Order Complaint No. 37 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 37 of 2025
01st December 2025
Quorum:

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

Mrs. Maheshwaram Padma
(W/o Maheshwaram Venkatesh
H. No. 6-69-6/103, KMG Sai Towers, Manikya Nagar,
Chintal, HMT Township, Tirumalagiri, Hyderbad-502032)

… Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Bhuvanateza Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.
(Rep by MD. Mr. Chekka Venkata Subrahmanyam
H. No. 201, 2nd Floor, Lumbini Amrutha Chambers,
Nagarjuna Circle, Road No. 3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500082)

2. M/s. Green Metro Infratech & Projects Pvt. Ltd.
(H. No. 8-2-293/82/A/787,
3rd floor, Apurupa Turbo, Road No. 63,
Near Croma, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033)

3. M/s. Tulasi Constructions
C/o Green Metro Infratech & Projects Pvt. Ltd.
H.No.8-2-293/82/A/787, Plot No.787,
3rd Floor, Apurupa Turbo, Road No.36,
Near Croma, SBI Colony, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana-500033

… Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
09.09.2025 before this Authority. The Complainant was present in person, and Sri G.N.
Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1, and Sri Bramaiah, learned Counsel for
Respondent No.2, were present. Respondent No.3 was present in person and upon hearing the
submissions advanced by both sides and having reserved the matter for orders, this Authority
now proceeds to pass the present 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 “RE (R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017

1

---

The Complainant brings the facts of the case before the authority, as she had purchased

a flat No. 202, 2nd Floor, 5th Block in the project "TULASI LAKE FRONT" which was
developed by Respondent No.2, situated at Suraram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District, Telangana, through the developer Respondent No.1 Rep. by its Managing
Director, Mr. Chekka Venkata Subrahmanyam, for a total Consideration of Rs. 27,95,000/(Rupees Twenty-Seven lakhs Ninety-Five thousand only), and the entire consideration was
paid to the Respondent No.1 through various dates.
4.

In the said transaction paid by Respondent No.1, despite collecting the total consideration

from the Complainant, they have not registered the flat and kept on postponing the registration.
5.

Furthermore, Respondent No.1 misrepresented to the complainant by claiming they

are the project promoters and supplied incorrect documents. In reality, the project is developed
by M/s. Green Metro Infratech & Projects Pvt Ltd, and M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra projects Pvt Ltd
is a bulk vendor or investor in the project. Even after more than three years, we have not been
allotted the said flat from either Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2 they continue to
postpone and provide inadequate responses.
B. Relief Sought
6.

In view of the facts mentioned above, the complainant sought the following reliefs:
a. To direct the Respondents to register the said flat in favour of the complainant.

C. Counter filed by the Respondent No.1
7.

The Respondent No.1 states that the averments in Paras 1 and 2 of the complaint relate

merely to the particulars of the parties and require no traverse. The Respondent No.1 further
states that the complaint is not maintainable as the alleged grievance does not fall within the
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Authority. Respondent No.1 is only an independent marketing agent
who procured plots from various companies under Agreements of Sale and thereafter sold them
to customers. There is no written or oral contract or Memorandum of Understanding between
Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2, and therefore no cause of action arises under the Real
Estate (R&D) Act, 2016.

2

---

The Respondent No.1 submitted that he is not a registered real estate agent within the

meaning of the Real Estate (R&D) Act, 2016, and consequently the provisions of the Act are
inapplicable to him. The Respondent No.1 further states that the Agreement of Sale entered
into with the complainant was executed only with the intention of facilitating a potential
transaction between the complainant and Respondent No.2. The consideration amount of Rs.
27,95,000/- was received in that context, under the bona fide belief that Respondent No.2
would grant permission for the proposed negotiation, which Respondent No.2 ultimately
refused.
9.

The Respondent No.1 submits that the failure of Respondent No.2 to grant permission

resulted in Respondent No.1 expressing willingness to settle the matter with the complainant.
However, Respondent No.1 has been implicated in FIR No. 47/2024 of CCS, Hyderabad, along
with other related matters, and all his documents, assets and bank accounts have been seized
or frozen. The Respondent No.1 states that his inability to settle the amounts arises solely from
such seizure and freezing, and upon de-freezing and release of assets, Respondent No.1 shall
be in a position to settle the accounts. Notwithstanding these constraints, efforts are being made
to resolve the matter amicably.
10.

The reliefs sought by the complainant are beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Authority, particularly in the absence of any privity of contract between Respondent
No.1 and Respondent No.2. The subject matter squarely falls within the domain of criminal
law, for which FIR No. 47/2024 has already been registered and investigation is under progress.
The Respondent No.1, therefore, prays that further proceedings be dropped, the complaint be
dismissed as baseless, and such other order(s) be passed as this Hon’ble Authority deems fit in
the interest of justice.
D. Counter filed by the Respondent No.2:
11.

The Respondent No.2 firstly contests the jurisdiction of the Authority to entertain the

complaint, arguing that the project is still ongoing and has a completion deadline set by RERA
for 2028. Therefore, any claims about non-handing over flats or violations of agreements are
considered premature and can only be addressed after the project is complete, not during its
ongoing phase.
12.

The Respondent No.2 strongly denies the adverse claims made by the complainant,

emphasizing that the alleged sale consideration was paid to Respondent No.1 and not to
Respondent No.2. The sale agreement for the disputed flat was entered into with Respondent
3

---

Furthermore, Respondent No.2 argues that the alleged transactions were conducted by

individuals using their company's name but lacked proper authority or agency. The reply
emphasizes that agreements and receipts were issued by third parties, not by Respondent No.2,
and any evidence derived from these should not be binding on Green Metro. The respondent
states that they have suffered reputational harm due to these actions and intend to seek civil
and criminal remedies against those responsible for the false complaint.
14.

The Respondent No.2 stated that the allegations of threats made towards the

complainant, labeling them as fabricated and motivated for complaint purposes. Regarding the
reliefs sought by the complainant, such as direction to register the allotted flat, payment of
interest, or issuance of occupancy certificates, the respondent argues these are outside RERA’s
purview because no contractual relationship or receipt of funds exists. Moreover, the issuance
of occupancy certificates is also premature due to the ongoing status of the project.
15.

In conclusion, Respondent No.2 requests that the complaint be dismissed, emphasizing

that there is no business or legal relationship between the Respondents and the complainant,
nor between Tulasi Constructions and Respondent No. 2; therefore, there are no grounds for
the case against them.
E. Counter Filed by the Respondent No.3:
16.

The Respondent No.3 asserts that generic statements made in the complaint require no

reply. The foundation of their defense is that the complainant did not enter into any agreement
directly with Respondent No.3; instead, the complainant’s agreement was with Respondent
No.1, Bhuvanteza Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., who allegedly did not have authority from
Respondent No.3 to make such agreements with the public regarding the property in question.
17.

The Respondent No.3 stressed on the point that the Respondent No.1 is not registered

as an Agent under the Act, making the provisions of the Act inapplicable to Respondent No.1.
There is no contractual link or authorization between Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1,
and Respondent No.3 did not empower Respondent No.1 to enter into agreements, nor act on
4

---

The Respondent No.3 submitted that the complaint is entirely lacking in any merit, as

there is no contractual relationship between the complainant and Respondent No.3, nor any
evidence of agency, authority, or involvement. Consequently, Respondent No.3 prays for the
complaint to be dismissed, arguing that no relief or direction can be issued against it based on
the claims made, which only pertain to the actions of Respondent No.1. The counter ends with
a request for all further proceedings to be dropped in the interest of justice.
E. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant
19.

The Complainant submits that she filed this complaint against the respondents for

claiming the relief of registering Flat No. 202, 2nd Floor, 5th Block in the project called "Tulasi
Lake Front" which was developed by M/s. Tulasi Constructions, C/o. Green Metro Infratech
Projects Pvt. Ltd, situated at Suraram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal Malkajgiri
District, Telangana State through their developer M/s. Bhuvanteza Infra projects Pvt. Ltd,
represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Chekka Venkata Subrahmanyam. The Complainant
has paid the entire total sale consideration of Rs. 27,95,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs
Ninety-Five Thousand Only), and the payments made were as follows:
i.

Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Only) paid by way of online Google Pay
transfer dated 17.12.2020 vide Receipt No. 29;

ii.

Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy-Five Thousand Only) paid by way of cash
dated 24.12.2020 vide Receipt No. 3790;

iii.

Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) paid by way of cash dated 02.02.2021 vide
Receipt No. 3163;

iv.

Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) paid by way of cash dated 06.02.2021 vide
Receipt No. 3166;

v.

Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) paid by way of cash dated 15.03.2021 vide
Receipt No. 4971;

vi.

Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) paid by way of cash dated 03.04.2021 vide
Receipt No. 1528;

vii.

Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) paid by way of card swipe dated 03.04.2021
vide Receipt No. 4180;

5

---

Rs. 7,95,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Only) paid by way of
cash and card swipe dated 25.06.2021 vide Receipt No. 4192.

Total: Rs. 27,95,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Lakhs Ninety-Five Thousand Only).
20.

The Complainant has paid the full total sale consideration of Rs. 27,95,000/- and

entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 28th June 2021, submitted with the original complaint
for purchase of the flat, apart from paying the registration amount of Rs. 3,59,400/- (which
includes GST and document charges) on 03.09.2022.
21.

The Complainant stated that the respondents hatched a plan and in collusion with each

other have been harassing her. When she asked them to register the said flat property in her
favour, the respondents started threatening and abusing her. They did not allow her to visit their
office and the office staff avoided meeting her. They refused to let her meet the respondent
managing director and other authorized persons.
22.

The Respondents are under the guise of an agreement of sale, received the entire amount

from her and on the other hand avoided registering the flat property in her favour. The
respondents in collusion intelligently hatched a plan and have been trying to harass her both
physically and mentally. They squeezed nearly Rs. 28 lakhs from her, cheated her, and caused
her wrongful loss of Rs. 28 lakhs.
23.

The Complainant was induced by the representatives of the firms and marketing

company, the respondents, to invest in their real estate project. Based on their promises and
marketing, she paid a total amount on various dates for the purchase of the flat. Despite having
paid the full amount and fulfilled all requirements, the firms and marketing company, the
respondents, have failed to register the property in her name till date. Repeated requests and
visits to their office have yielded no results. It is now evident that the intention of the
respondents was fraudulent from the beginning. The Complainant has reasons to believe that
they have cheated multiple other buyers in a similar fashion.
24.

The Respondents filed their counter with all false and baseless allegations. On one hand,

they received the amounts and cheated her under the guise of an agreement of sale. In their
counter, the respondents state that it is denied that Respondent No. 1 is an independent
marketing agent who procures plots from companies through agreements of sale and thereafter
sells them to customers. They claim there is no written or oral contract or MOU between
Respondent No. 1 and No. 2. They further claim that Respondent No. 1 is not a registered agent
as per the Real Estate Act 2016.
6

---

However, the same Respondent No. 1 negotiated with her for the sale of the flat and

received the entire sale consideration. They then state that no permission was given to
Respondent No. 1 by Respondent No. 2 and that Respondent No. 1 himself gave information
that a criminal case was pending against Respondent No. 1 vide FIR No. 47/2024 of PS CCS
Hyderabad, that all documents and assets were seized, and bank accounts were frozen, making
Respondent No. 1 unable to settle amounts to her. All these are false and vague allegations
made by Respondent No. 1, as both respondents have cheated several innocent intending
purchasers and defrauded them of amounts.
26.

The Complainant is filing this rejoinder to answer the allegations made by the

respondents. She is also filing several photographs and other documents to prove that there was
a relationship between Respondent No. 1 and 2 companies in the main complaint as well as in
the counter in the present petition.
27.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondents in their counter made several baseless

allegations against her and are trying to abscond from registering the property in her favour.
She had no other option but to attach photographs to expose the respondents. Despite this, the
respondents are trying to erase the evidence.
28.

Further, the allegations made by the Respondents are to gain sympathy by playing the

victim card, which they always do. The Respondents have a habit of downgrading others. The
entire contents of the counter filed by the Respondents are false. The Complainant is entitled
to the relief of her property as she has paid the entire sale consideration and entered into an
Agreement of Sale dated 28.06.2021 pertaining to the flat property as claimed in the original
complaint.
F.

I.A. No. 65 of 2025

29.

The Complainant, Smt. Maheswaram Padma, filed the present I.A application seeking

permission to amend the cause title of the main complaint by adding M/s. Tulasi Constructions
as Respondent No.3, being the developer/promoter of the project “Tulasi Lake Front,” situated
at Suraram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana. The
Complainant submitted that the said promoter company was inadvertently omitted while
drafting the original complaint. Upon perusal of the record and after hearing the Complainant,
this Authority finds that the proposed amendment is necessary for proper adjudication of the
matter and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Accordingly, I.A. No. 65 of 2025 is hereby
7

---

Based on the above facts and circumstances, the following questions arise before this

Authority for determination:
I.

Whether the Complaint is maintainable under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016?

II.

Whether Respondent No.1 is liable for the actions of Respondent No.2?

III.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as sought in the Complaint?

H. Observations of the Authority:
31.

Upon careful perusal of the documents placed on record and after considering the

submissions of both parties, the Complainant paid the total sale consideration of
Rs. 27,95,000/- and, accordingly, entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 28.06.2021 for the
purchase of Flat No. 202 situated on the 2nd Floor of Block No. 5 in the project titled “Tulasi
Lake Front.” At the time of execution of the said Agreement, Respondent No. 1, acting in the
capacity of the vendor, offered to sell a residential unit admeasuring 1075 sq. ft., together with
the amenities, car-parking along with the proportionate undivided share of land, and the
Complainant, as vendee, accepted the said offer and agreed to purchase the above said property.
32.

Both Respondents have raised objections regarding maintainability of the present

complaint. Respondent No.2 asserts that (i) there is no privity of contract between him and the
Complainant, and (ii) the registration of the project is valid up to 2028, and therefore the
complaint being filed prior to the expected date of possession is premature. Respondent No.1
contends that as he is not a registered real estate agent under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, the
complaint against him is not maintainable.
33.

Turning first to the objection raised by Respondent No.2, the contention is that the

Complainant has no locus standi since no contract exists between them. However, the project
“Tulasi Lake Front” is a registered real estate project before this Authority, wherein Respondent
No.2 is the Promoter. Once a project is registered and is being advertised, marketed, or offered
for sale to the general public, it cannot be assumed that the Promoter is uninformed or
disconnected from activities undertaken for the purpose of attracting allottees.

8

---

This Authority has previously dealt with comparable circumstances. In Complaint No.

32 of 2024 & batch, concerning the project “Tulasi Bhagyanagar”, Respondent No.1 was found
to have acted as a marketing agent on behalf of Respondent No.2, executing agreements,
collecting consideration, and facilitating sales. The Authority held both Respondents jointly
and severally liable notwithstanding absence of a formal written agreement defining their interse relationship.
35.

Although the present facts pertain to a different project, this Authority notes a pattern

of conduct wherein Respondent No.1 facilitates sales for projects promoted by Respondent
No.2. Whether such facilitation is established in the present matter will be examined in
subsequent paragraphs; however, given that:
(a) the project belongs to Respondent No.2,
(b) it is registered before this Authority, and
(c) the Complainant alleges allotment and payment under said project,
this Authority cannot accept Respondent No.2’s contention that the Complainant is a
“stranger” to him. The objection is therefore untenable.
36.

Coming to the objection of Respondent No.1, his submission is that the complaint is

not maintainable because he is not registered as a “real estate agent”. This Authority is
constrained to observe the surprising nonchalance in such a submission, for it entirely
misconceives the scheme of the RE(R&D) Act.
37.

Section 2(zm) of the RE(R&D) Act defines a “real estate agent” expansively, covering

any person who negotiates, facilitates, or acts on behalf of another in transactions involving
sale of plots/apartments, and receives remuneration for such services. Section 9(1) mandates
that no person shall facilitate the sale or purchase of any part of a registered project without
being duly registered as a real estate agent.
38.

The obligation is thus cast upon the agent to obtain registration, and failure to do so

does not grant immunity from proceedings; rather, it constitutes a statutory violation. For
reference, Section 2(zm) of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 reads as follows:

9

---

In his own submissions, Respondent No.1 admits that he functions as an independent

marketing agent, procures plots from companies through agreements of sale, and thereafter
sells these plots to customers. Such conduct, prima facie, goes beyond that of a mere facilitator.
For context section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016;
(v) Any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor,
developer, estate developer or by any other name or claims to be acting
as the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which
the building or apartment is constructed or plot is developed for sale; or
(vi) such other person who constructs any building or apartment for sale
to the general public.
Explanation -- For the purposes of this clause, where the person who
constructs or converts a building into apartments or develops a plot for
sale and the persons who sells apartments or plots are different persons,
both of them shall be deemed to be the promoters and shall be jointly
liable as such for the functions and responsibilities specified, under this
Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder;
40.

Thus, a person who sells units in a project while projecting it as his own, advertises the

RERA registration as though it pertains to his project, and markets and sells multiple plots even
if he is not the original developer squarely falls within the statutory definition of a ‘Promoter.’
The admitted conduct of Respondent No.1, who purchases and thereafter sells plots/units to
allottees, is nothing but the performance of promoter functions. His acts are, in substance and
effect, those of a Promoter and not of a marketing agent or real estate agent as proclaimed,
thereby bringing him fully within the regulatory fold of the RE(R&D) Act.

10

---

In view of the foregoing statutory framework and factual admissions, Respondent No.1

cannot claim that the complaint is not maintainable merely because he is not a registered real
estate agent. His actions bring him squarely within the ambit of RE(R&D) Act. Accordingly,
both objections raised by the Respondents on maintainability are rejected, and the complaint is
held to be maintainable against both Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1.
Point II
42.

Respondent No.2 and 3 contends that it neither executed any Agreement of Sale with

the Complainant nor received any portion of the sale consideration, and that no authority oral
or written was ever conferred upon Respondent No.1 to market, book, allot, or register flats in
the “Tulasi Lake Front” project. It is therefore argued that all documents issued by Respondent
No.1 are unilateral, unauthorized, and not binding on Respondent No.2. Respondent No.1, on
the other hand, admits having executed the Agreement of Sale and having issued receipts in his
own name, while also conceding that he had no authorization from Respondent No.2 and acted
solely as an independent marketing agent.
43.

Upon examination of the record, this Authority notes that the Complainant has not

substantiated any material to demonstrate that the transactions with Respondent No.1 were
undertaken on behalf of Respondents No.2 and 3. There is no linkage of payments, no trail of
funds received by Respondents No.2 and 3, no communication of allotment, and no
documentary indication that Respondent No.1 acted under instructions or authority of
Respondent No.2 in case in hand. Every document relied upon by the Complainant whether
receipts, the Agreement of Sale, or assurances emanates exclusively from Respondent No.1.
44.

In the absence of any documentary nexus, it cannot be construed that Respondents No.2

and 3 had privity with the Complainant or that Respondent No.1 acted as his representative in
this transaction. Respondent No.1 himself admits that he used to “purchase plots and thereafter
sell them,” thereby shifting between the roles of an agent and a promoter, rendering his
submissions regarding his actual capacity vague and inconsistent. However, such ambiguity in
Respondent No.1’s self-portrayal does not create liability upon Respondent No.2 unless
supported by evidence which is wholly absent in the given complaint.
45.

It is observed that Block No. 5 is a duly registered block under the project with TG

RERA (Registration No. P02200004366), however the Agreement of Sale and payment
receipts were issued by Respondent No. 1. In view of the absence of any payment, allotment,
or contractual or representative relationship involving Respondent No. 2, this Authority cannot
11

---

Conversely, Respondent No.1, who acted as a promoter, executed the Agreement of

Sale in his own name, described himself therein as the vendor/owner, allotted the unit, assured
the Complainant of such allotment, and collected the entire sale consideration. Having assumed
the role and responsibilities of a promoter for the purpose of this transaction, Respondent No.2
shall be solely responsible for the consequences arising from failure to hand over possession
of the said unit.
Point II is answered accordingly.
Point III
47.

The Complainant seeks registration of the subject flat in the project “Tulasi Lake

Front.” The record unequivocally establishes that no privity of contract exists between the
Complainant and Respondents No. 2 and 3, who neither executed any Agreement of Sale, or
received any part of the sale consideration, nor authorised Respondent No. 1 to deal with Block
5 of the said project.
48.

As already observed, there is a complete absence of contractual nexus, authorization,

or financial involvement linking Respondent No.2 to the questioned transaction. Accordingly,
Respondents No.2 and 3 cannot be held liable for the relief sought by the Complainant. The
claim for registration of the flat therefore lies solely against Respondent No.1, who executed
the Agreement of Sale, received the entire sale consideration, and acted without lawful
authority or registration under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Notwithstanding Respondent No.1’s
expressed willingness and efforts to settle the dispute with the Complainant, this Authority is
of the view that an order for registration in favour of the Complainant would be inappropriate,
as Respondent No.1 lacks the statutory capacity to effect the requisite transfer. In the
circumstances, the equitable and efficacious remedy is restitution, and Respondent No.1 is
liable to refund the entire sale consideration to the Complainant along with interest, as such
refund restores the parties to their pre-contractual position where registration is impracticable
against an unauthorised entity.

12

---

As per Section 18 further provides that:
“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.”

50.

Attention is drawn to the decision 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 in terms of the agreement for sale. The allottee/home buyer holds
an unqualified right to seek a refund of the amount with interest as
prescribed."
51.

Respondent No.1, in both his oral and written submissions, has attempted to justify his

actions by claiming that he was under the “impression” that Respondents No.2 and 3 would
grant permission to negotiate or conclude transactions. However, he concedes that no such
approval was ever obtained. His submissions are mutually contradictory a) at one stage he
denies being a real estate agent, b) at another he claims to have purchased plots and resold
them, c) and simultaneously he describes himself in the Agreement of Sale as the “vendor,”
“agreement holder,” and “absolute owner.” Such inconsistent and evasive stand only reinforces
the conclusion that Respondent No.1 has indulged in unfair trade practices, misrepresentation,
and unauthorized collection of funds.
52.

This Authority notes that similar violations by Respondent No.1 have been dealt with

earlier. In Complaint No. 264 of 2024, this Authority declared Respondent No.1 a “defaulter.”
The relevant extract reads:
“35… Accordingly, Respondent No.1 is hereby declared to be a “defaulter” both
in its capacity as a “promoter” and as an “agent” within the meaning of Sections
2(zk) and 2(zm) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. As a consequence, the Respondent shall
be prohibited from undertaking, advertising, marketing, booking, selling, or
13

---

Notably, Block No. 5, from which Respondent No.1 purportedly allotted a unit, forms

part of a registered project. Respondent No.1, having no legal right, title, or authority over the
said block, was incompetent to effect any allotment therein, and such conduct constitutes a
grave violation of the RE(R&D) Act. In the present proceedings, Respondent No.1 has
expressed willingness to resolve the dispute. In view of the circumstances, and since grant of
registration is legally untenable, refund is the appropriate relief. Accordingly, Respondent No.1
is directed to forthwith refund the entire amount received from the Complainant, together with
applicable interest, and to comply with the same without any delay.
54.

Accordingly, in exercise of powers under Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, this

Authority holds that Respondent No.1 is liable to refund the entire sale consideration received
from the Complainant, along with interest at the rate of the current highest marginal cost of
lending rate of the State Bank of India (8.75%) plus 2%, aggregating to 10.75% per annum.
Interest shall accrue from the date of execution of the Agreement of Sale, i.e., 28.06.2021, until
the actual date of realization.
55.

Further, Respondent No.1’s actions:
a) allotting a unit without having legal entitlement
b) misrepresenting himself as promoter/owner,
c) collecting amounts without authority, and
d) conducting business in total disregard of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
e) constitute grave violations amounting to unfair trade practices and misrepresentation.

56.

Accordingly, this Authority finds Respondent No.1 in violation of the provisions of the

Act, and hereby directs the Secretary, Telangana RERA, to initiate proceedings for imposition
of penalty under Section 38, read with Section 61 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, with the approval
of the Authority.
57.

Further, this Authority deems it necessary to caution Respondent No. 3. In any

registered real estate project, if any real estate agent, intermediary, or person acting as a de
facto promoter advertises, markets, or represents the project as though it were his own, the
registered promoter cannot remain a passive or silent spectator. Respondent No.2, as the
promoter on record, is not expected to be blindsided or to later contend lack of awareness,
14

---

This Authority, vide the powers vested under Section 37 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016,

passes the following directions:
i.

The objections raised by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 regarding
maintainability are rejected. The Authority holds that the present complaint is
maintainable as against both Respondents, in light of the admitted actions of
Respondent No.1 and the overall regulatory framework governing registered projects.

ii.

Based on the material placed on record, the Authority holds that no privity of contract,
authorization, or financial linkage has been established between the Complainant and
Respondents No.2 and 3. Respondents No.2 and 3, therefore, cannot be fastened with
liability for refund or for any allotment-related relief when no payment has been made
to him, nor any allotment or commitment originated from him. However, the Authority
issues a formal caution to Respondents No.2 and 3 that, as the registered promoter, he
is under a statutory obligation to exercise vigilance and to take prompt corrective
measures in cases of unauthorized advertising or misrepresentation by third parties.
Respondent No.3 shall not adopt a posture of silence or inaction and is expected to
lodge appropriate complaints and issue public notices wherever necessary to safeguard
homebuyers.

iii.

The Respondent No. 1 is further directed to refund the entire amount of ₹27,95,000/(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), along with interest at the rate of 10.75%
per annum (SBI MCLR of 8.75% + 2%), calculated from Agreement of sale dated
28.06.2021 until the date of actual refund. The aforesaid refund, along with accrued
interest, shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order.

iv.

Respondent No.1 is further found to have committed serious violations—
a) allotting a unit without having legal entitlement
b) misrepresenting himself as promoter/owner,
c) collecting money without legal authority, and
15

---

The Authority reiterates that allottees shall exercise caution and ensure payments are
made only to the registered promoter or duly authorised entities.

59.

Failing to comply with the above-said directions by Respondent shall attract penalty

in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
60.

The Complaint is disposed of in lieu of the above directions. No order as to costs.
Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri. K. Srinivasa Rao,

Sri. Laxmi Naryana Jannu,

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Member

Hon’ble Chairperson

TG RERA

TG RERA

TG RERA

16

---