Order Complaint No. 373 of 2022

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.373 OF 2022
26th Day of September, 2023
Corum:

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

Smt. Madhyanappu Vasanthi
Versus

…Complainant

M/s Akshara Township Pvt. Ltd

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing
on 08.08.2023, 17.08.2023, 08.09.2023 and 05.10.2023 before this
Authority in the presence of Complainant present in person along with
Adv. Vikas Singh Thakur, None appeared on behalf of the Respondent
and upon hearing the arguments of the party, this Authority passes the
following ORDER:

2.

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

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as
the “RERD Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Rules”) seeking directions from this Authority to take action against the
Respondent.
A. Facts of the case as stated in the complaint filed

by the

Complainant:
3.

The Complainant has made the following submissions in the complaint.
1 of 5

i.

The Complainant alleges that they engaged with the officials of the
Respondent, who represented themselves as being involved in the Real
Estate

business

with

multiple

projects

in

and

around

Hanamankonda& Warangal of Telangana State.
ii.

The Complainant further contends that they visited the registered
office of the developer, M/s Akshara Township Private Ltd., and
learned that the Respondent had a project at Raghunathpalli Mandal
of Jangoan District, hereinafter referred to as the "Project."

iii.

The Complainant claims to have paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on
24.09.2018, as part of the sale consideration of plots. Despite making
the payment, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent did not
provide them with a proper Agreement of Sale, but instead obtained
signatures on blank application forms and unfilled Memorandum of
Understandings and Schedules without providing copies.

iv.

Subsequently, the Respondent informed the Complainant that they
were in the process of obtaining statutory approvals for the Project and
refused to enter into an agreement due to the absence of these
approvals. The Respondent assured the Complainant of obtaining
necessary

approvals

and

promised

monthly

deposits

into

the

Complainant's bank account until then.
v.

The Complainant, relying on the Respondent's assurances, deposited a
total of Rs. 28,00,000/- in intervals into the Respondent's bank
account, and in return, the Complainant received land advance
certificates. Despite repeated requests, the Respondent allegedly
evaded providing essential project details and relevant documentation.

vi.

Due to the Respondent's lack of response, the Complainant sought a
refund, to which the Respondent agreed but required the original land
advance certificates. The Complainant complied but has yet to receive
the refund despite follow-ups.

vii.

After discovering that project details were absent from the official
TSRERA website, the Complainant received unsatisfactory responses
from the Respondent, claiming pending approvals.

2 of 5

viii.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent's actions contravene the
Act's provisions, including failure to register the project with TSRERA,
not depositing amounts into an Escrow account, and selling plots
without obtaining permission from TSRERA.

ix.

The Complainant's submission, dated 22.06.2022, challenges the
Respondents' actions, alleging violations of sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the
Act.

A. Relief sought by the complainant:4.

The Complainant has sought the following relief(s):-

i.

To take cognizance of the complaint and initiate appropriate actions
against the Respondent.

ii.

To direct the Respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 28,00,000/(Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs only) along with an interest rate of 24%.

iii.

Compensation is also sought to address the mental anguish inflicted
upon the Complainant by the Respondent.

5.

A notice numbered No.373/2022/TSRERA, dated 18.07.2022, was issued to

the Respondent, directing them to respond as per Rule 34(1) and (2) of the Rules,
2017.

B. Reply by the Respondent:
6.

The Respondent by the way of written reply dated 03.09.2022made the

following submission:

1.) That refuted the allegations and claimed that the Complainant
participated in their "Bhuadhipathi" scheme, with amounts deposited
accordingly.
2.) The Respondent contends that they paid monthly interest up to April
2022 @18% per annum to the Complainant.
3.) They argue that the transactions were purely monetary and not
related to plot purchases, expressing willingness to return the
advanced amount along with accrued interest.

3 of 5

C. Hearing Conducted:
7.

During the hearing, the Complainant reiterated their claim for a refund with

interest and compensation, leading to the following issue for consideration:

8.

In the matter at hand, a hearing was duly conducted to address the
grievances presented by the Complainant. The Complainant, during the
course of the hearing, reiterated their demand for a refund with interest
and compensation. The Bench, in an effort to ascertain the legitimacy of
the Complainant's claims, inquired whether there existed any Agreement
or Memorandum of Understanding executed between the parties that
would substantiate the Complainant's status as an aggrieved party.
Regrettably, the Complainant was unable to furnish concrete evidentiary
material that unequivocally demonstrated that the financial transactions
between the parties were exclusively intended for the acquisition of a
plot.

9. While a copy of a receipt was tendered to this Authority, which
ostensibly indicated that the funds in question were earmarked for the
purchase of a plot, the Complainant failed to produce the original,
authenticated documents. Furthermore, it is worth noting that the unit
to which the Complainant refers has not procured the requisite
permissions from local authorities, nor has a layout plan been submitted
to this Authority. In contrast, the Respondent contends that all financial
dealings between the parties were solely monetary transactions, and the
Complainant has consistently received interest payments from the
Respondent.
10.

In this context, the Complainant has been unable to furnish this

Authority with any substantial evidentiary support or an authorization
letter that would establish her standing as an aggrieved person, as
defined in Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act (RERA) Act. Section 31 of the RERA Act is reproduced herein for
reference:

4 of 5

(1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the
adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the
provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any
promoter, allottee, or real estate agent, as the case may be.
Explanation. —For the purpose of this sub-section, "person" shall include the
association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under
any law for the time being in force.

11.

In light of the aforementioned perspective, the Authority is concludes

that

the

present

complaint

lacks

merit

and

is,

therefore,

not

maintainable. Consequently, the complaint is hereby dismissed.

12.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real

Estate

Appellate

Telangana

State

Tribunal
Value

(vide

Added

G.O.Ms.No.8,
Tax

Appellate

Dt.11-01-2018,
Tribunal

has

the
been

designated as TS Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs
under the Act till the regular Tribunal is established) within 60 days from
the date of receipt of this Order.
13.

Complaint stands disposed of.

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

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

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

5 of 5