Order Complaint No. 572 of 2022

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.572 OF 2022
19th Day of October, 2023
Corum:

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

Sri Mohammad Raziq Khan & 145 Ors.

…Complainant
Versus

M/s Elite BHEL Employees Mutually
Aided Co-op Society & 12 Ors.

…Respondent

This case has come up for hearing on 05.09.2023, 08.09.2023, 11.09.2023,
22.09.2023 and 05.10.2023 in the presence of Sri D. Shiva Acharya, Counsel for the
Complainants, Sri M. Shiva Kumar, Counsel for Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 and Sri
Chakrapani, Counsel for Respondent No.1 & 2 also representing Respondent Nos. 3, 7 to
13 and after hearing the arguments, the Authority passed 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 declarations, directions, injunctions and
compensation.
Facts of the Complaint:
3.

The Complainants submit as under:
i.

The Complainants are the members of the Elite BHEL Employees Mutually
Aided Co-operative Housing Society Ltd (hereinafter referred to as "Society"),
being represented by their Power of Attorney ("POA") holders i.e., Marudi

1 of 22

Surendar Reddy, Srujan Bolishetti and Asif Ahsan. The said POA holders have
personal knowledge of the dispute and are well acquainted with the facts of the
case. It is pertinent to state here that the Complainants herein represent
majority of the members of the Society.
ii.

The Respondent No. I is a Society formed for the welfare of employees working
in BHEL in Telangana with the intention of providing affordable individual
housing to its members by developing a house for 200 plus members within a
gated community in the lands located at Indresham Village, Patancheru
Mandal.

Sanga

Reddy

District,

Telangana

("Schedule

Property").

The

Respondent No. 2 is the President and Respondent No. 3 is the Secretary of the
Respondent No.1 Society.
iii.

The Respondent No. I approached the Respondents No. 4 and 5, i.e., the
landowners of Schedule Property and expressed its willingness to acquire 200
plus plots, each comprising of 167 and 200 (hereinafter referred to as "(a) and
(b) units" respectively) Square yards of Survey Nos. 189 and 191 at the
Schedule Property. Further, the Complainants had also simultaneously
requested Respondent No.4 and 5 to construct 2 (Two) BHK independent
houses of 1020 Sq.ft and 1200 Sq.ft. slab area respectively on the independent
plots of "a" and "b" units in the Schedule Property and deliver the same to the
members of the Society.

iv.

The Respondent No. 4 and Respondent No. 5 claiming to be the landowners of
the Schedule Property admeasuring Acres 20-05 Guntas, located at Survey No.
189 and 191, expressed their intention to develop the lands into plots by
creating a layout and to develop the same into residential houses through
Respondent No. 6.

v.

The Respondent No. 2 along with Respondents No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 released
fanciful brochures capturing the objective of initiating a housing scheme
venture at the Schedule Property of 200 plus units (Land + Constructed House)

2 of 22

having: "a" type unit - 167 square yards with built up area of 1020 Sft; and "b"
type unit 200 square yards with built up area of 1200 Sft. respectively.
vi.

The price fixed for unit (a) 167 square yards unit house was INR 32 lakhs; and
unit (b) 200 square yards unit house was INR 38 lakhs.

vii.

The Complainants and other members of the Respondent No.1 Society, based
on the representations made by the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 obtained
memberships in the Society by making an initial advance payment of INR 1.7
Lakh each for both (a) and (b) type of units, towards house booking advance,
admission fee, share capital and administrative expenditure.

viii.

Thereafter, a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") dated 22.02.2018 was
entered by and between the Respondent No.1 Society and Respondent Nos. 4, 5
and 6 capturing the terms of acquisition and development of the units. The
Respondent No. 1 collected funds from total 225 members of the Society out of
which 120 members opted for "a" type unit and 105 members are for "b" type
units but has only specified plots for 200 units (100 "a" type of units and 100
"b" type of units) in the MOU.

ix.

However, soon after collecting the funds from the Complainants, the
Respondents started unilaterally changing the terms and conditions of the
MOU. The Complainants and other members also questioned Respondent No. 2
and the Authorized representative of Respondent Nos. 4. 5 and 6, Mr. Nitin,
with regards to several deviations in the MOU from commitments given in
brochures and while collecting advances in the meeting dated 07.03.2018 held
by society office and several times afterwards. The Respondent No. 2 and Mr.
Nitin have provided vague answers and promised the Members that the MOU
will be revised in line with the member's view. Subsequently, they have ignored
the concerns of the members.

x.

Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 have agreed to jointly formulate a layout of dwelling
scheme. Further, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have agreed to obtain the

3 of 22

necessary approvals/plan sanctions/clearances from the authorities concerned
and to develop the layout accordingly as agreed and upon receipt of the entire
sale consideration, will convey the total plots to the Society. Subsequently, the
Respondent No. 6 shall take up the works contract of construction of the
individual houses on the respective plots as per the agreed specifications of
construction and obtain approval of house plans from the necessary authorities
and handover the same to the Society.
xi.

At the time of execution of the MOU, the Complainants independently paid 10%
of the unit cost for both (a) and (b) units respectively i.e., an amount of INR.
3.30,000/- for (a) and INR. 3,90,000/- for (b) units, and collectively paid an
amount of INR 6,80,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crores Eighty Lakhs Only) in the
month of February and March 2018 through cheques/challans and the same
was acknowledged by Respondent No. 4 and 5 and an amount of INR
20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) was paid as advance to Respondent
No. 6 which was duly acknowledged in the MOU.

xii.

Subsequent to the above payments, a meeting was conducted on 14.03.2019 by
the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in the presence of Mr. Nitin, the authorised
representative of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6. During the said meeting, to the
utter shock and surprise of the Complainants and other members of the
Society, the Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 demanded an additional 10% payment
on unit cost on the premise of escalation of raw material costs. In this regard,
Respondent No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 also pressurized the Complainants and other
members of the Society that in the event the additional 10% of the unit cost is
not paid forthwith, there will be increase in the project cost. The Complainants
and the other members of the Society were promised that on receipt of the
additional 10% of the unit cost, the following conditions would be fulfilled: a.
Plots will be registered directly in the favour of the members of the Society, b.
Advance will be used for booking of raw materials, so that there will not be

4 of 22

escalation on the project cost, c. HMDA approval will be received shortly (2-3
months of time), development of the project will start immediately and d. Project
will be completed in a maximum period of 18 to 24 months.
xiii.

In order to avoid any conflict and stalling of the project, the Complainants and
other members of the Society proceeded on the basis of the trust and goodwill
reposed on the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 paid the additional 10% as
demanded. The Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 acknowledged the receipt of total
amount of Rs.17.55 Cr (Rupees Seventeen Crores Fifty-Five Lakhs only) from
Respondent No.1 Society.

xiv.

Respondent No. 2 circulated a letter dated 06.11.2020 on WhatsApp vide
message dated 16.12.2020 to all the members of the society to deposit the
registration charges. Some amongst the Complainants and other members of
the Society under the fear of losing the society membership and believing the
Respondent No. 2, deposited the amounts of Rs.1.5 Lakhs to Rs.1.7 Lakhs each.
It was made to believe by Respondent Nos. 2 that the amounts were transferred
to accounts of Respondent 4 and 5. From the notice of Respondent 4 dated
16.11.2021,

the

Complainants

have

learnt

that

total

amount

to

Rs.17,55,20,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Crores Fifty-Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand
only) has been transferred to the Respondent No. 4 and 5 account from society,
which is approximately 44% of total project land cost.
xv.

Subsequent to the above meeting and payments, to the utter shock and
surprise to the Complainants and members of the Society, it was discovered
that a false and fabricated document titled as 'Supplementary Agreement' dated
06.02.2019 was found executed between the Respondent No.1 through
Respondent No.2, Respondent No.4, 5 and 6 wherein it was specified that the
members of the Society including the Complainants herein agreed for additional
sale consideration in view of loss of land for providing peripheral road. It is of
utmost importance to state here that the meeting was held on 14.03.2019

5 of 22

wherein it was unequivocally informed to the Complainants and other members
of the Society that there will be no price escalation upon payment of additional
10% of the unit cost. However, on the contrary, the Respondent No. 2 in
collusion with Respondent No. 4 and 5 created the false and fabricated
document with an intention to deceive and make unjust enrichment through
the Complainants and other members of the Society.
xvi.

The Complainants have time and again requested the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4,
5 and 6 for reasons for such unilateral escalation of the unit cost. However, the
Respondents were evasive in their responses and threatened the Complainants
and other members of the Society that if they do not agree to the escalation
cost, no allotments would be made, and the MOU would stand cancelled.

xvii.

Further, as per the MOU, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were required to obtain
necessary statutory approvals, licenses for the development of the units. The
Respondent No. 4 and 5 after much delay and repeated requests and follow ups
from the Complainants and other members of the Society, obtained the
approval from HMDA only on 20.12.2019 for the Schedule Property i.e., for
Survey Nos. 189 and 191 admeasuring an area of 77488.93 Sq. mts. totalling to
19-20 (Ac Gts).

xviii.

The Complainants and the erstwhile members of the Society were informed of
the same through WhatsApp and a meeting was called for at the project site on
20.02.2020 and another meeting at office of Respondent 1 on 23.02.2020. In
the said meetings, the Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 along with Mr. Nitin intimated
the Complainants and members of the Society that the project cost was
escalated and provided no valid reasons for the same. The Complainants and
the erstwhile members of the Society unanimously rejected the said escalation
cost and protested against the same, however, despite the protests of the
Complainants and other members of the Society, the Respondent No. 2 in

6 of 22

collusion with the Respondent No. 4 and 5, agreed for the said escalation and
signed the Minutes of Meeting (MOM) dated 04.03.2020.
xix.

Complainants and other members of the Society having realised the foul play by
the Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 along with the Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6,
issued a representation dated 02.03.2022 to the Respondent No.2 expressing
their willingness to pay the remaining land cost as per the MOU dated
22.02.2018. However, despite the repeated requests seeking explanation and
the protests on enhancement of the unit cost, the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3,
without the consent or knowledge of the Complainants and other members of
the Society, proceeded to circulate the purported Minutes of Meeting ("MOM")
dated 04.03.2020 consenting to the enhanced prices as stated above.

xx.

Thereafter, the members of the Society discovered that the Respondent Nos. 4. 5
and 6 have also failed to register the Project under Telangana RERA, being
another grave violation by the Respondent No. 4, 5 and 6.

xxi.

As per Article V of the MOU, the Respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 shall complete the
construction of 200 Houses within 24 Months from the date of receipt of Final
Layout

Permission

from

HMDA/Independent

House

permissions

from

concerned authorities, as per the specifications mentioned in the MOU along
with the development of roads/drains/water/electrification fittings to each
house. Further, the Respondent No. 4 and 5 had to execute the registered sale
deeds in favour of the Society with respect to 200 plots within 60 days with an
additional 30 days grace period from the date of obtaining the approval of layout
sanction plan from HMDA. As on date i.e., after expiry of 2 years, 8 months
from the date of the sanction plan from HMDA, not a brick has been moved by
the Respondent No. 4 and 5 either for layout of the Plots, allotment or
construction of the houses, putting the Complainants and other members of the
society to irreparable injury and hardship.

7 of 22

Relief sought:
4.

In view of the facts mentioned above, the Complainants sought for the following

relief(s):
i.

To declare the inaction of the Respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 Promotors in
communicating the approved plans from HMDA to the Complainants as illegal,
arbitrary, and contrary to the agreed terms of the MOU.

ii.

To declare the action of the Respondent No. 4 and 5 in committing breach of the
terms of MOU and the provisions of RERA Act and Rules as illegal and arbitrary.

iii.

To direct the Respondents to develop the project as per the terms of MOU and allot
the residential units to the Complainants as per their original bookings;

iv.

Award compensation to the Complainants for an amount of Rs..../- towards mental
agony, hardship, inconvenience in making them to approach different forums by
incurring huge expenditure i.e., by engaging lawyers etc.

v.

To grant a perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents No4 and 5 from selling,
disposing or assigning or in any way transferring/alienating the schedule property
pertaining to Sy. Nos. 189 and 191 to any person/entity or creating any third-party
interest whatsoever in the subject property.

vi.

To declare any transaction of the Schedule Property subsequent to the date of
execution of the MOU ie., 22.02.2018 as null and void

vii.

To initiate penal/criminal Action against the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for
a. committing fraud and cheating the Complainants
b. committing breach of terms of MOU and the provisions of RERA Act
c. For obtaining extension of mortgage wherein a deliberate misrepresentation
was made to the Complainants and other members of the Society.

viii.

Award costs of the Complaint;

ix.

and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

8 of 22

Reply on behalf of the Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 on 02.12.2022:
5.

Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6, vide their Reply dated 02.12.2022, in brief, submitted

as under:
i.

Respondents No.4 & 5 are the owners of the land situated in survey No.189 and
191 of Indresham Village and the Respondent No.6 is the developer.

ii.

Present complaint is not maintainable as per the Provisions of RERA Act and this
Honorable Authority has no Jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the same.

iii.

Neither Respondent No.2 nor the other Respondents against whom the complaint
was lodged are in any manner concern with Respondent No.5 at any point of time
and that except the signing of the MOU, and supplementary MOU, Respondent
No.5 had no role.

iv.

Respondents deny that there is any collusion between the Respondent No.2, 3
and 7 with the Respondent No.4 and 5.

v.

Respondents 4, 5 and 6 never made any representations to the members of the
society at any point of time and deny that the members made initial advance
payment 1.7 lakh each towards house booking advance, admission fee, share
capital and administrative expenditure.

vi.

The Respondents 4 and 6 have agreed to obtain necessary approvals/sanction
plan from the concerned authorities and agreed that upon receipt of the entire
sale consideration will convey the total plots of the society and that Respondent
No.6 will take up contract work for construction of the Individual houses on
respective plots as per the agreed specifications of Construction and obtain
approval of house plans from the concerned authorities and hand over the same
to the society.

vii.

Despite of several request/reminders through verbal and mail communications
made by Respondent No.4 & 6 to the society for payment of entire sale
consideration of all the individual plots to get registered regular sale deed in
favour of this society and to proceed for further construction of individual houses

9 of 22

to the members of the society, the society never came forward to pay the entire
sale consideration and to get the sale deed registered in its favour and further
disabled the Respondent No.6 to proceed with the construction part.
viii.

That to proceed with the project and to complete the project it is mandatory as per
the clauses of the MOU that the society at first instance shall pay the entire sale
consideration for the entire units as specified in the MOU and get registered sale
deed in its favor. Further, progress of the project by the way of making
construction of individual independent houses will take place only after the sale
deed in respect of the respective individual plots as per the MOU is registered in
favor of the society.

ix.

The society never paid the total sale consideration as per the terms of the MOU
despite of repeated demands, requests, reminders to get the sale deed registered
in its favor and the outcome of the latches, delay on the part of the society in
proceeding with the project, these Respondents are blamed with unconcern
issues, false claims and concocted stories.

x.

If the society and its members have complied with the terms of MOU, the project
would have completed, but without fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the
MOU by the society, the question of making any allegations or raising unwanted,
unrelated and false and fictitious against Respondents No.4, 5 and 6 does not
arise.

xi.

That these Respondents are not answerable to the members of the society on any
of the issues, allegations levelled against Respondents 4, 5 and 6 and there is no
privity of contract exist between these Respondents and the members of the
society. It is only the society which is answerable on any of the issues a raised
between the members of the society and the society itself. The MOU was executed
by these Respondents with the society but not the members of the society. And
that any issues or disputes between the society and these Respondents arising
out of MOU shall be enforced before the competent civil court After invoking the

10 of 22

Article XIII (Resolution of Disputes) and that any unsettle disputes shall be
referred to arbitration governed by the provisions contained in the arbitration and
conciliation Act and that the award passed by the arbitrator shall be final and
binding on both the parties.
xii.

The question of making any payments of the members of the society to these
Respondents does not arise. These Respondents never received any amount much
less 6 crores 80 lakhs and 20 lakhs respectively from the members and never
acknowledged any receipts, except to the extent of receipt of 17.55 crores from the
society.

xiii.

The society never fulfilled its commitment by complying with the terms and
conditions of the MOU and not performed as per the recitals of the MOU.

xiv.

The complainants have no authority or right to plead that the supplementary
agreement 06-02-2019 executed between Respondents 4, 5 & 6 with Respondent
No.1 and 2 is a false and fabricated document and if they have any claim or
grievance on execution of the supplementary agreement, it is open for them to
raise the dispute with the society and its members.

xv.

It is false to state that there is an encumbrance on the properties of respondents
4 & 5 and should be made for free before disbursement of loan. These
Respondents have deposited the titles deeds with their banker at the time of
raising loan which in any manner treated as loss of title. As of today, the
respondents 4 & 5 are the absolute owners with absolute right title interest and
possession over the properties which are taken up for development as per MOU.
There was no charge or encumbrance created on the properties. That the title
deeds will be released once the loan amount is cleared. That It was an
understanding between these Respondents and the Respondent No.1 represented
by Respondent No.2 at the time of execution of MOU that a specific clause should
be recited in the MOU that the society shall pay the entire sale consideration in
respect of the individual plots as described in the MOU and get the sale deed

11 of 22

registered in favour of the society in order to close the loan account, accordingly a
specific clause was recited in this regard. It is the society which is not complied
the terms of the MOU as these Respondents got the consent/ approval from their
banker to pay the sale proceeds into the loan account.
xvi.

It is true that these Respondents have to proceed with the project in term of
Article V but the society never adhered to the term and conditions of the MOU
and paid the entire sale consideration to get the sale deed registered in its favor.
Therefore, the question of taking up construction and to complete the project
within the stipulated period does not arise as the execution of sale deed in respect
of the entire plots as per MOU by the society is a condition precedent.

xvii.

The complainants have no authority and right to question these Respondents as
these respondents are not concerned with the complainants in any manner at any
point of time and since the society has not adhered to the terms and conditions of
the MOU which resulted in issuance of notice of termination of MOU dated 16-112021 and therefore the question of breach of terms of MOU by these Respondents
does not arise. It is reiterated that the alleged delay in getting the approval from
the statutory authorities is for the reasons best known to the society and its
members.

xviii.

The Complainants have no right or authority to seek any relief from this
Honorable authority on the strength of the false allegations attributed against the
respondents much less to summon these Respondents 4, 5 & 6 to place or furnish
any documents as there is no privity of contract exist between the complainants
and these Respondents and it is the society (Respondent No.1) represented by
respondent No.2 who accepted the un registered MOU. With regard to the deposit
of balance sale consideration of their individual plots to the society and there after
the society may convey the same to these Respondents for consideration of its
request to proceed further.

12 of 22

xix.

That these Respondents never violated their duties and obligations in the capacity
of the promoters as per the act.

xx.

That the complainants are not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought for and that
this honorable authority may be pleased to reject the complaint and may direct
the complainants to approach the respondents 12, 7 to 13 to invoke the
arbitration as per Article XIII of Memorandum of Understanding.

Reply on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 7 to 13 dated 22.09.2023
6.

The above-mentioned Respondents submitted as under:
i.

The complaint is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected in so far as the society
and its directors are concerned.

ii.

That complainants in their complaint stated about the formation and functioning
of the society but however sought relief only against the Respondents No. 4 to 6
and it appears from the statement of facts that they have no grievance against the
society. It is very much evident from record that complainants themselves have
withdrawn the complaints made against the society and submitted letters to DCO,
Sangareddy in May,2020 and the GPA Holder Mr. Surender Reddy also
categorically stated in his letter to DCO that the society is functioning in
accordance with rules and bye-laws and there are no irregularities committed in
the society and further stated that in view of the steep hike in the material cost
and due to policy decision of HMDA in GOMs. No. 168 the land owner was forced
to forego the land on account of master plan and peripheral road, hence the
circumstances necessitated for the increase in the unit cost and the same was
aggregable to all the members of the society. Therefore, from the letters and other
documents filed along with this counter clearly would substantiate the sincere
efforts of the society for completion of project at the earliest point of time in
coordination with the Respondents No. 4 to 6.

iii.

Complainants made false complaints against landowner-cum-developer and
Respondents No. 2 and 3, before Police, Ramachandrapuram in FIR No.670/2021

13 of 22

and same was stayed by Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the matter
pertains to "Civil Nature". It is not in dispute that the society entered into MoU
with the landowners cum developers on 22.02.2018 for construction of the
approval of concerned authorities. However, due to filing of criminal cases against
developer and MC members - the project was unduly delayed. Nevertheless, the
builder/developer has commenced project work.
iv.

Respondent Society was registered under MACS Act, 1995. The Society through
its elected body of Management is functioning in accordance with Bye-Laws and
provisions of MACS Act. In order to provide house sites to members by purchasing
the available land in the local area Sangareddy, initially entered into an MOU
dated 22.02.2018 with the land owners namely N.SIVA PRASAD and N.
MAHALAKSHMI and M/s. Magnus constructions in Survey No.189 and 191 of
Indresham Village of Sangareddy district. This project in order to provide house
sites for 225 members and accordingly applied for the HMDA layout and got
approved for 272 plots. This project specifically intended for 225 members but
however some of the members were voluntarily withdrawn and there were only
176 members who come under this project. The society made plots lottery to 176
members including the complainants by lottery process on 24.12.2022.

v.

Out of 176 members, sale deed have been executed on 125 members on their
individual names by giving consent to pay balance sale consideration for 167 sq
yard plot and 24,40,000 for 200 sq yard plot. The Complainants unnecessarily
created disputes by filing a false case against the Land Owner and Managing
committee members and thereby the project was delayed and the land
owner/Developer, in view of the pending criminal case, and other complaints in
various forums. The landowner Mr. Siva Prasad notwithstanding the complaints
filed by the members in various forums, came forward on humanitarian grounds
for executing the registered sale deeds pursuant to request to the Landowner and
serious efforts and steps taken by the management of the society for the benefit of

14 of 22

the members. The majority of the members (125) have availed the opportunity and
got the plots registered in their names. Remaining 51 members having failed to
come forward for payment of due amount to the land owner Mr. Siva Prasad for
their plots within the cut- off time specified., 31-12-2022 for receiving the
payments. Out of 51 members 8 were voluntarily withdrawn membership from
society due to their domestic problem.
vi.

Complainants are some of the members of the society who have developed
animosity against the President and Vice-President from the beginning and
started making false complaints to the concerned Registrar under MACS Act
(District Cooperative Officer, Sangareddy).

vii.

It is not correct to say that the society on execution of MoU dated 22.02.2018,
after collecting advance amounts from the members of the society, Respondents
unilaterally changed the terms and conditions of MoU and on raising objection by
the Complainants, the 2nd Respondent and Mr. Nithin have provided vague
answers is not correct. Respondent Society convened a General Body meeting on
14.03.2019 and discussed the issue with the members and members including
the complainants have agreed for the enhancement of unit cost in view of the hike
in the material cost and other miscellaneous expenditure. It is not correct to say
that society and Respondents No.4 to 6 demanded additional 10% of the unit cost
on the premise of escalation of raw materials and pressurized the members to pay
additional cost forthwith. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that
society unilaterally changed the terms of MoU against the interest of members. In
fact, Complainants are intentionally creating hurdles in execution of project, for
which, society or builder cannot be held responsible.

viii.

As per the minutes of the General Body meeting only, in the interest of the
members of the society, the supplementary agreement was executed for early
completion of project. It is submitted that execution of agreements and its validity

15 of 22

and its correctness is the subject matter of civil court jurisdiction and the same
cannot be questioned before this authority.
ix.

Society representing its members making sincere efforts to provide house sites
and constructions of houses therein at the minimal cost with the support of
developer i.e., Respondents No.4 to 6 and whereas the complainants alone, being
allottees of the plots, causing obstructions in the development of the project and
on the other hand questioning the escalation of the unit cost.

x.

The members those who attended the loan mela conducted in August,2020
voluntarily approached the society and signed the loan forms and the
Complainants having signed the documents cannot take U-turn and say that the
same were obtained under pressure. The Complainants never protested or raised
objections till filing of the complaints with regard to the signing of documents
under pressure.

xi.

As per MoU the Respondents No. 4 to 6 have to construct (200) houses from the
date of final receipt of permission from the HMDA and thereafter the Respondents
No. 4 and 5 shall have to execute the registered sale deeds and there is no dispute
about the terms and conditions of the MoU. It is for the Respondents No.4 to 6 to
answer with regard to the notices mails etc. issued by the complainants
expressing their

readiness

and

willingness for

payment

of

the

balance

consideration and the society and its committee is not aware of the sale of (81)
plots covered by Survey No.189 by the landowners to the outsiders.
7.

On the basis of the pleadings of both parties, the point that arises for

consideration is, whether the Complainants are entitled for the relief as prayed for?

Observations and Directions of the Authority:
8.

The Complainant, filed Memo dated 05.09.2023 and 06.09.2023 and informed

this Authority that the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 executed Sale Deeds in favour of 91
members who are before this Authority. However, 42 members are yet to get their

16 of 22

registrations from the said Respondents and therefore, they are aggrieved and seeking
relief from this Authority.

The matter was heard on 05.09.2023, 08.09.2023,

11.09.2023, 22.09.2023 and 05.10.2023, wherein during the course of arguments, the
Counsel for Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 sought time for coming to a settlement so as to
compensate the Complainants, however failed to do so on several occasions. Therefore,
looking at the urgency in the matter, the matter was reserved for orders on 05.10.2023
and the Complainant was directed to file a memo enlisting the amounts pending to be
paid on behalf of the Complainants to the Respondents. Further, the Complainants have
also agreed to accept registration of only the plots, and not the constructed units in the
subject property.

9.

Accordingly, the Counsel for Complainants submitted a memo dated 06.10.2023

along with written submissions enumerating the Complainants’ name, advance paid for
house booking and the balance amount to be paid by members (42) @ Rs. 16,000 Per
Square Yard for Undeveloped Land as below:

NAME of the Member

Society
Membership
number

Allotted
Plot
Number

Plot
Size
in Sq.
Yards

Advance
Paid in
INR

Balance
to be paid
in INR

1

Kagita Ashok

9

116

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

2

Rajesh Kumar Mandal

25

81

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

3

Manik Kumar Murmu

33

67

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

4

Gouri Charan Sahoo

35

25

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

5

Meera Mohammad
Shaik

44

110

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

6

Kothapally Janardhan

46

18

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

7

T Yashodha

66

79

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

Sl.
No.

17 of 22

8

Mottikayala Krupa
Rao

67

45

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

9

Bangi Nagendraiah

68

47

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

10

Chaudhary Vikash
Bharti

70

64

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

11

Medisetti Sai Kiran

72

28

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

12

Jayanta Kumar Palei

78

84

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

13

Bipin B Mahapatra

79

62

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

14

Thampuluri Yadaiah

85

36

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

15

NN Kumar Kilaparthi

86

49

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

16

Kareppa

87

77

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

17

Salandri Divakar

90

35

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

18

Srinivasa Rao Bandi

91

123

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

19

Rajesh Kumar Yadava

93

3

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

20

Vijayabhaskar B

96

48

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

21

Panchanan Dash

97

113

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

22

SN Prasad Kothapalli

102

44

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

23

Banavath Rajender
Naik

104

106

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

24

CH Durgaprasad

107

129

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

25

Purusottam Patra

110

87

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

26

Yadunath Lokhande

114

60

167

6,50,000

20,32,000

27

Kammari
Sangameshwar

151

131

200

7,70,000

24,40,000

28

Althaf Basha Shaik

158

147

200

7,70,000

24,40,000

29

Kandula Suresh

159

140

200

7,70,000

24,40,000

30

Hariman Meena

160

53

167

7,70,000

19,12,000

18 of 22

31

Mithlesh Kumar

162

166

200

7,70,000

24,40,000

32

Ramesh Kumar Ray

176

159

200

7,70,000

24,40,000

33

Ashwini Kumar Nayak

186

92

167

7,70,000

19,12,000

34

Sajal Ghosh

188

167

200

7,70,000

24,40,000

35

Sunil Kumar Mohanty

195

168

200

7,70,000

24,40,000

36

Shaik Riyaz

201

55

167

7,70,000

19,12,000

37

Karigari Jyostna

212

203

200

7,70,000

24,40,000

38

Syed Maruf Afrooz

215

23

167

7,70,000

19,12,000

39

Debashish Hotta

217

132

200

7,70,000

24,40,000

40

Anil Kumar

225

114

167

7,70,000

19,12,000

41

D Shankar

229

107

167

7,70,000

19,12,000

42

Butchim Naidu
Chokka Kula

239

50

167

7,70,000

19,12,000

9.

Admittedly, Respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 are in receipt of Rs.17.55 crores from the

Respondent Society paid by the Complainants in lieu of the allotment done by lottery of
the plots sized 167 sq yds and 200 sq yds on 24.12.2022. This can be corroborated by
the fact the Respondent No.4 along with the members of the managing committee
conducted a General Body Meeting (“GBM”) dated 20.12.2022 wherein it was expressed
that the Respondent No.4 would come forward for execution of sale deed in favour of the
Complainants and other members of the Society.

10.

The Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 blame the Respondent No.1 Society for not having

complied with the conditions stipulated in the MOU dated 22.02.2018 by not completing
the payment except for Rs. 17.55 crores, as stated by them in their Reply dated
02.12.2022, to get the sale deed registered in its favor. They state that taking up

19 of 22

construction and completing the project within the stipulated period does not arise as
the execution of sale deeds in respect of the entire plots as per MOU by the Society is a
condition precedent.

11.

Per contra, the Respondent No.1 Society states that the delay in execution of the

MOU dated 22.02.2018 occurred on account of filing of criminal cases against developer
and MC members by the Complainants. Further, as regards unilaterally changing terms
of the MOU, these Respondents state that the Respondent Society convened a General
Body meeting on 14.03.2019 and discussed the issue with the members and members
including the Complainants have agreed for the enhancement of unit cost in view of the
hike in the material cost and other miscellaneous expenditure. The Complainants also
admitted, to pay the escalated price of Rs.16,000/- for undeveloped land per sq yds as
against the agreed terms of the MOU for Rs.10,900/-per sq yds under the apprehension
of the loan being declared as an NPA. Accordingly, 125 members paid the escalated price
and got Sale Deeds registered in their favour. However, the remaining 42 members,
despite showing willingness to pay the escalated price were kept in abeyance and were
not intimated about the registration of sale deeds in their favour.

12.

This Authority is not concerned with the criminal complaints filed by the

Complainants against the Respondents as the court of competent jurisdiction is already
seized of the matter and shall be adjudicated as per law. In the facts of the present case,
as per Section 11(4)(a) and (f) the Promoter i.e., the Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 including
the President of the Society i.e., Respondent No.2 who entered into an MOU dated
22.02.2018, are responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the
provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder to execute a registered conveyance
deeds of the plots in favour of the allottees along with the undivided proportionate title in
the common areas to the association of allottees.

20 of 22

13.

Despite being in receipt of the Rs.17.55 crores, the Respondents have failed to

enter into an agreement of sale, thereby violating Section 13(1) of the Act and are merely
relying upon an MOU in which the Complainants are not a party per se.

14.

It is imperative upon the Respondents to issue allotment letters and subsequently

to enter into registered agreement of sales as per the provisions of the Act. The
Respondent Society has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their failure to
collect the escalated payments from the Complainants, even though the Complainants
have demonstrated their willingness to make such payments. Additionally, the
Respondent Landowners, in their sworn affidavits, have expressed their readiness to
transfer the ownership of the plots to the remaining 42 complainants upon receiving the
outstanding amounts. In view of this and in view of willingness expressed by the
Complainants that they are ready to accept the registration of only plots and not
constructed units, this Authority is of the considered view that the matter can be
disposed of with following directions:
a. The Complainants to deposit/ pay the outstanding amounts of the 42 members to
the Respondent No.1 Society within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this
Order; and
b. The Respondent No.1 Society, within 30 (thirty) days of receiving this outstanding
amount shall transfer the same to Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6; and
c. The Respondent Nos.4, 5 & 6 shall, within 7 days of the receipt of the said
outstanding amounts execute registered Sale Deeds in favour of the said 42
Complainants/members as enlisted in the table above. Parties are hereby
informed that in case of any default on part of said 42 Complainants/members in
paying the balance amounts, they shall be liable to pay such amounts with
interest at the rate of 10.65% (8.65% + 2%) per annum to the Respondent No.1
Society. In case any amount has already been already collected by the Respondent

21 of 22

No.1 Society from the said 42 Complainants/members, the interest part thereof,
shall be paid to the Complainants for keeping the amount with the Society.

15.

With the above directions, the present complaint stands disposed of. Parties are

hereby informed that non-compliance of the same shall attract penalty under Section 63
of the Act.

16.

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

Tribunal (vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Dt.11-01-2018, the Telangana State Value Added Tax
Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to manage
the affairs under the Act till the regular Tribunal is established) within 60 days from the
date of receipt of this Order.

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

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

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

22 of 22