Order Complaint No. 34 Of 2024

Blog

TG-RERA Authority

Order Complaint No. 34 Of 2024

24 Jan 2025

TG-RERA Authority

1 Pages

Order Details

Order Type	TG-RERA Authority
Complaint/Case Number	Complaint No. 34 Of 2024
Order Category	Regular Order
Order Date	24 Jan 2025
Complainant	Sri D. Vinod & Sri M. Sathish
Respondent	Sri Chekka V. Subramanyam
PDF Document	Download PDF BU_260326084409914.pdf

Full Order Text

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
24th Day of January 2025
Corum:

Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

COMPLAINT NO.32 OF 2024
Sri D. Vinod & Sri M. Sathish

…Complainants
Versus

1. M/s Green Metro Infratech Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Boddu Ashok Kumar
2. M/s Bhuvanteza Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka V. Subramanyam
…Respondents
COMPLAINT NO.33 OF 2024
Sri A. Prakash

…Complainant
Versus

1. M/s Green Metro Infratech Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Boddu Ashok Kumar
2. M/s Bhuvanteza Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
1 of 17

Represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka V. Subramanyam
…Respondents
COMPLAINT NO.35 OF 2024
Sri E. Sai Ram & Sri N. Sridhar

…Complainants
Versus

…Complainant
Versus

2 of 17

COMPLAINT NO.38 OF 2024
Sri S. Venkatesh

…Complainant
Versus

1. M/s Green Metro Infratech Projects Pvt. Ltd.,

3 of 17

Represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Boddu Ashok Kumar
2. M/s Bhuvanteza Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented through its Authorised Representative,
Sri Chekka V. Subramanyam
…Respondents
COMPLAINT NO.142 OF 2024
Ms. V. Aruna

…Complainant
Versus

COMPLAINT NO.208 OF 2024
Sri V. Venu

…Complainant
Versus

The present matters filed by the respective Complainant mentioned herein
above came up for final hearing on 07.11.2024 before this Authority in the
presence of Complainants in person, and Counsel for Respondent No.1, Sri
V.M.N.S. Prasad, Sri U. Narendra and Sri Govind Narayana Swami, none for
Respondent No.2 despite service of notice who was set ex-parte vide Order dated
21.10.2024, and upon hearing the arguments, this Authority passes the following
COMMON ORDER:

The present Complaints have been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and 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 action against
the Respondents.

Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainants submitted that they paid their respective sale

consideration of by way of cheque and cash to Respondent No.2, M/s Bhuvanteza

5 of 17

Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., through its Authorised Representative, Sri Chekka V.
Subramanyam and in some cases also to Respondent No.1, M/s Green Metro Pvt.
Ltd., through Sri B. Ashok, towards purchase of their respective Flat in Tulasi
Bhagyanagar Project, Dundigal registered with this Authority vide Regn. No.
P02200002031 dated 24.08.2020 having validity up to 08.11.2025. The
Complainants

further

submitted

that

the

Respondents,

also

executed

Agreements of Sale in favour of the Complainants in this regard. Further, said
Respondent promised to register the said Flat in favour of the Complainant within
a period of 10 days, however, almost 4 years have elapsed since the date of the
respective Agreement, but there has been no response from the Respondents.
Following is the details of the Complainants:

S.No. Complainant Name
1.

Flat No.

Sri D. Vinod & Sri M. C-309
Sathish
Sri A. Prakash
C-G10

Smt. E. Chandramani

Sri E. Sai Ram & Sri N. A-207
Sridhar
Ms. Y. Anusha
B-411

5.
6.

C-205

Sri G. Kiran Kumar C-407
Goud
Sri S. Venkatesh
C-209

Ms. A Gayatri

B-413

Ms. C. Sirisha

E-209

10.

Ms. Sneha Singh

C-407

11.

Ms. V. Aruna

A-G02

12.

Sri P. Praveen Goud

B-502

Amount
(Rs.)

paid Date
of
Agreement of
Sale
(full 08.10.2020

24,85,000
payment)
15,00,000 (partial
payment)
15,00,000 (partial
payment)
31,00,000
(full
payment)
26,00,000
(full
payment)
24,50,000
(full
payment)
26,00,000
(full
payment)
26,07,250
(full
payment)
27,00,000
(full
payment)
13,00,000 (partial
payment)
26,50,000
(full
payment)
25,75,000
(full
payment)

06.12.2020
23.12.2020
12.04.2021
17.12.2020
23.11.2020
16.11.2020
16.12.2020
02.12.2020
14.02.2021
23.10.2020
19.09.2020

6 of 17

13.

Sri Ajit Kumar J.

A-310

14.

Sri V. Venu

B-G3

27,00,000
payment)
30,00,000
payment)

(full 19.10.2020
(full 26.12.2020

Meanwhile, notices have been issued to the Respondents and the notices

have been returned for Respondent No.2, whereas, Respondent No.1 entered
appearance through its counsel. Respondent No.1 also filed a reply, primarily
submitting that there is no privity of contract between the Complainants and the
Respondent No.1 as the Agreements of Sale was executed by Respondent No.2. It
was categorically submitted that even though the Respondent No.1 received
amounts from, Complainant, the same was refunded in May 2024, subsequent
to the filing of the present complaints. He added that no sale consideration was
ever received by Respondent No.1, however, as per the document/agreements of
sale, the entire sale consideration was received by Respondent No.2, who is
responsible for the transaction. It was also specifically submitted that the
Respondent No.1 never entered into any agreement with Respondent No.2 for
sale/marketing/advertising of the Respondent No.1’s flats in the Tulasi
Bhagyanagar Project, Dundigal. That therefore, it was prayed that present
complaint be dismissed against the said Respondent No.1.

Interim Directions:
5.

This Authority perused the material on record and issued interim

directions directing Respondent No.1 not to alienate/sell/transfer or create any
third-party rights on respective flats of the Complainants above-named in Tulasi
Bhagyanagar Project, Dundigal until the complaints are finally disposed of by
this Authority.

7 of 17

Points for consideration:
6.

Basing on the facts and circumstances, present issues sprout for

consideration:
I.

Whether the act of unilateral cancellation of the allotment on part of
Respondent No.1 is in violation of Section 11(5) of the Act, 2016?

II.

Whether Respondent No.2 is in the capacity of an agent to
Respondent No.1 and has violation Sections 9 & 10 of the Act, 2016?

III.

Whether the Complainants are entitled to any relief? If so, to what
extent?

Observations of the Authority:
Point I
7.

Notices have been issued to the Respondents, however, same were

returned for Respondent No.2 and therefore, the Complainants were directed to
serve on the Respondent No.2 and submit proof of service. Accordingly, notices
were served on Respondent No.2, yet none appeared on their behalf, and therefore
they were set ex-parte on 21.10.2024. During the hearing, the Complainants
reiterated the contents of their complaint whereas, the Respondent No.1 prayed
to dismiss the complaint against Respondent No.1 as there exists no privity of
contract between the Complainant and the Respondent No.1.

As observed earlier, amounts were sent by the Complainants to the

Respondent No.1 through Respondent No.2 and in some cases also directly to
Respondent No.1. It is observed that amounts were sent by the Complainants to
the Respondent No.1 in the year 2020. If at all Respondent No.1 assumed that

8 of 17

the said amounts were receiving by error on part of the Complainants, he ought
to have reversed the transaction within a period of one month or such reasonable
period from the date of transaction. However, Respondent No.1 reversed the said
amounts on in May 2024, after an inordinate delay of nearly 4 (four) years, which
clearly indicates Respondent No.1's intent. The fact that Respondent No.1
reversed the amounts only subsequent to the filing of the present complaint
before this Authority in March 2024 casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the
Respondent's actions and suggests a clear violation of the provisions of the Act,
2016 more specifically Section 11(5), unilateral cancellation of the agreement of
sale. It prima facie appears that Respondent No.1 is endeavouring to evade its
statutory obligations, thereby causing undue prejudice to the Complainants, as
though the Respondent has no privity or involvement with them. However, it is
evident that amounts were received and subsequently refunded, accompanied by
the issuance of cancellation letters to the Complainants for reasons best known
to Respondent No.1.

Now, the Complainants cannot be left in lurch because of the inter-se

disputes between the Respondents or such other discrepancies that put the
rights of the allottees at jeopardy. Further, unilateral cancellation on behalf of
the Respondent No.1 is completely uncalled for and unwarranted. Section 11(5)
clearly stipulates that “The promoter may cancel the allotment only in terms of the
agreement for sale: Provided that the allottee may approach the Authority for relief,
if he is aggrieved by such cancellation and such cancellation is not in accordance
with the terms of the agreement for sale, unilateral and without any sufficient
cause.”

9 of 17

10.

In the Agreement of Sale dated 08.12.2020, the only term of cancellation

provided is non-payment of sale consideration by the Complainant, however, the
Complainant, vide receipts provided and cheque nos. issued, has clearly paid the
remaining sale consideration thereby complying with the said condition. Further,
even if assuming he did not pay within the time frame, cancelling on behalf of the
Respondent No.1 subsequent to filing of the present complaint before this
Authority after a belated period of four years raises grave suspicion as to its
intentions on non-compliance of the provisions of the Act, 2016.

11.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CITI Bank N.A. v. Standard Chartered Bank,

(2004) 1 SCC 12 categorically held as under:
“47. Novatio, rescission or alteration of a contract under Section 62 of
the Indian Contract Act can only be done with the agreement of
both the parties of a contract. Both the parties have to agree to
substitute the original contract with a new contract or rescind or alter.
It cannot be done unilaterally.”

12.

Annexure to Rule 38 of the Rules, 2017 provides for the Agreement of Sale

to be executed with the allottees, under which Clause 9.3 provides as follows:
“9.3 The Allottee shall be considered under a condition of Default, on the
occurrence of the following events: (i) In case the Allottee fails to make
payments for ____ consecutive demands made by the Promoter as per the
Payment Plan annexed hereto, despite having been issued notice in that
regard the allottee shall be liable to pay interest to the promoter on the
unpaid amount at the rate prescribed in the Rules; (ii) In case of Default by
Allottee under the condition listed above continues for a period beyond ____

10 of 17

consecutive months after notice from the Promoter in this regard, the
Promoter may cancel the allotment of the [Apartment/Plot] in favour of the
Allottee and refund the money paid to him by the allottee by deducting the
booking amount and the interest liabilities and this Agreement shall
thereupon stand terminated. Provided that the promoter shall intimate the
allottee about such termination at least thirty days prior to such termination.
The amount shall be repaid by the Promoter within a period of ninety days
after termination or the date on which the Promoter is able to resell the
Apartment/Plot to another purchaser, whichever is later.”

13.

Further, Clause 7.5 provides that “the Allottee shall have the right to

cancel/withdraw his allotment in the Project only as provided in the Act: 71
Provided that where the allottee proposes to cancel/withdraw from the project
without any fault of the promoter, the promoter herein is entitled to forfeit the
booking amount paid for the allotment. The balance amount of money paid by the
allottee shall be returned by the promoter to the allottee within three months of
such cancellation or at the time that the Promoter is able to resell the said
Apartment/Plot to another purchaser, whichever is later.”

14.

A bare perusal of the two makes it abundantly clear that cancellation can

only be done at the behest of the allottee or by the promoter in the sole event of
the allottee failing to adhere to the terms of the payment schedule or such other
terms of the Agreement of Sale entered therein. When both such events are not
met with in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not warranted
that the Respondent No.1 cancels the allotment made in favour of the
Complainant only to waive off its liability.

11 of 17

15.

Therefore, Point I is answered in affirmative, and it is held that Respondent

No.1 is in violation of Section 11(5) and is liable for penalty under Section 61 of
the Act, 2016.

Point II
16.

The definition of a real estate agent means any person, who negotiates or

acts on behalf of one person in a transaction of transfer of his plot, apartment or
building, as the case may be, in a real estate project, by way of sale, with another
person or transfer of plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, of any other
person to him and receives remuneration or fees or any other charges for his
services whether as commission or otherwise and includes a person who
introduces, through any medium, prospective buyers and sellers to each other for
negotiation for sale or purchase of plot, apartment or building, as the case may be,
and includes property dealers, brokers, middlemen by whatever name called, as
per Section 2(zm) of the Act, 2016.

17.

The Respondent No.2, by executing agreements of sale in favour of the

Complainants on behalf of the Respondent No.1 is acting as the real estate agent
of the Respondent No.1 promoter in accordance with the provision quoted above.
Even though the Respondent No.1 denies any agreement being executed between
the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 for sale of the units in the Project, the
evidence provers to the contrary. No explanation whatsoever has been submitted,
whether orally or in writing, as to why so many units of the Project belonging to
Respondent No.1 were offered for sale by the Respondent No.2.

12 of 17

18.

Upon verification, this Authority has learnt that the Respondent No.2 is

neither registered as an agent in the records of this Authority in accordance with
Section 9 (1) & (2) which provides as under:
“9. (1) No real estate agent shall facilitate the sale or purchase of or act on
behalf of any person to facilitate the sale or purchase of any plot, apartment
or building, as the case may be, in a real estate project or part of it, being
the part of the real estate project registered under section 3, being sold by
the promoter in any planning area, without obtaining registration under this
section.
(2) Every real estate agent shall make an application to the Authority for
registration in such form, manner, within such time and accompanied by
such fee and documents as may be prescribed.”

19.

Further, even assuming, for a moment, that Respondent No.2 is not an

agent, all his actions of having offered for sale the units of the Project belonging
to Respondent No.1 to the Complainants herein makes it abundantly clear that
he is a person who introduced prospective buyers for negotiation for sale or
purchase of flats which squarely falls under the definition of a real estate agent
under Section 2(zm) of the Act, 2016.

20.

Further, upon careful perusal of the sale agreements executed by the

Respondent No.2 in favour of the Complainants, it can be seen that the
Respondent No.1 portrayed as though he is the owner of the land on which the
Project is being developed and also that he is the developer of the Project. He
mislead the Complainants to believe that he is the landowner and promoter of
the Project, whereas in contrary to this, as per records of the Authority, in the

13 of 17

registration details of the Project, the Respondent No.1 executed Development
Agreement

dated

27.09.2018

with

the

landowners

namely,

Sri

M.V.

Satyanarayana and Sri M.V. Balaraj. This very act of the Respondent No.2 gravely
violates Section 10(c)(i)(B) which provides as under:
10. Every real estate agent registered under section 9 shall—
(c) not involve himself in any unfair trade practices, namely:—
(i) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in
writing or by visible representation which—
(B) represents that the promoter or himself has approval
or affiliation which such promoter or himself does not
have;

21.

The Respondent No.2’s conduct, amounting to an unfair trade practice, in

falsely representing himself as the true owner and promoter of the Project, is both
misleading and deceptive, thereby violating the rights and legitimate expectations
of the Complainants. Such misrepresentation is a grave and unwarranted act
that jeopardizes the interests of the allottees by exposing them to potential legal
uncertainties, risks of fraudulent claims, and lack of recourse in the event of
disputes. This conduct not only causes substantial financial harm to the
Complainants but also undermines the transparency and integrity mandated
under the Act, 2016, the primary aim of which is safeguarding the rights of the
allottees. It creates an environment of mistrust, potentially discouraging
prospective investors and purchasers, while leaving existing allottees vulnerable
to exploitation and loss of their rightful claims over the Project.

14 of 17

22.

Therefore, this Authority holds Point II as affirmative, Respondent No.2 is

in violation of Section 9 & 10 and is liable for penalty thereof.

Point III
23.

Now coming to the reliefs as claimed by the Complainant, as the

allottee/Complainant has the unequivocal right to claim the possession of the
apartment and also participate towards registration of the conveyance deed of
the flat in accordance with Section 19(3) and 19(11) respectively, this Authority
is of the considered opinion that the Respondents are jointly and severally liable
to register the respective Flat belonging to the Complainant(s) at Tulasi
Bhagyanagar Project, Dundigal in favor of the Complainants, as mentioned in the
table above, in accordance with Section 17 of the Act, 2016 which provides as
under:
“17. (1) The promoter shall execute a registered conveyance deed in favour
of the allottee along with the undivided proportionate title in the common
areas to the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the
case may be, and hand over the physical possession of the plot, apartment
of building, as the case may be, to the allottees and the common areas to
the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may
be, in a real estate project, and the other title documents pertaining thereto
within specified period as per sanctioned plans as provided under the local
laws:
Provided that, in the absence of any local law, conveyance deed in favour of
the allottee or the association of the allottees or the competent authority, as
the case may be, under this section shall be carried out by the promoter
within three months from date of issue of occupancy certificate.

15 of 17

(2) After obtaining the occupancy certificate and handing over physical
possession to the allottees in terms of sub-section (1), it shall be the
responsibility of the promoter to hand over the necessary documents and
plans, including common areas, to the association of the allottees or the
competent authority, as the case may be, as per the local laws:
Provided that, in the absence of any local law, the promoter shall handover
the necessary documents and plans, including common areas, the
association of the allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be,
within thirty days after obtaining the occupancy certificate.”

24.

Therefore, Point III is answered as above and the Respondent Nos.1 & 2

both are jointly and severally liable for registration of the respective flats of the
Complainants named above in their favor in accordance with Section 17 of the
Act, 2016.

Directions of the Authority:
25.

Vide its powers under Section 37 of the Act, 2016, the Authority issues the

following directions:
a. Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to pay penalty of Rs.8,57,697/(Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Seven
Only) for violation of Section 11(5) read with Section 61 of the Act, 2016,
i.e., unilateral cancellation of the agreements of sale executed in favor of
the Complainants payable within 30 (thirty) days payable within 30 days
in favour of TGRERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online payment to
A/c No. 50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036; and

16 of 17

b. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to pay penalty of Rs.8,57,697/(Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty-Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety-Seven
Only) for violation of Sections 9(1) & 9(2) and 10(c)(i)(B) read with Section
62 of the Act, 2016, payable within 30 (thirty) days payable within 30 days
in favor of TG RERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online payment to
A/c No. 50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036; and
c. Complainants who have not remitted the total sale consideration or have
defaulted in adhering to the payment schedule stipulated in their
respective agreements of sale are hereby directed to pay the outstanding
sale consideration, inclusive of interest, if applicable, to Respondent No.1
Promoter within a period of 30 (thirty) days; and
d. Subsequent thereto, both Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 and
hereby directed, who are jointly and severally liable, to register the
respective Flat of the Complainants herein as enumerated in the table in
favor of the respective Complainant thereof and handover possession of
the same thereof within 60 (sixty) days, after receiving total sale
consideration, in accordance with Section 17 of the Act, 2016.
e. The Respondents are hereby informed that non-compliance of the
directions of the Authority shall attract penalty under Section 63 and 65
of the Act, 2016.

26.

In lieu thereof, the present complaint stands disposed of.

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

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

17 of 17

Related Orders

Interim Order Complaint No.228 of 2025

Rangareddy, Telangana, 500077)

15 Apr 2026

Order Complaint No. 386 of 2025

Koti, Hyderabad-500027.

09 Apr 2026

Order Complaint No. 153 of 2024

Telangana – 500011.

08 Apr 2026

Order Complaint No. 152 of 2024

Telangana – 500011.

08 Apr 2026

Order Complaint No. 151 of 2024

Telangana – 500011.

08 Apr 2026

Need Complete Property Verification?

Get ownership details, EC records, survey sketch, zone checks, geo-insights & AI analysis - all in one place

Ownership Details

EC Records

Survey Sketch

Zone Checks

Geo-Insights

AI Analysis

Try VerifyMyLand Now ✨ Get comprehensive property verification in minutes

Phone Number *

Enter OTP *

Keep me logged in

By continuing, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

Verify Your Property Before You Buy

AI-powered legal due diligence — title verification, encumbrance checks, zoning compliance, and risk assessment in minutes. Catch issues before they cost you crores.

Try Land Lens Verify My Land

Use our free tools to check soil, zoning & FSI before you buy.

Buy, sell or develop your property? Explore our services.

Refer buyers or owners and earn up to ₹5,00,000 per deal.

Order Complaint No. 34 Of 2024

Order Details

Full Order Text

Related Orders

Interim Order Complaint No.228 of 2025

Order Complaint No. 386 of 2025

Order Complaint No. 153 of 2024

Order Complaint No. 152 of 2024

Order Complaint No. 151 of 2024

Need Complete Property Verification?

Related Telangana Property Tools

Market Value Search

Prohibited Property Check

All Tools

Verify Your Property Before You Buy