Order Complaint No. 520 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.520 OF 2024
11th Day of November 2024
Corum:

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

Sri Sharath Chandupatla

…Complainant
Versus

M/s Buildox Private Limited

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
04.04.2024, 25.04.2024, 01.05.2024, 11.06.2024, 06.08.2024, 29.08.2024 and
10.09.2024 before this Authority in the presence of the Counsel for Complainant, Sri
Rohit Pogula, Sri Raghava Chary & Sri Lokesh Vanam and Counsel for Respondent,
Sri B. Vamshidhar Reddy, Sri K.S. Suneel & Sri Chanakya Basa and upon hearing
the arguments, 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 “Act”) read
with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate action against the
Respondent.

Brief facts on behalf of the Complainant:
3.

The Complainant stated that present complaint has been filed for bringing to

the notice of this Authority to take necessary action against the Respondent for
1 of 30

marketing and illegal sale of flats/ apartments for an alleged project named "The
Continent" in Kondapur/ Hafeezpet, Hyderabad, without necessary documents,
permissions and approvals from the appropriate authorities including Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (RERA).

4.

That the Complainant came across an advertisement on www.facebook.com

by a Facebook page of "Buildox". The advertisement was for sale of flats at Kondapur
by Buildox being offered in a pre-launch scheme at lower than market prices. Once
the link on the said facebook page is opened, a whatsapp chat is automatically
opened. That within 2 (two) hours, the Complainant received a message on WhatsApp
from one Mr. Kamal (+91 91828 55063) stating that he is from Buildox Sales Team
and shared the details of the project that is being constructed by Buildox at
Kondapur/ Hafeezpet, including tower plans, floor plans, etc. He has also sent a
message stating that they are offering a price of Rs. 4,699/- per sq ft inclusive of all
amenities and the offer expires in 2 weeks. He further stated that the location of
project is opposite to My Home Mangala in Kondapur and the name of the project is
"The Continent". He informed that the booking amount is Rs. 10 Lakhs and the
remaining balance amount for the complete flat is to be paid within one month.

5.

It was submitted by the Complainant that subsequently, on 06.02.2024, the

Complainant initially visited the site at Hafeezpet, which is opposite My Home
Mangala in Kondapur. Complainant was shown the land in which the project is going
to be built.

6.

The Complainant also went to their office located in Madhapur, where,

Complainant had met with another person one Mr. Damodara Prasad (+91 90301
99199). He has also given his visiting card as the Director of "Hexasky Infra Projects

2 of 30

Private Limited", who undertakes the sales of Buildox projects. He explained to the
Complainant that they shall give the possession of the flat in 2028 and that the offer
of Rs. 4,699/- per sq ft is only valid for the next one week and that the prices shall
increase afterwards. He persuaded the Complainant that this was the best price one
could get in the market right now. He also informed that he had already sold around
55 flats, a total extent of 1,00,000 sq ft as on first week of February. Further, that a
total number of around 4000 units are going to be constructed in the said project
with 3 BHKs with an extent of 1800 sft, 2100 sft and 2600 sft and 4 BHKs with 3500
sft. Together, the total extent of built-up area for this project is 1.35 crores sft.

7.

That during the negotiations, when Complainant had asked for a proof of

payment for the flat chosen by him, they sent the Complainant a receipt of another
customer with bearing SI No. 43 in the names of B Mallikarjun, D Pavan Kumar and
Pradeep Kumar, who allegedly have paid an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees
Fifteen Lakhs Only) on 02.02.2024 to the Respondent Company. They were allotted
Unit 08 in 16th Floor of Tower 2 which is a 3 BHK flat with an extent of 1800 sq ft.

8.

That after further negotiations, they agreed to offer the Complainant a flat at

Rs. 4,300/- per sq ft. Considering the offer and believing their words to be true, on
07.02.2024, Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Only) as a token amount via RTGS to the bank account No. 038205005677 IFSC
Code: ICIC0000382. Complainant promised them to send the rest of the token
amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- (out of total Rs. 10,00,000/- as token amount) within one
or two days. As an acknowledgement of receipt of the same, they have given the
Complainant a receipt mentioning the Unit 09 in 12th Floor of Tower 2, which is a 3
BHK flat with an extent of 2100 sq ft that is allotted to him in "The Continent
(Hafeezpet Project)".

3 of 30

9.

That subsequent to the payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, fortunately, before I could

pay the rest of the amounts, it was brought to my notice that the Respondent is
marketing and selling these flats without necessary approvals, permissions and title
to the land. Complainant came to know that the landlords of the said land shown by
the representatives of Buildox had not signed any sort of development agreement or
any agreement whatsoever with Buildox and then Complainant realised that he was
shown a piece of land in Kondapur/ Hafeezpet which does not belong to them. When
Complainant had further enquired and researched on internet, Complainant came
across articles where it was stated that Buildox does not have RERA registration or
approvals from appropriate authorities. Without the said approvals and registration,
they are marketing and selling flats to the public. Further, the news articles reveal
that the said land i.e. Survey No. 80 of Hafeezpet is within the purview of a pending
litigation before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

10.

It was submitted that, first, the Encumbrance Certificate, which was provided

by the representatives of Buildox does not confer any right on it. Second, despite
there being a status quo order on the said lands in Hafeezpet, Buildox is selling flats
and apartments by concealing the true facts and misleading the general public
regarding a land over which Buildox has no right whatsoever. The acts of Buildox are
clearly illegal and void, and amounts to fraud, cheating, criminal breach of trust, etc.

11.

It was further submitted that each and every act of Buildox Private Limited

grossly violates the provisions of Act, 2016. Each of their action, from advertising
and marketing on Facebook, inviting customers for sale of the property, offering to
sell the property without the RERA registration, are in gross violation of Section 3 of
said Act. They admit that they already sold certain flats and aiming to sell more in

4 of 30

the future. Therefore, their actions squarely fall under Section 3 of the RERA Act i.e.
they have advertised, marketed, booked, sold and offered to sell, invited persons to
purchase a plot in a real estate project without registering the project with the RERA
authority.

12.

It was also submitted that moreover, the plans shared by them are not

HMDA/HUDA approved. They have merely shared draft plans and they are yet to
obtain approval for building permissions, layout and master plans, floor plans, etc.
from appropriate authorities.

13.

It was also further brought to Complainant’s notice that, Buildox neither

purchased nor entered into a development agreement for the said land. Without
accruing any right in the property, Buildox is selling flats to the innocent public by
tricking them with deception and fraudulent statements and facts. Buildox does not
have any right whatsoever, even in the land, to build the said project and sell these
flats.

14.

Complainant submitted that, therefore, Buildox is illegally selling flats for a

non-existent project. Buildox (i) does not have any right over the land and (ii) did not
obtain any approvals, including HUDA, HMDA, RERA for the said project. Buildox is
selling a property in which it has no right whatsoever.

15.

The Complainant further brought to the attention of this Authority that it is

admitted on record that Buildox has already sold flats and apartments to the gullible
homebuyers who paid full amounts for the said flats and apartments. Buildox is
illegally taking money from these innocent homebuyers who spend their hard-earned
money on investing and purchasing their home. As such, Complainant fears that

5 of 30

this is a big scam which needs to unearthed and a detailed investigation is necessary
so that the persons behind the said scam are rightfully punished.

16.

In support of his contention, he submitted a recording of the conversation

during the negotiation to prove that this was in fact, issued by the representatives of
the Respondent. A transcript of the conversation between Complainant, his uncle
Mr. Damodara Prasad and Mr. Kamal was also produced along with an application
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.

17.

It was further submitted that in Complaint No. 1626 of 2023, wherein this

Authority has initiated suo-moto action against the Respondent for sale of flats at
Hafeezpet/ Kondapur, the Complainant herein had produced all the evidences with
respect to Facebook advertisement, WhatsApp chats and project plans. In response
to the facebook advertisement, the Respondent replied stating that the advertisement
is not authorised by them and that that a complaint has been lodged with Facebook
regarding the same. Further, it stated that the authorised signatory on the receipt
produced by the Complainant is a forged one and was trying to implicate one Mr
Johnson (with whom the Complainant has no acquaintance with) and making
alleging against the BRS Party. Complainant submitted that it is nefarious that the
Respondent is trying to project its statutory violation as a political issue by casually
naming political parties in its reply. Respondent clearly intends to play the blame
game but not address the issue at hand. In fact, the reply issued by the Respondent
does not even deny receiving the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Complainant.
There is no justification as to why the Respondent has received such an amount.

18.

Complainant vehemently denied that these documents are fabricated in any

manner as the said receipts are issued with the seal and authorised signatory of

6 of 30

Buildox Private Limited. That the Respondent is merely trying to deflect the blame as
there is no other argument that it can make considering the evidence submitted is
as clear as day.

19.

It was submitted that the Respondent further makes claims that the Facebook

page named "BUILDOX" was created on 01.02.2024 and that the said advertisement
was initiated without the authorisation of Buildox Private Limited. However, when
the advertisement was clicked on, it was redirected to a WhatsApp chat with Mr
Kamal's phone number. In fact, the page is still active till date and redirection to Mr
Kamal also subsists.

20.

Further, if the claims of the Respondent that the Facebook advertisement is

not authorised by them and that a complaint has been lodged with Facebook
regarding the same are believed to be true, no evidence has been filed till date or with
the reply to prove that such a complaint has been lodged. In fact, the advertisement
redirects to WhatsApp chat even today and no action has been taken or initiated.
Buildox failed to provide any evidence to the effect that action has been initiated
against the alleged perpetrators who created the Facebook page or the person it is
being redirected to.

21.

It was also submitted that Buildox utterly failed to refute the allegations and

establish its case. It is clear that Buildox is only trying deflect the issue by giving
amateur reasons like impersonation of Facebook page and counterfeit of its
authorised signatory stamp and signatures on its receipts. There is absolutely no
whisper about the money it has received in its account, either accepting or refuting
it.

7 of 30

22.

That Buildox has entirely failed to prove as to how it is not involved marketing

or selling the flats for the project of "The Continent" located at Kondapur/ Hafeezpet.
Hence, necessary action is required to be taken against the Respondent as per the
provisions of law, more particularly, by blacklisting the Respondent and the
responsible persons i.e. Directors not to undertake any projects in the future.

23.

It was further submitted that the Respondent claims that the amounts have

been returned. While this statement is completely false, and that refund of the
amount does not discharge the Respondent of its culpability and their liability under
relevant laws, more particularly Act, 2016.

Reliefs Sought:
24.

The complainant, accordingly, sought for appropriate action against the

Respondent including blacklisting the Respondent Company from future projects
and protect the interests of the innocent homebuyers and interim measures to
investigate the extent of the alleged fraud.

Interim Orders issued by the Authority:
25.

When the matter was called for hearing on 04.04.2024, this Authority, for the

reasons stated in the Order dated 04.04.2024, issued interim directions to the
Respondent as follows:
i.

Respondent is directed to submit the bank account statements of Respondent,
its group companies and entities, more particularly A/c Number account No.
038205005677 IFSC Code: ICIC0000382 within 7 (seven) days with a copy
supplied to the Complainant; and

ii.

The Respondent is restrained from marketing/advertising/selling or any such
act in violation of the provisions of this Act in the proposed Project situated at

8 of 30

Hafeezpet and deactivate the Facebook advertisement till the final disposal
of this matter.

26.

The Interim Order also stated that failure of Respondent to comply with the

directions of the Authority shall attract penalty under Section 63 of the Act, 2016.

Reply on behalf of the Respondent:
27.

Vide affidavit dated 25.04.2024, the Respondent Company filed its detailed

reply and submitted that an unknown person has impersonated and amended a fake
Facebook page named "BULDOX" on 1st February 2024. That prior to it, the said
page was named as THE WORLD OF JOY, initially created on 17th of July 2023
which in return renamed as BUILDOX which is published. That, however, this page
was not initiated or authorized by the Respondent Company. Said facebook page the
advertisement showing alleged sale of flats/apartments was liked by one Mr. Ravi
Prasad Yelishala and except the said person there are no likes to the said
advertisement. The Respondent Company has no project named "The Continent",
situated at Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet, Hyderabad, Telangana. Further the Respondent
Company has no nexus with Mr. Kamal or Mr. Damodara Prasad and they are neither
the employees nor representatives of the Respondent Company.

28.

That upon discovering this fraudulent activity, the Respondent Company

promptly lodged a complaint with M/s. Facebook to report the unauthorized creation
of the page and thereafter filed a cyber-complaint with the police vide
acknowledgement 23704240015742 and the investigation is pending. From the
timeline of events and from the creation of the Facebook page, post to filing of the
complaint, clearly indicates a premeditated conspiracy against the Respondent
Company. The Respondent Company has no knowledge about the Complainant and

9 of 30

deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) made by the Complainant in the
account of the Respondent Company for the alleged project, as they was no
consensus. That however, the Respondent Company has tried to send Rs. 2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) to the bank account from which the amount was received,
but however the same couldn't go through as the Complainant has blocked the
transactions to said account.

29.

It was submitted that the fact that the Complainant has not issued a letter or

legal notice addressing for return of Rs.2.00.000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) but has
chosen to file the present complaint seeking to blacklist Respondent Company from
undertaking any projects in the future without seeking return of Rs.2.00.000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) only goes long way to show that the present complaint is
filed with an ulterior motive to tarnish the reputation the Respondent Company.

30.

It was denied by the Respondent Company that the alleged page redirected

the complainant to a WhatsApp chat with +91 91282 55063 wherein he could send
a message to the Buildox Team. Further denied that the Complainant within 2 hours
received a message on WhatsApp from one Mr. Kamal stating that he is from Buildox
Sales Teams who shared the details of the project being constructed by Buildox at
Kondapur/Hafeezpet. It was alleged that Mr. Kamal has sent a message to the
Complainant stating that they are offering a price of Rs. 4,699/- per sft inclusive of
all amenities and the offer expires in 2 weeks. It was submitted that the said facebook
page was not authorized by the Respondent Company and there were no projects
taken up by the Respondent Company in the Hafeezpet, Hyderabad. The Respondent
Company has no knowledge about the person by name Mr. Kamal.

10 of 30

31.

It was further submitted that the Respondent Company has no knowledge

about the person Mr. Damodar Prasad who is the director of "Hexasky Infra Projects
Private Limited" and is undertaking the sales of Buildox Projects. The said Mr.
Damodar Prasad met the Complainant and explained that the possession of the flat
will be given to Complainant in 2028 and the offer of Rs. 4,699/- per sft is only valid
for the next one week is false and concocted story.

32.

It was submitted that the receipts bearing Sl. No. 43 in the names of B.

Mallikarjun, D. Pravan Kumar and Pradeep Kumar, who paid an amount of
Rs.15,00,000/- on 02.02.2024 to Buildox are forged and fabricated and the stamps
and seals do not belong to the Respondent Company. That despite the Respondent
Company’s efforts to contact the individuals associated with these receipts, they
remain untraceable. Moreover, the stamps bearing the name the Respondent
Company is counterfeit, and the signatures do not belong to any authorized
representatives of the Respondent Company.

33.

It was submitted that the Complainant with a mala fide intention deposited

an amount of Rs. 2,00.000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) on 07.02.2024 in the account
bearing No. 038205005677 belonging to the Respondent Company. The Respondent
Company has tried to send Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) to the bank
account from which the amount was received, but however the same couldn't go
through as the Complainant has blocked the transactions to said account.

34.

It was specifically submitted on behalf of the Respondent that Mr. Kamal or

Mr.Damodara Prasad are not made as respondents on whose instructions the
Complaint has transferred an amount Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only)
further shows that the Complainant in collusion with the above persons have

11 of 30

orchestrated the present complaint with an ulterior motive at the behest of the
politically influential persons in order to tarnish the reputation of the Respondent
Company and for wrongful gains and extort money from the Respondent Company.

35.

It was also submitted that the Respondent Company does not have any land

parcels/any agreements with anyone, nor do they have any DAGPAs to execute a
project in Sy.No.80 at Hafeezpet, Hyderabad. The Respondent Company has
conducted a thorough inquiry into the matter and the investigation revealed that the
entire transaction was orchestrated by one Mr. Johnson, the owner of REAL ESTATE
GURU, and a reputed Builder belonging to BRS Party. Their intent was to fabricate
a situation to entangle the Respondent Company which was welcoming the new
government under RERA regulations and the Respondent Company emphasized
currently it has no ongoing real estate projects and is merely conducting market
surveys following recent governmental changes in Telangana.

36.

It was submitted that the contention that there being a status quo order on

the said lands in Hafeezpet, Buildox is selling flats and apartments by concealing
true facts and misleading the general public regarding a land over which Buildox has
no right whatsoever is absolutely false and baseless. That except the complainant
there is no complaint against the Respondent Company with regard to the present
subject matter lodged by any person or third parties before any authority or court.

37.

It was submitted that the Respondent Company has not violated any of the

provisions of the Act, 2016. The contention that the advertising, marketing on
facebook, inviting customers for sale of the property, offering to sell the property
without the RERA registration and admitting of sale of flats by the Respondent
Company is false and untrue. That the Respondent Company is in the business real

12 of 30

estate and the bank account numbers are with numerous individuals and are not a
private information and it is not known to the Respondent Company as to why the
Complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only)
in the account of the respondent company till the issuance of show cause notice.

38.

It was submitted that the Respondent Company is willing to return the

amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) deposited in the account of the
Respondent Company in the form of DD vide No. 509956 dt. 19.04.2024 in favour of
the Complainant.

39.

Accordingly, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary

costs of Rs.10 lakhs by vacating the interim orders dated 04.04.2024 plus all legal
expenses incurred.

Rejoinder on behalf of the Complainant:
40.

Vide Rejoinder affidavit dated 06.08.2024, the Complainant submitted that

the Respondent is conveniently disowning the Facebook page and its representatives
Mr.Damodara Prasad and Mr. Kamal. Moreover, the complaint was given to Facebook
only and not to any Law Enforcement Agencies. Assuming without admitting that
what the Respondent claims is to be true, a mere Facebook complaint would not
suffice, as it would amount to forgery and impersonation serious offences for which,
any prudent person would have complained to Law Enforcement Agencies. Instead,
the Respondent merely complained to Facebook, which has no consequences
whatsoever, to concoct a story and nothing else.

41.

Complainant submitted that it has filed a police complaint registered as FIR

No. 563 of 2024 dated 18.05.2024 against the Directors of the Respondent Company

13 of 30

i.e. Mr. Kaleshwar Vasgi, Mr. Sudhir Chanda, Mr. Kaukuntla Rithvik, Mr. Damodara
Prasad and Mr. Kamal and that the same is under investigation.

42.

It was submitted that regarding the caution notice published in the

newspaper, the Respondent conveniently again addressed that the Facebook page
does not belong to them. Complainant submitted, that, If what the Respondent states
is true regarding the fact that Mr. Damodara Prasad and Mr. Kamal are acting on
their own accord, the Respondent conveniently did not whisper a word about them
in the newspaper caution notice, stating that certain persons are selling flats in the
Respondent's name, without their authorisation. The sole reason for the same is that,
if the Respondent actually made such a statement, it would panic the homebuyers
who already bought the flats from them and would effect their sales. Therefore, the
Respondent did not whisper a word about their sales but merely restricted to the
Facebook page and nothing else.

43.

It was submitted that Mr. Damodara Prasad is acting at the behest of the

Respondent Company. If the Respondent truly denies any relation to the receipts and
alleges a fabrication, the Respondent fails to justify as to why no criminal complaint
with appropriate Law Enforcement Agencies has been filed against Mr. Damodara
Prasad and Mr. Kamal. The fact that no action was initiated against them shows
that, in fact Mr. Damodara Prasad and Mr. Kamal are working for the Respondent
Company. Hence, that is the only logical conclusion as to why no formal complaint
has been lodged with the Law Enforcement Agencies. Therefore, it is clear that the
Respondent Company is merely disowning such persons on paper but no action has
been taken, evincing that Respondent Company is, in fact behind the sales made by
Mr. Damodara Prasad and Mr. Kamal.

14 of 30

44.

The Complainant denied that there any influential persons behind this

complaint and that he does not know of any person with the name Mr. Johnson. The
Respondent Company merely wants to politicise this complaint, when there is no
such involvement by anyone, with a sole and mala fide intention to distract this
Authority and nothing else.

45.

It was submitted that if the Respondent Company is clean and no secrets to

with regards to the sales being made, the Respondent Company fails to justify their
action of not complying with the order of this Authority to produce their bank account
statements to prove otherwise. The act of the Respondent Company in not complying
with the order dated 04.04.2024, wherein the Respondent Company was directed to
produce the bank account statements. This act alone shows that the Respondent
Company does not want to divulge information regarding their bank account
transactions, as it would show the other transactions that took place. If what the
Respondent Company is saying is true, there is no harm in complying with the order
dated 04.04.2024. Therefore, the Respondent Company is, in fact, liable for violation
of Act, 2016.

46.

With respect to blocking of account, the Complainant submitted that blocking

one's bank account is no crime. Further, the intention of the Respondent Company's
to return the amount to Complainant’s bank account is solely to ensure that his
locus standi in the instant case is weakened. When the transaction took place on
07.02.2024, the Respondent Company did not try to make any contact with the
Complainant or return the amount until March end, when this Authority was about
to pass an order in Complaint No. 1626 of 2023 and after filing the instant complaint.
The Respondent Company, when realising that this Authority is ready to pass an
adverse order against them in Complaint No. 1626 of 2023 and that a separate

15 of 30

complaint has been lodged, tried to return the money to the Complainant’s bank
account.

47.

It was also added that none of the homebuyers approaching this Authority is

not a testament to the Respondent Company's violations, when there are proofs
clearly showing that they are selling flats.

Submissions made during the hearing:
Complainant’s submissions
48.

The Complainant primarily submitted that the instant complaint is filed by

the Complainant requesting the Authority to take necessary action against Buildox
for marketing and illegal sale of flats/ apartments for an alleged project named "The
Continent" in Kondapur/ Hafeezpet, Hyderabad, without necessary documents,
permissions and approvals from the appropriate authorities including Real Estate
Regulatory Authority (RERA).

49.

It was reiterated that Respondent had marketed their project by the name 'The

Continent' on various social media pages and the Complainant, after meeting Mr.
Damodara Prasad (+91 90301 99199) and Mr. Kamal (+91 91828 55063). The
Respondent's representatives shared the details of the project that is being
constructed by Buildox at Kondapur/ Hafeezpet, including tower plans, floor plans,
etc. He has also sent me a message stating that they are offering a price of Rs. 4,699/per sq ft inclusive of all amenities and the offer expires in 2 weeks.

50.

That, during the negotiations, when the Complainant had asked for a proof of

payment format that the Respondent is going to issue, they sent him a receipt of

16 of 30

another customer with bearing SI No. 43 in the names of B Mallikarjun, D Pavan
Kumar and Pradeep Kumar, who allegedly have paid an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/on 02.02.2024 to Buildox. They were allotted Unit 08 in 16th Floor of Tower 2 which
is a 3 BHK flat with an extent of 1800 sq ft.

51.

That after further negotiations, they agreed to offer me a flat at Rs. 4,300/-

per sq ft. Considering the offer and believing their words to be true, on 07.02.2024,
Complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) as a token
amount via RTGS to the bank account No. 038205005677 IFSC Code: ICIC0000382.
As an acknowledgement of receipt of the same, they have given me a receipt
mentioning the tower and flat that is allotted to me in "The Continent (Hafeezpet
Project)". I was allotted Unit 09 in 12th Floor of Tower - 2, which is a 3 BHK flat with
an extent of 2100 sq ft. The Respondent representatives had also mentioned the
transaction details on the receipt after confirming the receipt of the payment.

52.

That, however, after making the payment of the token advance amount, it has

come to the knowledge of the Complainant that the Respondent is selling the flats
without registration of this Authority. Further, the plans shared by them are not
HMDA/HUDA approved. They have merely shared draft plans and they are yet to
obtain approval for building permissions, layout and master plans, floor plans, etc.
from appropriate authorities. It was also learnt that Respondent neither purchased
nor entered into a development agreement for the said land. Without accruing any
right in the property, Buildox is selling flats to the innocent public by tricking them
with deception and fraudulent statements and facts. Buildox does not have any right
whatsoever, even in the land, to build the said project and sell these flats.

17 of 30

53.

That therefore, Buildox is illegally selling flats for a non-existent project.

Buildox (i) does not have any right over the land and (ii) did not obtain any approvals,
including HUDA, HMDA, RERA for the said project. Buildox is selling a property in
which it has no right whatsoever.

54.

On filing of the instant complaint, this Authority was pleased to pass an

interim order dated 04.04.2024 directing the Respondent to submit the bank account
statements of Respondent, its group companies and entities, more particularly A/c
Number account No. 038205005677 IFSC Code: ICIC0000382 within 7 (seven) days
with a copy supplied to the Complainant and restrained the Respondent from
marketing/advertising/selling or any such act in violation of the provisions of this
Act in the proposed Project situated at Hafeezpet and deactivate the Facebook
advertisement till the final disposal of this matter. However, the Respondent till date
did not take any steps whatsoever to comply with the interim directions of this
Authority.

55.

It was submitted that Respondent failed to comply with the interim directions

to produce the bank account statements and outrightly, without any reason, and
refuses to submit the same. That if the Respondent is clean, there is no reason for
them to not produce the bank accounts before this Authority. That in every
subsequent hearing, despite the insistence of this Authority to submit the bank
account statements, the Respondent does not provide any justification, let alone
valid justification, to furnish such details. This clearly shows their mala fide intention
to hide the transactions that they undertook and do not wish to disclose the same to
the Authority.

18 of 30

56.

That, the Complaint vide Memo dated 29.08.2024 intimated this Authority of

the acts of the Respondent in trying to threaten the Complainant for approaching
this Authority. That, the Respondent is indulging in forum shopping by approaching
the Banjara Hills Police Station and after that, Jubilee Hills Police Station making
complaints against the Complainant with an intention to threaten and harass the
Complainant to ensure that the Complainant settles the matter.

57.

That, since the police authorities are refusing to furnish a copy of the

complaint submitted by the Respondent, the Complainant had attached copies of the
screenshots of the conversation of the respective officers of the police stations on
WhatsApp.

58.

That the Respondent in their counter alleges that they tried to refund the

amount paid by the Complaint back to the bank account without the consent of the
Complainant. It is submitted that, this was done only after the Complainant
intimated this Authority regarding the violations and fraudulent activities being
committed by the Respondent.

59.

That the refund of money that the Respondent intended to do was much after

the complainant approached this Authority. Clearly, the intention of the Respondent
is to ensure that locus standi of the Complainant is weakened, as the Complainant
does not stand any locus before this Authority upon receipt of the said amounts.

60.

Further, that the Respondent argues that Complainant blocked his bank

account intentionally, when they tried to refund the amounts. It was blocked only
when the bank authorities called the Complainant regarding the reversal of
transaction and that they are trying to refund the amount to weaken the locus standi.

19 of 30

61.

That it is well within the rights of the Complainant to operate his bank account

according to his wish. The Respondent is projecting such act as a mala fide act. In
fact, it was only done to ensure that the Respondent does not reverse the transaction
and the Complainant loses the locus before this Authority. Further, it is the
complainant's right to block or unblock his account and it does not amount to any
crime.

62.

It was further submitted that the Respondent argues that they do not know

who Mr. Damodara Prasad or Mr. Kamal are, the persons who had communicated
with the Complainant. Even though the Respondent argues that there is no
connection between the persons the Complainant had interacted with, the
Respondent failed to file any complaints against them. Especially, if the said fact is
true, the acts of Mr. Damodara Prasad and Mr. Kamal amount to counterfeit,
impersonation and very serious offences, as they are using their brand, seal and
signature. That, since no action has been taken by the Respondent against the said
persons, it is clear that Respondent is liable for the statutory violation.

63.

Therefore, considering the conduct of the Respondent in blatant disregard of

law by selling the flats without RERA registration, blatant disregard to the orders of
the Authority, threatening and harassing the aggrieved homebuyers, warrant a
severe action. As such, it is prayed that this Authority may be pleased to blacklist
the Respondent from undertaking any construction activities in future.

Respondent’s submissions
64.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that the specific plea of the complainant

is that he has come across an advertisement for sale of flats at Kondapur on

20 of 30

www.facebook.com by a facebook page named "Buildox", for the project named "The
Continent", situated at Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet. Hyderabad, Telangana and upon
clicking the advertisement link he was redirected to Whatsapp Chat wherein he had
a discussion with one Mr. Kamal who mentioned that he is from Buildox Sales Team
and thereafter he met another person named Mr.Damodara Prasad, Director of
"Hexasky Infra projects private Limited" who mentioned that the undertakes the sales
of Buildox Projects. That believing the same the complainant has paid an amount of
Rs. 2,00,000/- as token amount via RTGS to the bank account No. 038205005677
belonging to the respondent. The said allegations are absolutely false, untrue and
created only for the purpose of harassing the Respondent in one way or other.

65.

That, the true facts are that an unknown person has impersonated and

amended a fake Facebook page named "BULDOX" on 1st February 2024. Prior to it,
the said page was named as THE WORLD OF JOY, initially created on 17th of July
2023 which in return renamed as BUILDOX which is published. However, this page
was not initiated or authorized by the respondent company. That in the said facebook
page the advertisement showing alleged sale of flats/apartments was liked by one
Mr. Ravi Prasad Yelishala and except the said person there are no likes to the said
advertisement. The respondent company has no project named "The Continent",
situated at Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet. Hyderabad, Telangana. Further the Respondent
company has no nexus with Mr. Kamal or Mr. Damodara Prasad and they are neither
the employees nor representatives of the Respondent Company. Upon discovering
this fraudulent activity, the Respondent Company promptly lodged a complaint with
M/s. Facebook to report the unauthorized creation of the page and thereafter filed a
cyber-complaint

dt.

15.04.2024

with

the

police

vide

acknowledgement

23704240015742 and the investigation is pending.

21 of 30

66.

It was added that it is evident that these actions are orchestrated by malicious

entities aiming to tarnish the reputation of the Respondent Company. From the
timeline of events and from the creation of the Facebook page, post to filing of the
complaint, clearly indicates a premeditated conspiracy against the Respondent
Company. The Respondent Company has no knowledge about the complainant and
deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by the complainant in the account of the respondent
company for the alleged project, as they was no consensus. However, the Respondent
Company has tried to send Rs. 2,00,000/- to the bank account from which the
amount was received, but however the same couldn't go through as the Complainant
had blocked the transactions to said account.

67.

The fact that the complainant has not issued a letter or legal notice addressing

for return of Rs,2,00,000/- but has chosen to file the present complaint seeking to
blacklist Respondent company from undertaking any projects in the future without
seeking return of Rs.2,00,000/- only goes long way to show that the present
complaint is filed with an ulterior motive to tarnish the reputation the Respondent
Company. Further, from the transcripts of the call record filed by the complainant,
it is clear that he transferred the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- after confirming with Mr.
Kamal or Mr. Damodara Prasad that no approvals have been obtained and the same
shall take at least 8 months. Therefore, this further shows that the Complainant has
knowingly transferred the said amount with an ulterior motive in the alleged project
which doesn't have any approvals by his own versions. The fact that Mr. Kamal or
Mr. Damodara Prasad are not made as respondents on whose instructions the
Complaint has transferred an amount Rs.2,00,000/- further shows that the
complainant in collusion with the above persons have orchestrated the present
complaint with an ulterior motive at the behest of the politically influential persons

22 of 30

in order to tarnish the reputation of the respondent company and for wrongful gains
and extort money from the Respondent Company.

68.

That due to the adverse media publicity by the Complainant on the respondent

company the reputation of the Respondent Company is tarnished. That despite
multiple media reports not even one individual has approached the Hon'ble authority
or any court with similar grievance which clearly shows that this is a single and
isolated complaint against the respondent company filed by the complainant with
wrongful intention and with unclean hands.

69.

That the Complaint has failed to do proper due diligence to check if there is

any land belonging to Respondent company situated at Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet,
Hyderabad, Telangana before entering into any transaction. The Complainant failed
to check if the Mr. Kamal or Mr. Damodara Prasad belonged to Respondent Company
or were authorized by way of board resolution u/s 21 of the Companies Act by the
Respondent Company before entering into any transaction. That the receipts
numbered 043 and 061 both dated in February 2024 are fraudulent receipts and the
stamps bearing the name the Respondent is counterfeit, and the signatures do not
belong to any authorized representatives of the Respondent Company.

70.

That therefore, the Complaint cannot hold the Respondent No.1 company

liable for violation under the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 2016 when
the Respondent company themselves are a victim of cyber phishing, civil and
criminal defamation etc. at the hands of Complaint who is acting at the behest of
politically influenced individuals.

23 of 30

71.

Therefore, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the above complaint with an

exemplary cost of Rs. 10 lakhs plus all legal expenses incurred in the interest of
justice.

Points for consideration:
72.

In consideration of the rival contentions made by both the parties and the

documents submitted thereby, following points arise for consideration by this
Authority:
I.

Whether the Respondent is in violation of any provisions of the Act, 2016
or the Rules thereunder? If yes, to what extent?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to grant of its relief as prayed for? If
yes, to what extent?

Point I
73.

The Complainant’s main contention is that the Respondent, without any

approvals and permissions and, more particularly, registration from this Authority,
in abject violation of Sections 3 and 4, with the sole intention to deceive innocent
homebuyers, is promoting the sale of a Project titled “the Continent” situated at
Sy.No.80 of Hafeezpet, Hyderabad, Telangana. He also submitted that the
Respondent is marketing the sale of flats through its executives who contacted the
Complainant through facebook and whatsapp, through Mr. Kamal & Mr. Damodara
Prasad and accordingly prayed to blacklist the Respondent for violation of Sections
3 and 4 and for cheating the innocent homebuyers. He asserts that he paid
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) as advance booking amount which was duly
received by Respondent Company and that similarly several allottees have been
affected by the Respondent’s cheating tactics.

24 of 30

74.

Per contra, the Respondent denies the existence of any such facebook page

belonging to the Respondent and the subsequent whatsapp chat with the individuals,
Mr. Kamal & Mr. Damodara Prasad do not belong to the Respondent Company. He
asserted that he has duly filed complaint with facebook as well as with the cyber
police and also gave a newspaper publication warning people of the impersonation
of its company and the said complaints have been filed on record.

75.

The Respondent also categorically submitted that the amounts were also

received by the Respondent Company however, as the Respondent Company is in the
business real estate and the bank account numbers are with numerous individuals
and are not a private information and it is not known to the Respondent Company
as to why the Complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
Lakhs Only) in the account of the respondent company till the issuance of show
cause notice. This contention, however, is overly vague and devoid of substantiating
evidence. The mere receipt of funds by the Respondent is sufficient to establish that
it has, in fact, accepted deposits in relation to the project, without having obtained
the requisite registration with this Authority, thereby constituting a contravention of
Section 3 which reads as under:
“No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite
persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case
may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without
registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority
established under this Act.”

76.

Respondent also categorically denied the existence of any such project being

“The Continent” situated at Survey No.80, Hafeezpet, Hyderabad, Telangana being
promoted by it and stated that the land does not belong to him and the project was

25 of 30

never promoted by it or its executives. However, the Respondent has not provided
any justification for the receipt of funds into its business account, particularly given
the lack of any advertising or promotional activities related to the alleged project by
the Respondent Company. The burden of proof rests squarely upon the Respondent
to establish the grounds and rationale for the receipt of funds into its business
account. However, no evidence or documentation has been submitted before this
Authority to clarify the purpose or legitimacy of these transactions. This omission
underscores the Respondent’s mala fides in the matter, as the lack of substantiation
fails to dispel the presumption of wrongful conduct.

77.

This Authority bears the responsibility of safeguarding the rights, interests,

and welfare of allottees, who are presumed to be vulnerable to the actions of
promoters. In instances of such blatant disregard for statutory provisions, this
Authority must intervene to protect the rights of current and prospective allottees,
thereby preventing potential financial harm. This case exemplifies such a situation,
where the Respondent has acknowledged receipt of funds but has failed to provide
any credible or satisfactory justification for these deposits. By admitting to receiving
these amounts, the Respondent has effectively demonstrated a violation of Section
3, proceeding with the marketing and sale of flats in the project without securing the
requisite approvals and permissions.

78.

Respondent blames the Complainant of having political intentions of accusing

the Respondent and that the very filing of this Complaint is a conspiracy against the
Respondent, and whereas the Complainant denies such intentions and submits that
amounts were admittedly received by the Respondent Company. This Authority is
not inclined to investigate into the personal feud amongst the Complainant and the
Respondent. The paramount consideration is whether the Respondent’s actions

26 of 30

constitute a violation impacting the rights of innocent homebuyers. If such a violation
is established, it is imperative to determine the appropriate measures this Authority
may undertake to address and rectify any harm caused to protect the interests of
affected homebuyers.

79.

In order to examine the deposits received by the Respondent, this Authority

issued interim order dated 04.04.2024, directing the Respondent to submit its bank
account statement. However, the Respondent has failed to bring no valid cause as to
why such directions were not complied with. The Respondent merely filed its reply
bringing on record the complaints filed before facebook and the cyber crime
authorities and no substantial reason as to why the interim directions were not
complied with. If at all the Respondent filed it's bank account statements as directed
in the interim order the same would have revealed whether the promoter has received
funds from the gullible allottees or not. However, despite repeated opportunities, the
promoter has failed to comply with this directive, indicating potential malfeasance
on their part thereby affecting the rights and interests of the allottees. Therefore, in
accordance with Section 63 of the Act, 2016, this Authority deems it fit to impose
penalty on the Respondent for not complying with directions of the Authority for no
valid or substantial reason.

80.

Considering the above, contentions of the Complainant and the Respondent,

this Authority is of the considered view that the Respondent is in violation of Sections
3 and 4. After due consideration thereof, this Authority, in Complaint No.1626/2023
imposed penalty of Rs.3,96,39,600/- (Rupees Three Crores Ninety-Six Lakhs ThirtyNine Thousand and Six Hundred Only), however an appeal has been preferred by

the Respondent against the said order which is pending consideration but no
stay on the order is granted as on today.

27 of 30

81.

Point I is answered accordingly.

Point II
82.

The Complainant has sought the blacklisting of the Respondent from

future projects to protect the interests of innocent homebuyers. However, such a
remedy is severe and disproportionate to the Respondent’s offense in this matter.
Accordingly, this Authority directs the Respondent to adhere strictly to the due
process of law as stipulated under the Act, 2016, and comply with all ancillary
regulations as prescribed by relevant authorities. Should the Respondent engage
in advertising, marketing, booking, selling, offering for sale, or soliciting
purchases for any plot, flat, or apartment without obtaining the necessary
permissions and registration, this Authority will impose stringent penalties in
line with Sections 59 and 60 of the Act, 2016.

83.

Furthermore, this Authority reserves the right to impose additional

measures, including the potential blacklisting of the Respondent or any other
actions deemed appropriate, to safeguard the rights and interests of innocent
homebuyers. Such actions may include issuing a public notice to inform potential
buyers of the Respondent's non-compliance, as well as initiating suo-moto legal
proceedings to hold the Respondent accountable for any violations. The Authority
will take a proactive stance to ensure that the integrity of the real estate market
is upheld, thereby protecting homebuyers from fraudulent practices and
ensuring that their investments are secure. These measures will be implemented
to prevent further harm to prospective purchasers and to reinforce the obligation
of all promoters to adhere to statutory requirements and ethical standards in
their business practices.

28 of 30

84.

Furthermore, with regard to the amount remitted by the Complainant, this

Authority holds that the Complainant was entitled, and indeed obligated, to
review all pertinent documents prior to making any allotment or payment to the
Respondent. In accordance with Section 19(1), the Complainant bore the duty to
ascertain the accuracy of project details and confirm its registration under the
provisions of the Act, 2016 before engaging in any transaction. Given the
Complainant’s failure to fulfil this duty, having paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) without due verification, he shall only be entitled to a
refund of the amount paid, without interest.

85.

This Authority further observes that the Respondent had previously made

attempts to refund the amount, but the Complainant, without providing a valid
explanation, remitted the amount back into the Respondent's account.
Nevertheless, given this Authority's limited mandate to intervene in personal
disputes between the Complainant and the Respondent, it is hereby determined
that the Respondent remains liable to refund the amount paid by the
Complainant.

Directions
86.

i.

In consideration thereof, this Authority issues the following directions:
In accordance with the discussion in paragraphs 73 to 80, this Authority is

hereby imposing penalty of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty
Thousand Only) vide its powers under Section 63 of the Act, 2016 for noncompliance of interim directions of the Authority in Order dated
04.04.2024, payable by the Respondent within 30 (thirty) days in favour of

29 of 30

TG RERA FUNDS through Demand Draft or online payment to A/c
No.50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036; and,
ii.

The Respondent is also hereby directed to refund the amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) paid by the Complainant within a
period of 15 (fifteen) days, failing which appropriate action under Section
63 of the Act, 2016 will be initiated against M/s Buildox Pvt. Ltd. i.e., the
Respondent herein.

87.

The Complaint is hereby disposed of. 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

30 of 30