
RERA registration of the project, including the registration number once allotted, at the
project site in a clearly visible location. In addition, after the registration number is allotted,
the Respondent shall ensure that the same details are reflected in all future advertisements,
promotional materials, brochures, digital platforms, and any other form of public
communication related to the said project.

36.

The Respondent shall comply with all the applicable rules and regulation and complete

the project as per the sanctioned plan.
37.

The Respondent is hereby informed that failure to comply with the directions issued herein

shall attract further penal consequences under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
38.

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

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivasa Rao

Sri. Laxminaryana Jannu

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.)

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Chairperson

TG RERA

TG RERA

TG RERA

10

---