Order Complaint No. 487 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 487 of 2025
Dated: 28th March 2026
Quorum:

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

Nagaraju Parepally
Rajaiah. Chittimalla, Laxmi Nilayam,
Flat No.306, Beside reddy womens college road,
Narayanaguda,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500029
AND

…Complainant

Vianna Homes Pvt. Ltd, represented by its Managing Partner, Shri. Anji Reddy
Annapureddy
Plot No. 3 & 53, Radhika Reddy Arcade,
Jayabheri Pine Valley, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad- 500032.
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein-above came up for
hearing on 11.09.2025 before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant, and the
Respondent’s Counsel AD Legal firm. Upon hearing the submissions of all the parties, this
Authority proceeds to pass 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 “Act”) read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case as per the Form M filed by the Complainant:
3.

It was submitted that the Complainants, after meeting the company directors, namely

Mr. Anji Reddy and Mr. Lenin Reddy, had purchased a unit in the Poojitha Tech Park Project
which had received HMDA and RERA approvals. It was further submitted that the said
directors had committed to completing the entire project by February 2024, including the grace
period.
4.

It was submitted that the company directors had insisted on making the total payment

upfront for construction activities rather than on a slab-wise basis and had executed the
1

---

It was further submitted that despite the expiry of the said period, possession of the

project has not been handed over till date, and the work at the project site has remained stalled
for the past two (2) years.
6.

It was also submitted that there has been no correspondence or assistance from the

representatives or team of Viana Homes. Several attempts were made to contact Mr. Anji
Reddy, but the same were unsuccessful.
7.

It was further submitted that the Complainants believe their funds to have been diverted

to other pre-launch projects, and that Mr. Anji Reddy had made false commitments regarding
possession on multiple occasions.
B. Reliefs Sought
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following relief(s):
i.

To investigate the reasons behind the delay in construction and provide a clear updated
timeline for the project’s completion. To take appropriate action to ensure that the
Respondent developer adheres to the commitments made under the Agreement of Sale.

ii.

To grant compensation of Rs. 100 per Sq. Ft. per month for the delay. Provide additional
compensation if the Respondent fails to complete the project as per the new timeline.

iii.

To investigate the diversion and utilization of funds collected from buyer. To appoint
Mr. Anji Reddy as the designated point of contact and direct the developer to provide
weekly progress updates on the project to all buyer.

C. Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent
9.

It was submitted by the Respondent that M/s. Viana Homes Private Limited is a

company incorporated in the year 2016 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013,
represented through its Managing Director, Mr. Anji Reddy Annapureddy, who is duly
authorized to act on its behalf.

2

---

It was further submitted by the Respondent that, in furtherance of its commercial

portfolio, it launched a commercial project titled “Poojitha Tech Park”, situated in Survey Nos.
89/A1 and 89/A2, Kokapet Village, Narsingi Municipality, Ranga Reddy District. In this
regard, an application dated 14.02.2020 was submitted before the Hyderabad Metropolitan
Development Authority (HMDA) seeking approval for construction of an IT Office Building
comprising 2 Cellars + Stilt + 11 Upper Floors over an extent of 9,069.22 sq.mts. It was
submitted that HMDA, vide communication dated 10.09.2020, confirmed that the proposal was
under process under Section 19 of the HMDA Act, 2008.
11.

It was further submitted that, after detailed scrutiny, the HMDA accorded technical

approval and issued a Commencement Certificate on 27.01.2021, permitting construction as
per the sanctioned plan.
12.

It was submitted that the Respondent subsequently applied for RERA registration under

the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. After due
verification, this Hon’ble Authority granted RERA Registration Certificate No. P02400002546
for the project “Poojitha Tech Park” on 15.02.2021.
13.

It was submitted that on 03.05.2021, the Board of Directors of the Respondent

Company passed a resolution authorizing Mr. Syamala Lenin Kumar Reddy, Manager (Sales),
to execute Sale Deeds, sign Agreements, issue Receipts, and undertake registration formalities
on behalf of the Company, including for the sale of Unit No. 25A on the 8th Floor admeasuring
500 sq. ft. in favour of Smt. P. Visalakshmi, W/o Sri Puligadda Suryanarayana Prasad.
14.

It was submitted that the Complainant became aware of the project only three months

after RERA registration and voluntarily approached the Respondent expressing interest in
investing in the said commercial project, based solely on the Respondent’s market reputation
and the statutory approvals available in the public domain.
15.

It was further submitted that a registered Sale Deed dated 24.04.2021 (Document No.

6774/2021) was executed between the parties, whereby the Complainant purchased Unit No.
19 & 20 on 8th Floor, having a total saleable area of 2000 sq. ft. (each unit 1000 square feet)
in the said project.
16.

It was submitted that the sale transaction was completed in good faith, and the total sale

consideration of ₹1,18,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighteen Lakhs Only) was received in slab-

3

---

It was further submitted that the Respondent and its representatives maintained

continuous communication with the Complainant and other allottees through regular email
updates, site photographs, and progress reports. It was asserted that there was no concealment
of facts or failure to engage.
18.

It was submitted that, despite transparency and cooperation from the Respondent, the

Complainant has approached this Hon’ble Authority with mala fide intent, suppressing material
facts, distorting the contractual position, and filing a vexatious and misleading complaint. It
was stated that the Complainant has not issued any legal notice nor invoked any prior grievance
mechanism. The Respondent submitted that the registered Sale Deed dated 24.04.2021
conclusively records the parties’ rights and obligations, rendering the present allegations
baseless and devoid of merit.
19.

It was further submitted that the Complainant’s assertion of a definitive commitment to

complete the project by February 2024, including a grace period, is misleading and baseless.
The RERA Registration Certificate (No. P02400002546) clearly provides validity from
15.02.2021 to 27.01.2027, which by itself disproves the Complainant’s contention. It was also
submitted that payments were milestone-based and not upfront, as alleged.
20.

It was submitted that the Agreement of Sale relied upon by the Complainant is an

unregistered document and hence does not constitute a binding contract. The registered Sale
Deed executed on 24.04.2021 is the only valid and enforceable document governing the
transaction, and it does not contain any clause specifying possession timelines as alleged.
Hence, the Complainant’s claims are contrary to record and devoid of legal merit.
21.

It was further submitted that the allegation of project work being stalled for two years

is factually incorrect and deliberately misleading. Reference was made to the communication
dated 20.06.2024, issued to all allottees including the Complainant, informing that the project
was targeted for completion within six months from that date with an additional grace period
of three months. The Respondent even committed to paying rent at 10% of market value in the
event of further delay. Regular photographic progress updates and reports were shared with all
allottees.

4

---

It was also submitted that the allegation of diversion of funds to other pre-launch

projects is baseless and defamatory. The Complainant has not produced any evidence to
support such a serious claim. The Respondent affirmed that all funds collected have been
utilized solely for the development of Poojitha Tech Park, and that no other pre-launch projects
exist.
23.

It was submitted that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief, as no cause of action

arises. The project is duly registered under RERA, and all monitoring powers rest with this
Hon’ble Authority under Sections 34(a) and (b) of the Act. Hence, any request for separate
investigation is unnecessary. The Respondent contended that the Complainant’s reliance on the
Agreement of Sale is untenable, as the registered Sale Deed is the binding document.
24.

It was further submitted that the claim for compensation at ₹100 per sq. ft. per month

is arbitrary, excessive, and not supported by Section 18(1)(b) of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016. The Respondent stated that, without prejudice, it is willing to
provide compensation strictly as per the Act and the Telangana RERA Rules, if so directed by
the Hon’ble Authority. It was also submitted that the claim for compensation is triable only by
the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71, and hence the present complaint is not maintainable
before this Authority in its current form.
25.

It was categorically submitted that the allegations of fund diversion and

misappropriation are false, baseless, and malicious. All investments and payments have been
duly accounted for and exclusively utilized for the project. The Respondent maintains
transparent, verifiable financial records and is ready to produce them if required by the Hon’ble
Authority. The request to appoint a specific individual for weekly updates was stated to be
impractical and beyond the scope of the RERA framework. However, the Respondent assured
that it continues to provide periodic project updates via official channels, including emails and
photographic progress reports.
D. Rejoinder Filed by the Complainant
26.

It was submitted by the Complainants that the Respondent had propagated and

marketed the project titled “Poojitha Tech Park”, in which the Complainants purchased a
commercial unit admeasuring 2000 sq. ft. (each unit 1000 square feet)., through a Registered
Sale Deed dated 24.04.2021, bearing Document No. 6774 of 2021. It was submitted that the
permissions and approvals obtained by the Respondent for the said project are borne out by
record.
5

---

It was further submitted by the Complainants that the Respondent had duly obtained all

necessary approvals and RERA registration prior to the sale, and that the Complainants had
purchased the unit only after verifying all such records. However, despite obtaining all
approvals and permissions in time, the Respondent has failed to complete and deliver the
project within the agreed timelines. It was submitted that even as per the Sale Deed, it is evident
that possession of the unit has not been delivered, and that the Complainants had purchased the
same based on the assurance given by the Respondent that the unit would be delivered by June
2023.
28.

It was submitted that the Complainants had a legitimate expectation that, upon

completion, the unit would yield rental income at the rate of ₹100 per sq. ft., similar to adjacent
buildings. However, due to the inordinate and unexplained delay caused by the Respondent,
the Complainants have been deprived of such returns. It was emphasized that the Respondent
has himself admitted that all approvals and RERA registration were completed in time, which
clearly establishes that the delay was not due to any technical or regulatory issue but solely
attributable to the Respondent’s inaction.
29.

It was further submitted that the Respondent had approached the Complainants through

regular marketing channels, offering attractive pricing and promises of assured returns, which
have not materialized due to the delay in handing over possession. It was also submitted that,
though the Respondent has shared email communications with the Complainants from time to
time, such communications contained false and misleading information regarding the project’s
progress and expected delivery dates. The actual construction status, visible even to the naked
eye, contradicts the Respondent’s representations, clearly indicating false commitments made
by the Respondent, which have resulted in financial loss to the Complainants.
30.

It was submitted that the Respondent has, in fact, admitted the delay both in the

Registered Sale Deed and in the Counter Affidavit, thereby leaving no doubt that the project
has not been completed or delivered within the stipulated timelines.
31.

It was finally submitted by the Complainants that the present complaint was filed to

seek an appropriate investigation into the causes of delay and to request this Hon’ble Authority
to award suitable compensation for the period of delay. It was further submitted that the
Respondent has failed to provide any satisfactory or justifiable explanation for the delay, and
hence the same must be treated as wilful and deliberate.
E. Points for Consideration
6

---

After considering the facts stated and submissions made by both the parties, the

following question rises before this Authority:
I.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

F. Observations of the Authority
33.

Upon a careful examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions placed on

record by both the parties, this Authority observes that the principal grievance of the
Complainant revolves around the alleged inordinate delay in completion and delivery of the
commercial unit purchased by her in the project titled “Poojitha Tech Park.” It is the case of
the Complainant that, despite assurances allegedly extended at the time of purchase and
notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent had obtained the requisite statutory approvals and
registration under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the project has not
been completed within the expected timeframe.
34.

The Respondent, however, has refuted the said allegations and has primarily relied upon

the registered Sale Deed to contend that no specific timeline for delivery of possession was
contractually agreed upon between the parties.
35.

With regard to the first relief sought by the Complainant, namely, a direction to

investigate the reasons for the alleged delay in construction and to fix a revised timeline for
completion of the project, this Authority notes that the project “Poojitha Tech Park” is duly
registered with this Authority and that the RERA Registration No. P02400002546 is valid up
to 27.01.2027, which is the declared and approved date of completion of the project. The said
registration continues to remain in force and has not yet expired.
36.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Authority is of the considered view that, as on date,

there exists no delay within the meaning of Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. The statutory period available to the Respondent for completion of
the project has not lapsed, and the promoter is legally entitled to complete the project within
the approved timeline as declared at the time of registration.
37.

Consequently, this Authority finds no justification at this stage to direct any inspection,

enquiry, or investigation into the alleged delay or to fix any revised timeline for completion.
Accordingly, the first relief sought by the Complainant is declined. However, this shall be
without prejudice to the Respondent’s continuing statutory obligation to complete the project

7

---

With respect to the second relief sought by the Complainant, namely, a claim for

compensation at the rate of ₹100/- per square foot per month for the alleged delay in completion
of the project and for additional compensation in the event of further delay, this Authority has
duly considered the rival submissions.
39.

The Complainant has contended that due to the Respondent’s failure to complete and

deliver the commercial unit within the timelines allegedly assured at the time of purchase, he
has suffered financial loss. It was submitted that repeated assurances regarding completion
were made by the Respondent, which did not materialise, thereby entitling the Complainant to
compensation for the alleged period of delay.
40.

Per contra, the Respondent has vehemently denied the entitlement of the Complainant

to any compensation. It was submitted that the registered Sale Deed dated 24.04.2021, which
governs the transaction between the parties, does not stipulate any specific date for delivery of
possession. It was further contended that the project continues to be validly registered up to
27.01.2027, and therefore, as on date, there is no delay attributable to the Respondent under
the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act. The Respondent also contended that the claim for
compensation at a fixed rate of ₹100/- per square foot per month is arbitrary, excessive, and
unsupported by the statutory framework, and that any such claim, if at all maintainable, falls
exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer.
41.

This Authority finds merit in the Respondent’s submission insofar as the issue of

jurisdiction is concerned. Under the statutory scheme of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016, claims relating to compensation, interest, or monetary loss arising
out of an alleged delay or breach are required to be adjudicated by the Adjudicating Officer in
terms of Section 71 of the RE(R&D) Act.
42.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the second relief sought by the Complainant, to

the extent it relates to the grant of compensation for the alleged delay, cannot be adjudicated
by this Authority. The Complainant is therefore at liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer
under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, if so advised,
for

adjudication

of

her

claim

for

compensation

in

accordance

with

law.

8

---

With regard to the third relief sought by the Complainant alleging fraud and diversion

of funds, this Authority has carefully examined the pleadings and submissions placed on
record.
44.

The Complainant has alleged that the Respondent diverted the amounts collected from

him and other allottees towards other pre-launch projects, thereby committing fraud. The
Respondent has categorically denied the said allegations and has asserted that all amounts
collected have been duly accounted for and utilised exclusively for the development of the
project “Poojitha Tech Park.”
45.

This Authority notes that the Complainant has failed to place on record any

documentary material or prima facie evidence in support of the serious allegations of fraud or
diversion of funds. No advertisements, marketing materials, booking documents, allotment
letters, agreements of sale, or financial statements have been produced to enable this Authority
to even prima facie examine the allegation of pre-launch activity or siphoning of funds. In the
absence of any such material, this Authority finds no basis to call for information from the
Respondent or to initiate any investigation on this aspect.
46.

In view of the above, this Authority holds that the allegation of fraud raised by the

Complainant cannot be examined or adjudicated in the present proceedings. The Complainant
is at liberty to approach the appropriate competent authority or forum, in accordance with law,
for redressal of such allegations.
47.

Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

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

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

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

9

---