Order Complaint No. 45 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.45 OF 2024
14th November, 2024
Corum:

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

Allam Nagaraju
S.Arun Kumar
Subrat Nayak
Sheshank
B.Prasad
T.Sravan Kumar
A.Vasu
B.Rajeev
Manoj Kumar
Anudeep
John Gantasala
Tanuj
Manhohar
Pradeep Sadhu
Sathya Sai Manikanta

…Complainants

Versus
M/s Sterling Homes Private Ltd
rep by MD. Alluguvelli Vasudeva Reddy
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing on 06.08.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Complainants
present in person and Respondent learned counsel V.V.S.N.Rajuand 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
“RE(R&D) Act” read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation

1 of 17

and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking
directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondent.
A. Brief Facts on behalf of the complainant:
3.

The Developer obtained permission for constructing:A Block: 1 Cellar + 1

Ground Floor + 5 Floors, B Block: 1 Ground Floor + 5 FloorsClub House:
Ground + 3 Floors, The project is named "Sterling Orchids" and is situated on
a vacant land measuring 8,833 square yards in SyNo. 237, Mallampet Village,
Dundigal

Municipality,

Dundigal

Gandimaisamma

Mandal,

Medchal-

Malkajgiri District, Telangana State vide RERA No. P02200002211 dated
30.09.2020 and Technical approval 027538/ZOC/R1/U6/HMDA/30082019
dated 30.08.2019.
4.

The proposed completion date for the project "Sterling Orchids" was

01.07.2023, with a grace period extending to December 2023.The Developer
has not completed the construction nor handed over the flats to the
purchasers obtaining Occupancy Certificate from the competent Authorities
as the Developer has executed Registered Sale Deeds in favor of the
complainant and 14 others on receiving total sale consideration from
Complaint and 14 ors.
5.

The Respondent/Developer made constructions against the approve

Plan in the above said vacant land by deviation in construction of the Club
house without providing vacant space to southern side of B Block. Compound
wall to this project on the eastern side is not constructed.
6.

The Respondent/Developer has not completed the Construction of

Sterling Orchids in the above said vacant land and started another project in
the Eastern side of the above said Project naming Sterling Orchids Phase II
and is showing the club house constructed in Strerling Orchids as common
Club house for Sterling Orchids Phase II and this inviting the prospective
purchasers hiding the facts by thus making deviations to the approved plan.

2 of 17

7.

The Respondent/Developer has not constructed wall on the Eastern

side partitioning the two projects namely Stelring Orchids Phase II with a
malafide intention to utilize the path way of the Sterling Orchids as common
path

way

to

the

Sterling

Orchids

Phase

II

also.

Thus,

the

Respondent/Developer showing the path way as common path way to both
the projects making deviations to the approved plan.
8.

The Respondent/Developer has been shifting the STP in the second

project of Stelring Orchids, Phase II by making deviations to the approved
plan.
B. Reliefs sought:
9.

In view of the facts mentioned in paragraphs above, the complainants

prays for the following reliefs:
1. The complainant seeks the completion of "Sterling Orchids" according to

the approved plan (Plan No. 00629/BP/HMDA/1241/MEO/2022) without
any deviations.
2. The Developer should obtain and present Occupancy Certificates to the

flat purchasers upon receiving any remaining balance amounts, if
applicable, as early as possible.
3. The second project, "Sterling Orchids Phase-II", should be stopped to

ensure compliance with GHMC Acts, allowing the complainants/flat
purchasers to enjoy their respective flats with absolute possession,
occupation, and clear title.
C. Interim Relief:
10.

The complainants sought for the following interim relief:

1. Monthly rent of Rs. 20,000/- per 2 BHK flat and Rs. 30,000/- per 3
BHK flat from the completion date of 01.07.2023 or the end of the grace
period (31.12.2023).

3 of 17

2. Immediate halt of the construction of "Sterling Orchids Phase-II" due to
deviations from the approved plan, in the interest of the complainant
and 14 other flat purchasers.
D. Respondent Reply:
11.

It is acknowledged that M/s. Sterling Homes Private Limited obtained

permission on 30.09.2020 for the construction of a Residential Building
Apartment, comprising a Clubhouse (1 Ground + 3 Floors) and Block B (1
Ground + 5 Upper Floors) on plot numbers in Survey No. 237, Mallampet,
ORRGC

Village,

Dundigal

Municipality,

Medchal-Malkajgiri

District,

covering an extent of 71,284.04 Sq. Mt. (hereinafter referred to as
"SCHEDULE PROPERTY"). This project is registered with the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority under RERA No. P02200002211, dated 30.09.2020,
and Tech. Approval No. 027538/ZOC/R1/U6/HMDA/30082019.
12.

Under the said application, the Respondent committed to complete the

project by 01.07.2023, with an extended timeline until December 2023.
However, due to unforeseen circumstances, including regulatory delays,
heavy rains, labor shortages, and pandemic-related disruptions, the
construction has faced delays. It was never the intention of the Respondent
to postpone the project, and there has been a constant effort to complete it
within the stipulated timelines. The Respondent remains committed to
expediting the project and is actively engaging with the relevant authorities
to obtain necessary approvals.
13.

The Respondent denies any intentional deviation from the approved

plan. Any alterations made were minor, did not impact the overall project
or the rights of the Complainants, and were undertaken only after
obtaining the requisite approvals from the appropriate authorities. These
minor alterations were necessary for the project's structural integrity and
safety. The Respondent is willing to rectify any deviations pointed out by
the competent authority and assures that the project will be completed as
per the approved plan. It is a well-established principle that minor
deviations in construction plans do not equate to malafide intentions
unless there is clear evidence of deliberate and substantial deviation
4 of 17

intended to deceive or harm the purchasers. The courts have consistently
held that slight modifications in construction plans, made for the benefit of
the project or due to practical necessity, do not indicate malafide intention.
Furthermore, minor deviations from approved plans that do not affect the
overall essence of the project or the interests of the buyers may be
permissible. The onus is on the Complainant to prove that the Respondent
acted with malafide intentions to cause harm.
14.

It is acknowledged that the Respondent has commenced Phase II of the

project only after obtaining necessary approvals. The clubhouse and
common amenities were designed to serve both phases, providing
enhanced facilities to all residents. There has been no concealment of facts
or malafide intention as alleged by the Complainants; all prospective
buyers were informed about the shared amenities. The assertion that the
Complainants were not informed of this arrangement is incorrect, as the
Respondent has consistently communicated these details. Phase II does
not infringe upon the rights of the Complainants or buyers in Sterling
Orchids. The Respondent has complied with all rules, regulations,
permissions, and approvals from the relevant authorities.
15.

The Respondent clarifies that the capacity of the STP was enhanced to

accommodate the requirements of both Phases 1 and 2, undertaken after
obtaining approvals from the relevant authorities. This enhancement was
due to technical reasons and adheres to regulatory standards without
violating any approved plan.
16.

The Complainants were repeatedly informed about the status of the

project and the challenges faced during its completion. The Respondent is
surprised by the complaint, having maintained a good relationship with
the Complainants, who were aware of the changes. There was no explicit
statement that the clubhouse and amenities would be exclusively available
for Sterling Orchids; the Complainants were informed accordingly. It
appears that the Complainants have approached this Hon’ble Authority to
avoid making payments owed to the Respondents.
17.

The Respondent is committed to completing the project as per the

approved plan and obtaining the necessary occupancy certificates as soon
5 of 17

as possible. All pending works are being expedited to ensure timely
completion. The Respondent has already applied for the Occupation
Certificate, and the authorities have conducted an inspection, with final
approval pending. The project has faced delays due to factors beyond the
Respondent's

control,

which

have

been

communicated

to

the

Complainants.
18.

The Complainants have approached this Hon'ble Authority with the

intent to extort the Respondent, and their demand for monthly rent
compensation is deemed unreasonable and unjustified, as they were fully
aware of the delays and the reasons behind them. The Complainants are
the ones delaying payments and have yet to settle significant amounts
owed to the Respondent. Upon completion of the agreed payments, the
Respondent is prepared to deliver the flats to them. The request for delayed
payments was made in accordance with the terms agreed upon.
19.

The Complainants also sought to halt the construction of Phase II. They

were aware of the project and did not raise any concerns with the
Respondent, likely intending to make unreasonable demands. Granting
such a request would cause significant financial and reputational damage.
The construction of Phase II complies with all regulations, and any
concerns regarding deviations can be resolved without halting the project.
The Respondent assures this Hon'ble Authority that all necessary steps are
being taken to complete the project according to the approved plan and to
the satisfaction of all stakeholders.
20.

The Complainants have filed this complaint by distorting facts and

misleading this Hon'ble Authority with false information. In fact, the flats
were delivered, and possession was handed over to the Complainants;
however, due to certain pending works, the Complainants entrusted the
completion of those works back to the Respondent. This indicates the
Complainants' intention in approaching this Hon'ble Authority, suggesting
an attempt to gain an unlawful advantage. The Complainants' conduct
reveals their attempt to avoid payments agreed upon under the sale deed.
21.

In light of the above, it is humbly requested that this Hon'ble Authority

dismiss the complaint, as it is based on incorrect and misleading
6 of 17

allegations, allowing the Respondents to complete the pending works of
Sterling Orchids per the approved plan and to continue the construction of
Sterling Orchids Phase II. Any other relief that this Hon'ble Authority
deems fit in the interest of justice and good conscience is also requested,
along with an award of costs in favor of the Respondents against the
Complainants.
E. Rejoinder
22. The complainants deny all submissions made by the Respondent and
submit that the Respondent’s documentation only mentions Block A, Block B,
and the Clubhouse, without reference to additional structures.
23. The Respondent is duty-bound to communicate any delay in handing over
flats to the owners. Regrettably, no such communication has been provided.
However, the Respondent acknowledges an eight-month delay, which
continues to extend. Under RERA, a six-month grace period accommodates
unforeseen delays, which should reasonably suffice to address issues and
ensure timely delivery. Extending beyond RERA’s deadline by an additional
eight months (and counting) without specifying a completion date is
unreasonable. The term “at the earliest” is vague, failing to hold the
Respondent accountable to a fixed deadline.
24. If the Respondent denies any intentional deviation, the complainants
request that they provide documentary evidence indicating the dates on which
they obtained HMDA and RERA approvals for Phase II. The complainants
believe that approval was secured only after they had purchased and
registered their flats in Phase I, suggesting that the Respondent initially had
no intention to expand the project to include both phases.
25. Furthermore, the complainants seek proof of any communication
regarding the decision to combine Phase I and Phase II. The complainants
respectfully request the Hon'ble Authority to direct the Respondent to furnish
this documentary evidence. Absent the complainants’ approval, it is

7 of 17

unreasonable to presume their consent. Such actions indicate malafide
intentions on the part of the Respondent.
26. The Respondent has expressed willingness to rectify any deviations
identified by a competent authority, assuring that the project will be
completed in accordance with the approved plan. The complainants request
that the Hon'ble Authority direct the Respondent to complete construction
based on the documents in effect at the time of registration. Any postregistration changes should be deemed null and void.
27. According to the original RERA and HMDA-approved plan, the project’s
total built-up area (BUA) was 18,002.86 square meters. However, the BUA for
Sterling Orchids Phase II alone is 16,901.40 square meters. Since Phase II
was not included in the initial approved plan or the agreement, this
represents a deviation of 93.88%, far exceeding any minor variation.
Moreover, sharing the same entry and exit between phases could cause traffic
congestion during peak hours, compromising the exclusivity of Phase I.
28. The complainants respectfully request the Authority to order a clear
separation between Phase I and Phase II by constructing a boundary wall,
ensuring Phase I owners retain exclusive access to amenities as outlined in
the registration agreement.
29. The complainants purchased flats in the project based on the original
plan and RERA registration, seeking exclusive rights to the clubhouse. The
clubhouse, measuring 554.48 square meters, was initially designated solely
for Phase I, which comprises 140 flats.
30. As owners of Phase I, the complainants do not consent to any merger with
Sterling Orchids Phase II. Additionally, they request that the construction of
the STP for Sterling Orchids Phase I be completed within its premises to
prevent future disputes. The complainants seek clean, peaceful possession of
their property.

8 of 17

31.

The

complainants

advocate

for

transparency

and

challenge

the

Respondent to present any documentary evidence of updates provided to flat
owners regarding Phase I’s construction progress. The Respondent’s claims
are false and unfounded.
32. The complainants approached the HMDA to verify Phase II approvals, as
the Phase II plan is absent from HMDA’s official website. The Respondent did
not consult or inform Phase I owners of plans to merge the two phases.
Consequently, HMDA officials inspected the site to investigate these concerns.
33. The Respondent’s assertions in their reply are baseless and misleading.
The complainants have not misrepresented any facts or misled the Hon'ble
Authority. Contrary to the Respondent’s claim, possession has not been
properly

handed

over,

and

construction

remains

incomplete.

The

Respondent’s allegation that complainants returned the flats for completion of
pending works further substantiates claims of incomplete work and
deviations.
34. The complainants have provided ample evidence of the Respondent’s
deviations and failure to meet deadlines. Allegations of default on balance
payments by the complainants are baseless; any withholding of payments is
justified given the significant deviations and incomplete work, which fall
within the complainants' rights.
35. In light of these facts, the complainants request that the Authority
disregard the Respondent’s baseless allegations and recognize their failure to
adhere to the terms of the sale deed. The complainants seek the Respondent’s
fulfillment of contractual obligations, with construction completed per the
initially approved plan.
36. The Respondent has unlawfully withheld possession of the complainants’
flat keys, preventing access as a means to pressure withdrawal of this case.
The complainants filed a police report to regain possession of the keys.

9 of 17

37. Under RERA, the promoter must provide accurate information in
brochures without concealing facts. However, Sterling Homes’ official website
still shows only the original layout plan, comprising Block A, Block B, and the
Clubhouse, with no mention of Phase II. Moreover, the Respondent has
reneged on promises to provide certain fixtures, such as a granite kitchen
platform with dado tiles for some owners.
38. The Respondent is attempting to coerce other residents by asking
complainants to sign an acknowledgment stating satisfaction with the
amenities, in exchange for waiving interest charges—a tactic that is wholly
misleading and disingenuous.
39.The Respondent is using substandard materials in construction. Due to
basement waterlogging, sharing the basement between Phases I and II will
likely increase pressure, further degrading structural integrity.
40. The flats remain unfit for handover due to issues with seepage, incomplete
sanitary fittings, and delayed CP fittings. The complainants request that the
Hon'ble Authority instruct the Respondent to complete pending works to
enable the owners to begin interior work.
41. The complainants request that the Hon'ble Authority direct the
Respondent to grant flat owners access to monitor work progress.
42. The Respondent issued a demand letter asking flat owners to pay a twoyear maintenance fee and corpus fund despite unfinished amenities and
incomplete internal works. Imposing interest on this fee is unreasonable. The
complainants request that the Hon'ble Authority prevent this practice.
43. The Respondent claims project completion and asks owners to take
possession without an occupancy certificate, citing a single resident as
precedent.
44. The complainants request that the Hon'ble Authority direct the
Respondent to provide an update on the project's completion, including
10 of 17

essential amenities such as power connection, elevators, STP, Clubhouse,
borewell, and promised kitchen fixtures as specified in the brochure.
F. Observation of the Authority:
45.

On the above averments, the following points would arise for Authority’s

consideration:
1. Whether the Respondent has violated the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
3. What Order?
Authority’s Findings on Point No. 1:
46.

The complainants have raised concerns over deviations from the

originally sanctioned plan by the Respondent. They specifically allege that
Phase II has been developed with shared amenities for both Phase I and Phase
II, without securing prior consent from the complainants, as legally required.
The Respondent, however, disputes these claims, stating that all construction
aligns with approvals from the Competent Authority and that any minor
modifications were made solely for structural integrity without any intention
to deceive or harm the purchasers.
47.

Upon examining the records, the Authority finds that the Respondent is

indeed constructing a new Phase II within the project registered under RERA
No. P02200007229. It is noted that in the initial Phase I development, the
Respondent did not indicate any plans to introduce additional structures,
such as Block C, or shared amenities beyond Block A, Block B, and a
clubhouse exclusive to Phase I. Furthermore, there was no mention in the
sale deeds or the RERA website of a potential Phase II development at the time
of the complainants’ purchase.
48.

Even if the decision to add Phase II was made later, it is the

Respondent's legal duty under Section 14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
11 of 17

Development) Act, 2016, to develop and complete the project as per the
original sanctioned plan. Any substantial alteration or addition to the layout,
buildings, or common areas requires prior written consent from at least twothirds of the allottees who have purchased apartments in the project.
49.

In this case, the approved sanction plan for Sterling Orchids Phase II

(Plan No. 006291/BP/HMDA/1241/MEO/2022 dated 29.05.2023) reflects an
expansion with the addition of Block C, including shared access to the
clubhouse and common amenities. However, the Respondent has not provided
evidence of obtaining the necessary allottees' consent before implementing
such significant changes, thereby breaching Section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act.
50.

Based on these findings, the Authority concludes that the complainants

purchased their units under the understanding that the project was an
independent, self-contained development as per the sanctioned plan provided
by the Competent Authority, without affiliation to any additional phases. The
clubhouse was exclusively intended for Phase I allottees. The Respondent’s
decision to merge the two phases, sharing the clubhouse without the consent
of Phase I allottees, without complying with the mandatory requirements of
full disclosure and without prior consent of Complainants, changed the
project usage of club house. Hence, the promoter breached the provision of
section 14 of the RE(R&D) Act.
51.

The complainants further allege a significant delay in the handover of

possession. According to the Agreement of Sale and RERA registration, the
Respondent committed to completing the project by 01.07.2023 but has failed
to meet this deadline. Although the Respondent attributes the delay to the
COVID-19 pandemic and unforeseen external factors, including an automatic
six-month extension granted by RERA, the Authority notes that the
Respondent did not formally apply for an extension of the project completion
deadline despite the imminent RERA registration expiration.
52.

The Authority finds it unreasonable for the Respondent to cite the

pandemic as an excuse when no formal extension request was made before
12 of 17

the Authority. Additionally, the Respondent proceeded with Agreements of
Sale during 2021 mentioning the handover date being July 2023, despite the
pandemic's impact. This defense is therefore inadequate, and the Authority
determines that the Respondent’s delay violates Section 11 of the RE(R&D)
Act, particularly the failure to meet the terms of the Agreement and complete
the project within the stipulated timeline. Hence, the Authority finds
Respondent in violation of section 11(4)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act.
Findings on Point 2:
53.

The complainants have sought the cancellation of the approved

sanction plan for Phase II (Plan No. 006291/BP/HMDA/1241/MEO/2022)
and completion of the project as per the original Phase I plan. In light of the
local bylaws, it is imperative to refer G.O. MS. No. 7, Rule 14, issued by the
Government of Telangana, which mandates that developers of group housing
projects with 100 or more units must allocate up to 3% of the total built-up
area for common amenities. The Authority notes that the Respondent’s
provision of common amenities through an amenity block meets these
regulatory requirements for the built-up area as mandated under the
referenced G.O. notably, the Respondent promoter has allocated more than
the mandated 3% of the total built-up area across Phases I and II for the
amenity block.
54. Therefore, while the Respondent is in violation for implementing
amendments to the sanctioned plan without prior consent, the overall
compliance with the statutory requirement to provide common amenities has
been observed. Consequently, the allottees of Phase II are entitled to the
shared use of the amenity block, as no objections to this provision were raised
by Phase I allottees prior to the registration of Phase II.
55.

However, the Authority emphasizes that such compliance with common

area requirements does not absolve the Respondent of liability under Section
14 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, as they failed to
obtain prior consent for substantial modifications to the sanctioned plan.
13 of 17

56.

The Respondent contends that certain complainants have not remitted

the full sale consideration, which has led to retaining keys for these units.
Additionally, the Respondent seeks to charge interest on unpaid amounts
until July 2024. Conversely, the complainants claim they are entitled to
interest due to the possession delay.
57.

The Authority notes that except for few complainant allottees, several

complainants have not fulfilled their total sale consideration. It is to be noted
by the allottees, that they are equally obligated to fulfill their contractual
obligations and pay the amount as per the payment schedule.
58.

Complainants with outstanding sale consideration must remit an

amount proportional to the work completed. Any failure to do so will incur
interest payable by the complainants.
59.

It is further directed that complainants with outstanding payments

must settle the entire sale consideration to take possession of their units.
60.

Clause 7 of the Agreement of Sale mandates the Respondent to

complete all construction, including finishing work, lift installation, generator
setup, and other common amenities, by 01.07.2023. If handover is delayed,
the Respondent is liable to pay interest on the principal sale consideration at
the SBI MCLR rate from the expected handover date (including a six-month
grace period) until possession is granted. Should any delay be attributed to
the complainants, they will be liable for interest on any outstanding balance
per the Agreement terms.
61.

The Authority finds the Respondent liable for delays in completion and

directs them to pay interest to complainants who have paid the amount as per
the payment schedule mentioned in the agreement and,, for non-compliance
with Section 11(4)(a) read with the proviso to Section 18(1) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Consequently, the Respondent is
liable to pay interest to these complainants from the due possession date
(December 2017) until delivery, as prescribed under Section 18 of the Act and
Rule 15 of the TG RE(R&D) Rules.
14 of 17

62.

The State Bank of India’s marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) as of

01.10.2024 is 8.95% p.a. accordingly; the prescribed interest rate shall be
MCLR + 2%, totaling 10.95% p.a.
63.

Furthermore, the Complainants have sought the cancellation of the

HMDA-approved plan, Plan No. 00629/BP/HMDA/1241/MEO/2022. In this
context, it is crucial to emphasize that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority
(RERA) and the planning authority are operational in two completely different
domain. It is the amenity space which is the issue concern of complaints. It is
also observed that the Complainants are not disputing the authenticity or
validity of the sanction or approval of the said plans but are instead
challenging the inclusion of Block C in the allottees area. It is also pertinent
to note that the sanction plans in question were duly approved by the
competent planning authority. The question of whether the sanction of these
plans by the planning authority is valid or otherwise is strictly a matter within
the jurisdiction of the concerned planning authority. Consequently, this
Authority lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon or comment on the legality or
correctness of the sanctioned plans. RERA’s mandate is to promote
transparency in real estate transactions, ensuring that the rights and
interests of both allottees and promoters are protected through full disclosure
and accountability Whereas, any relief sought concerning the cancellation of
an approved layout does not fall within the purview of this Authority.
64.

The complainants have prayed before this Authority to direct the

Respondent to secure the Occupancy Certificate (OC) for the respective units.
In response to this request, the Authority directs the Respondent to expedite
the application process to obtain a partial OC from the Competent Authority
upon the completion of individual blocks and amenity block, as permissible
by law.
65.

The Authority further directs that all amenities and provisions explicitly

promised by the Respondent to the complainants in the Brochure, Agreement
of Sale, or Sale Deed, which are to be provided to Phase I, shall be completed
within 90 days as they are deprived from their rights.
15 of 17

66.

The Respondent is directed to prioritize the completion of Phase I within

90 days from the date of this Order, adhering to the sanctioned plan,
delivering all promised amenities, and obtaining allottees' consent for any
future modifications.
Findings on Point 3:
67.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, the complaint merits approval.

Accordingly, the following order is issued:
G. Directions of the Authority:
68.

In accordance with Section 37 of the Act, the Authority hereby

establishes the following directives, mandating compliance by the promoter
within 60 days from the date of receipt of this Order, as authorized under
Section 34(f):
1. The Respondent is held liable for failure to comply with the Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. For contraventions of Sections
11, 14, and for non-completion of the project within the RERA
registration's stipulated timeline, the Authority, exercising its power
under Section 61 of the said Act, hereby imposes a penalty on the
Respondent in the amount of Rs. 17,88,325 (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs
Eighty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Five Only). This amount
shall be remitted in favor of the TGRERA FUND via Demand Draft or
through online payment to A/c No. 50100595798191, HDFC Bank,
IFSC Code: HDFC0007036, within 30 days of receipt of this Order by
the Respondent/Promoter.
2. The Respondents are directed to pay interest at the rate of 10.95% per
annum on the amounts paid by the Complainants who have complied
with the payment schedule as stipulated in the Agreement of Sale,
within 90 days from the date of this Order, as prescribed under Rule 16
of the RE(R&D) Rules, 2017. To ensure that the said project is not
jeopardized due to an outflow of finances and is completed in a timely
manner, and keeping in mind the interests of other homebuyers in the
16 of 17

project, the arrears of interest accrued from the date of this order until
the handover of possession or issuance of the Occupancy Certificate
shall be paid in three monthly installments. Additionally, the interest
accrued from the due date of possession, i.e., 01.12.2023, until the date
of this Order shall be paid within 45 days. The complainant-allottees
are also directed to remit the balance amount of the sale consideration,
along with the arrears of accrued interest, in accordance with the terms
and conditions stipulated in the Agreement of Sale executed between
the Respondent promoter and the allottees. The total interest payable
by the Respondent promoter shall be adjusted against the dues to be
paid by the Complainants at the time of such payment, and pay the net
amount remains.
3. The Complainants are directed to remit the remaining balance of the
sale consideration amount to the Respondent within 45 days from the
date of the Order, in order to complete the project.
4. The Respondent is hereby directed to complete the entire Sterling
Orchids Phase I project, along with the amenity block, within 90 days
from the date of this order.
5. The Respondent is reminded that failure to comply with this Order shall
be liable to a penalty under Section 63 of the said Act.
6. Consequently, the complaint is hereby disposed of, with each party
bearing its own costs.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

17 of 17