Order Complaint No. 43 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 43 of 2025
19th November 2025
Quorum:

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

Smt. Vodela Annapurna
(W/o. Vodela Rajeshwar, Aged about: 52 years
Осс: Home Maker, R/o. 3-4-11, Tilak Road,
Sadashivpet, Medak, Telangana - 502291)

… Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. SSL Infra Developers
(H.No. 8-3-1007/A, Flat No. 201 & 301,
NR United Splendour, Opp. Indian Bank,
Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500073)

2. Mr. Sivapuram Surender Kumar
(Rep by its managing partner
S/o. Seetha Ramaiah, Age: 45 years,
Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 8-3-1007/A,
Flat No. 201 & 301, NR United Splendour,
Opp. Indian Bank, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad - 500073)

… Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
17.07.2025 before this Authority. The Counsel for the Complainant, Sri B. Shanker, and
the Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and 2, Sri T. Santhosh Sagar Krishna, were present
in person before this Authority, and after hearing the submission made by both the
parties, 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
“RE (R&D) Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE (R&D) Rules”)
seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.

1

---

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 made wide publicity

through local newspapers, pamphlets, websites, and other means for the marketing and
sale of organic farm land with a Nest Resort at Budera Village, Sadhashivpet, situated
on the Hyderabad-Mumbai National Highway. In such publicity, the Respondent No. 1
and 2 offered several facilities in the project named “Peacock Avenue” along with a
Resort under the name and style “Our Nest,” further representing themselves as reputed
builders and developers engaged in construction of apartments admeasuring 5 acres,
independent houses admeasuring 7 acres, farm lands admeasuring 600 acres, 1000
commercial complexes, 350 simplex houses, 150 open plots, 500 shops, etc.
4.

The Complainant stated that, with respect to “Peacock Avenue,” the Respondent

No. 1 and 2 introduced different categories to attract customers by assuring organic farm
lease income. Specifically, for 50 Acres Customers, the Respondent No. 1 and 2
publicized a scheme of “100 months Organic Lease Income for each and every unit”
along with a “Buy Back Double Amount after 8 years.”
Guntas

Sq.yds

Price Per
Sq.yd

Total Price

Booking
Amount

Balance
Within 15
days

Organic
Farm Lease
Income

1

121

3500

4,23,500

1,00,000

3,23,500

4,000

2

242

3500

8,47,000

2,00,000

6,47,000

8,000

3

363

3500

12,70,000

3,00,000

9,70,500

12,000

4

484

3500

16,94,000

4,00,000

12,94,000

16,000

5

605

3500

21,17,000

5,00,000

16,17,500

21,000

5.

Accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 offered various price options to

customers under the project, namely: Option A - ₹3,499/- per sq. yd. (within 15 days),
Option B - ₹3,749/- per sq. yd. (within 45 days), Option C - ₹3,999/- per sq. yd. (within
60 days), and an EMI Option - ₹4,499/- per sq. yd. (within 36 months). The Respondent
No. 1 and 2 further lured customers by projecting extraordinary income from Shree
Gandam Hardwood and publicized pictures showing a cheque issued by M/s. Karnataka
Soaps and Detergents Ltd. to one investor, Mr. Adikeshavula Naidu, for an amount of
₹63,73,121/- (Rupees Sixty-Three Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand One Hundred and
Twenty-One Only).

2

---

The Complainant being influenced by the above advertisements and

representations, he joined the Respondent No. 1 and 2 scheme, wherein the Respondent
No. 1 and 2 insisted on entering into an Agreement of Sale by paying an advance.
Accordingly, on 31-05-2021, the Complainant paid a sum of ₹16,00,000/- (Rupees
Sixteen Lakhs Only) towards advance sale consideration for the purchase of 4 Guntas
of land in Survey No. 224/A, against a total sale consideration of ₹16,94,000/-. As per
the commitments of the Respondent No. 1 and 2, the registration charges for the sale
transaction were to be borne by Respondent No.1. The Complainant submits that, on
16-06-2021, Respondent No.1 executed a Sale Deed in his favor by showing a merger
amount of ₹10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as total sale consideration towards
the agricultural land admeasuring 0.0400 acres (4 guntas) in Thummalapalle Village,
Marpalle Mandal, Vikarabad District.
7.

In continuation of the Sale Deed, on 21-06-2021, the Respondent No. 1 and 2

executed a Lease Deed and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respect to
plantation of sandalwood trees in the Scheduled Property. Furthermore, as per the Lease
Deed, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 agreed to pay a lease amount of ₹1,92,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Ninety-Two Thousand Only) for a period of 100 months from 01-06-2021 to
01-10-2029, with payments due on or before the 10th of June each year. Though the
Respondent No. 1 and 2 initially paid lease amounts from July 2021 to July 2023, they
failed to pay from August 2023 onwards. Moreover, the Complainant submits that,
despite repeated visits to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 office, sending reminders through
WhatsApp, and making oral demands, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 neither paid the lease
amount nor responded. Upon further inquiry, the Complainant discovered that, under
the guise of organic cultivation and through attractive advertisements and skilful
marketing, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have been duping innocent citizens as well as
the State Exchequer.
8.

The Complainant further stated that, upon visiting the Scheduled Property, he

found no development as promised by the Respondent No. 1 and 2. Instead, only a few
guava and lemon trees were planted, making it impossible to generate an annual lease
income of ₹1,92,000/-. By showing false farm lease incomes amounting to ₹16,00,000/(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Only), the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have been exploiting
innocent citizens. While so the Complainant states that the Respondent No. 1 and 2
cheated the State Government by not paying actual registration charges and stamp duty
3

---

Additionally, upon further inquiry, he found that the Respondent No. 1 and 2

advertisements were fabricated and misleading. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 are
engaged in continuous illegal activities, depriving the State Government of rightful
stamp duty and registration charges, not only in his case but also in respect of thousands
of investors. Therefore, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 are liable for prosecution by the
Vigilance Commissioner, the State of Telangana, the Registration Department, and also
by the Police. The Complainant reserves his right to lodge complaints with the
concerned authorities. The Complainant further submits that, being left with no
alternative, he issued a legal notice to the Respondent No. 1 and 2 on 30-09-2024. The
said notice was duly served on the Respondent No. 1 and 2. Even after service, the
Respondent No. 1 and 2 failed to reply, but transferred one month’s rent of ₹16,000/(Rupees Sixteen Thousand Only) to the Complainant’s account.
10.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent No. 1 and 2 have contravened

provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 as follows:
i.

By violating Section 3, in as much as the Respondent No. 1 and 2 failed to
register the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority,
Telangana.

ii.

By violating Section 11, in as much as the Respondent No. 1 and 2 failed to
create a webpage, maintain a website, or upload details of the transactions.

iii.

By violating Section 12, by misrepresenting and selling the property to the
Complainant.

iv.

By falsely advertising extraordinary income from Sreegandham in an extent of
4 guntas, including fabricated pictures showing an investor receiving a cheque
of ₹63,73,121/- (Rupees Sixty-Three Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand One
Hundred and Twenty-One Only), which is fake and misleading.
4

---

v.

of 4 guntas was agreed for ₹16,94,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Ninety-Four
Thousand Only), while registering the Sale Deed only for ₹10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only), thereby depriving the State of due registration charges and
stamp duty.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
11.

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Complainant humbly

prays for the following reliefs:
a. To direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to return the amount of Rs.16,94,000/(Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Ninety-Four Thousand only) to the Complainant along
with the interest of 18 % per annum from the date of execution of the Agreement
of Sale till the payment of full amount.
b. To direct the Respondent No. 1 and 2 to deposit past and future monthly rents
@ Rs.16,000/- per month from August 2023 onwards pending the proceedings.
C. Counter filed by Respondent No. 1 and 2:
12.

The Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that the present complaint filed under Section

31 of the RE(R&D) Act is not maintainable as the subject lands are agricultural land
which does not fall within the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016. Hence, this Hon’ble Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
13.

The Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that the Complainant purchased agricultural

land under Sale Deed No.1516/2021 dated 19-06-2021 registered at Marpalle,
Vikarabad District, and the mutation was duly carried out with an Electronic Pattadar
Passbook issued in her name. This itself establishes that the property in question is an
agricultural. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that sale of agricultural land does not
attract the provisions of RERA. Section 2(zn) defining “real estate project” excludes
agricultural land and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
14.

The Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that the Lease Agreement dated 21-06-2021

also clearly records the agricultural nature of the land, intended for plantation purposes.
Substantial lease rent of ₹3,04,000/- has already been paid to the Complainant for 26
months, covering nearly one-fourth of her sale consideration. Moreover, The
Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that the grievance of non-payment of further lease rent
5

---

The Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that under Section 3 of RERA only projects

involving plots, flats, apartments, or layouts in planning areas require registration. Sale
of agricultural land without layout approval is incapable of registration and hence
cannot be brought under RERA. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 states that this is the
second complaint filed by the Complainant on the same cause of action. Earlier, CCP
No.9/2025 is pending before this Hon’ble Authority wherein compensation of
₹10,22,000/- is claimed. Filing the present complaint without disclosure of the earlier
proceedings violates Order II Rule 2 CPC and amounts to abuse of process.
16.

The Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that the allegations of advertisements, false

promises, and stamp duty evasion are all denied. The Complainant is put to strict proof.
The responsibility to disclose true consideration and pay appropriate stamp duty lies
with the purchaser, not with the vendor. The Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that there is
no violation of Sections 3, 11, or 12 of the RERA Act as alleged. These provisions are
inapplicable to agricultural land transactions. Hence, no relief can be claimed under the
Act.
17.

The Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that the Complainant has falsely declared that

no other case is pending on the same cause of action, thereby committing perjury. The
Respondent No. 1 and 2 state that the Hon’ble High Court in Mohammed Zain Khan v.
Emnoy Properties India Ltd., Second Appeal No.209/2022, has categorically held that
sale of agricultural land does not fall under RERA and authorities under the Act lack
jurisdiction.
D. Observation of the Authority:
18.

This Authority has carefully examined the pleadings, documents, and

submissions placed on record. It is not in dispute that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
undertook extensive promotional activities relating to a project styled as “Peacock
Avenue.” The Complainant purchased land admeasuring Ac. 0.04 guntas in the said
project, bearing Plot No. 3021, situated in Survey No. 224/A/2/1/2, Thummanapalli
Village, Marpalle Mandal, Vikarabad District, through a registered Sale Deed (Doc. No.

6

---

The Complainant has submitted that although agricultural land per se does not

fall within the ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the
position materially changes once such land is developed into a plotted layout and offered
for sale. It is asserted that the Respondents have carved out agricultural land into plots
and developed it with 30-feet and 40-feet internal roads, thereby squarely attracting the
statutory definition of a “real estate project.” The designation of the land as “farm land”
is alleged to be a mere nomenclature, not reflective of the actual nature of the
development.
20.

Conversely, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contend that the transaction pertains to

agricultural land, which has been sold as such under the registered Sale Deed. They rely
upon the issuance of the Pattadar Passbook to the Complainant and the description of
the land in the Sale Deed to argue that the Act does not apply. Their defence is premised
entirely on the description of the land rather than on the nature of activities undertaken.
21.

For ease of reference, the definition of "real estate project" under Section 2(zn)of

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 reads as follows:
"real estate project" means the development of a building or a building
consisting of apartments, or converting an existing building or a part
thereof into apartments, or the development of land into plots or
apartment, as the case may be, for the purpose of selling all or some of
the said apartments or plots or building, as the case may be, and
includes the common areas, the development works, all improvements
and structures thereon, and all easement, rights and appurtenances
belonging thereto"
As per definition under Section 2(s) of RE(R&D) Act, 2016
"Development" means carrying out the Development of Immovable
Property, Engineering or Other operations in, on, or, over under the
land or making of any material change in any immovable property or
land and including redevelopment.
Section 2(s) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 provides that:

7

---

A combined reading of these provisions leaves no room for ambiguity: the

moment land is converted into saleable plots through any developmental activity, the
venture becomes a “real estate project” under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
23.

The record reflects that land admeasuring Ac. 340.00, along with an additional

Ac. 20.00, was developed into 88 plots, far exceeding the statutory threshold requiring
registration under Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
24.

As per the Memorandum of Understanding dated 21.06.2021, the subject property

comprising Plot No. 3021 admeasuring 484 sq. yds. (4 guntas) was marketed as part of
a plotted layout with plot sizes ranging from 121 sq. yds. to 605 sq. yds. This evidences
a systematic plotted development, inconsistent with the notion of mere agricultural sale.
25.

The brochure issued by the Respondents goes far beyond agricultural land

marketing. It advertises an elaborate resort-based development, including:
a) Telescopic tower house, skywalk
b) 18 cottages, main block, reception block
c) residential and royal suite rooms
d) shopping area, banquet hall, multicuisine restaurant
e) gym, indoor/outdoor swimming pools
f) sports facilities (cricket, volleyball, basketball, TT)
g) yoga hall, jogging track, children’s play area
h) open party lawn, mini banquet hall, A/C dormitory
Such extensive amenity representation is wholly inconsistent with a mere agricultural
sale and unequivocally constitutes promotional activity of a real estate project.

8

---

Upon observing these materials, this Authority issued a Show Cause Notice

dated 24.07.2025 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. In response, the Respondents
merely reiterated their earlier assertions, without addressing the substantial material
indicating plotted development. The Agreement of Sale executed by the Respondents
further records that the Vendor has divided the land into plots, reinforcing that plotted
development had indeed occurred.
27.

A holistic assessment of the Respondents’ conduct layout formation, plotting,

development of internal roads, offering amenities, circulating brochures, and marketing
the venture as a resort project demonstrates that they have engaged in full-fledged real
estate project development while deliberately describing the land as agricultural to
evade mandatory registration under Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act. This constitutes a
misrepresentation to allottees and an attempt to mislead this Authority.
28.

In view of the foregoing, this Authority holds that the Respondents have

undertaken systematic developmental activities attracting the definition of a “real estate
project” under Section 2(zn) RE(R&D) Act. The development of 40-feet and 30-feet
internal roads, plotted layouts, and promotional offerings squarely amount to
“development” under Sections 2(s) and 2(t) of the RE(R&D) Act. The description of
the land as agricultural in the Sale Deed cannot override the actual nature of activities
undertaken. Accordingly, the Respondents were mandatorily required to register the
project under Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act.
29.

The Respondents’ actions reveal a calculated attempt to camouflage a real estate

venture as an agricultural transaction to evade statutory obligations, thereby misleading
the Complainant, the public, and this Authority. Such conduct is contrary to the
transparency and disclosure regime mandated by the RE(R&D) Act.
30.

Based on the material on record, this Authority finds that Respondent Nos. 1 and

2 have engaged in misleading advertisements, exaggerated representations, and
deceptive assurances intended to induce purchasers into transacting in an unregistered
real estate project. These acts constitute unfair trade practices, violate Sections 3, 4, 12,
and 13 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 and defeat the statutory safeguards designed to
protect allottees.
31.

Consequently, this Authority concludes that the acts and omissions of Respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 constitute clear violations attracting penalties under Section 61, read with
9

---

The Respondents are hereby directed to forthwith initiate steps for obtaining

registration of the project under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Until such registration is duly granted by this Authority, the
Respondents shall not advertise, market, book, sell, offer for sale, or invite persons to
purchase any plot or unit in the project or any part thereof, in strict compliance with the
mandate of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act.
33.

This Authority is of the considered view that the Complainant’s prayer seeking

refund of ₹16,94,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum, from the date of the
Agreement of Sale till realisation, cannot be entertained in the present proceedings. It is
an admitted and undisputed fact that a registered Sale Deed has already been executed
in favour of the Complainant, under which title has validly passed. Once title stands
transferred by way of a registered conveyance, the Complainant cannot seek relief under
section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act.
34.

With respect to the second relief sought, namely the claim for past and future

monthly rents of ₹16,000/- per month based on the subsequently executed lease deed,
this Authority is of the view that such relief falls outside the scope of its jurisdiction
under the RE (R&D) Act, 2016. Claims relating to rent, based on lease agreements, do
not arise under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act and must be adjudicated before the
competent civil court. Accordingly, this relief is not considered.
35.

Accordingly, the present complaint stands disposed of in the above terms.
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

10

---