Order Complaint No. 57of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.42 OF 2024
COMPLAINT NO. 57 OF 2024
13th December, 2024
Corum:

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

Suresh Reddy
Mohammed Yakub
Chakala Rama Gurappa
Ajeesh Kumar
Sahu Satish Kumar
Chinnipilli Vasu Reddy
Borsu Satya Sagar
Yalaka Nagender Yadav
Adepu Srikanth
Sirikonda Ashok Kumar
Gangi Setty Satish Babu
Kandi Alekhya
Boojanapalli Naga Sunil Kumar
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Maha Homes Resp by Santhosh Kumar Gundla & Rupali Raul
Gundla Santhosh Kumar
R.Rohini
…Respondent
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing on 13.08.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Complainants
counsel A.Naveen Reddy and Respondents represented by G.Santosh Kumar
and upon hearing the arguments of the party, this Authority passes the
following COMMON ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
“RE(R&D) Act” read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation
1 of 14

and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking
directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondent. The case
of the complainants in both the complaints is on similar grounds. Similarly
the stand taken by the Respondent in their counters is also same. Therefore
for the sake of the convenience and to avoid repetitions the pleadings from the
complaint no.57/2024 are referred below
A. Brief Facts on behalf of the complainant:
3.

The complainants submitted that the respondents are the absolute

owners, possessors, and enjoyers of the open plot bearing No. 891.28, 87/part
(west side part), and 88, totaling 1066 sq. yards or 891.28 sq. mtrs, in Survey
No. 386, situated at Isnapur Village, Patancheru Mandal, under G.P. Isnapur,
Sanga Reddy District, Telangana State. This was acquired through registered
Sale Deed vide Doc No. 11192/2019 of Book I, dated 11.03.2019, and Doc No.
19588/2019 of Book I, dated 02.05.2019, both registered at R.O. Sanga
Reddy, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana State.
4.

The complainants submit that the second respondent, a partner of M/s

MAHA Homes, obtained HMDA Permission Letter dated 31-Jan-2020, vide
application No. 25257/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA/28062019, sanctioned for stilt + 5
floors over an extent of 891.22 sq. mts.
5.

The complainants submitted that, in reference to the preceding point,

the respondents should have registered the project “MAHA Homes –
Muthyam” with the RERA Authority but failed to do so.
6.

The complainants submit that the second respondent promised

complainants (2, 5 & 8) that the project would be completed by March 31,
2021, during the purchase process. However, the respondents failed to meet
this deadline, and on April 11, 2022, the HMDA authorities issued the
occupancy certificate for the apartment “Maha Homes – Muthyam” Block.
While the complainants were provided with the occupancy certificate by the
respondents, the project completion certificate has not yet been issued.
7.

The

complainants

further

submitted

that

there

are

structural

discrepancies between the approved plans and the actual construction. The
2 of 14

respondents did not build the apartment in compliance with HMDA approvals.
Additionally, the apartment was constructed with substandard materials,
resulting in multiple wall cracks within a year, damage to the basement floor
and slab, and leaks in the walls and water tank.
8.

The complainants submit that the second respondent assured them

during the procurement process that a drinking water connection would be
part of the project. However, without applying for the connection, the
respondent demanded and collected an additional amount of ₹45,000 from
the complainants. He further assured them that the connection would be
provided three months after the occupancy certificate was received. Despite
this, the respondents failed to provide the drinking water connection. Instead,
they held the money for two years and eventually returned it without
explanation or prior communication. When questioned by the complainants,
the respondents failed to provide a satisfactory answer.
9.

The complainants submitted that the respondents had assured them

that each flat would have water purifier provisions, but this was not delivered.
The respondents failed to provide both the drinking water connection and the
promised provisions for water purifiers.
10.

The complainants also submitted that the respondents constructed two

blocks, Maha Homes-Madhuram and Maha Homes-Muthyam, side by side.
However, the water tank for the Muthyam block is situated next to the septic
tank for the Madhuram block, causing water contamination and posing
health risks to the residents of Muthyam block.
11.

The complainants submitted that, as the project has HMDA approval,

the respondents were required to follow the approved layout and G.O.Ms. No.
168 dated 07.04.2012 when allocating car parking. However, the respondents
failed to comply and sold the car parking spaces, including them in the total
sale consideration.
12.

The complainants further submitted that fire protection measures,

including the installation of fire extinguishers, were not adhered to. This
negligence resulted in a fire accident on the fifth floor. The respondents are
3 of 14

responsible for ensuring that fire safety and structural stability comply with
the TS Fire Service Act, 1999.
13.

The complainants submit that three car parking slots were allocated

dangerously close to electricity meter boards/panels. This poses a significant
risk, especially during water pipe leaks, and violates the TS Fire Service Act,
1999.
14.

The complainants submit that the respondents failed to provide an

individual transformer for the Muthyam block in accordance with HMDA
approval. Instead, the transformer was shared with the Madhuram block.
Despite objections from the Muthyam block owners noted in the HMDA final
activation report, the second respondent remained unresponsive.
15.

The complainants further submitted that the respondents did not

construct a proper rainwater harvesting system on the terrace. This omission
caused water logging on the terrace (southwest corner and south side of the
building), leading to severe structural damage and cracks in the apartment.
16.

The complainants submit that the respondents failed to provide the

necessary link documents related to the land (Pahani, Kesara, land
conversion, etc.), approval copies, warranty certificates, property insurance
copies, approval structures, and payment receipts. The respondents are not
providing the required documentation and payment receipts.
17.

`The complainants submit that the respondents are obligated to clear

all dues and taxes, if any, before handing over the project to the buyers.
However, the respondents did not pay the pending electricity charges or
property taxes. The complainants discovered that the apartment electricity
bills were overdue. Upon the buyers' collective request, the respondents
cleared 50% of the pending amount—₹13,175 (out of ₹26,350)—leaving the
remaining amount to be paid by the buyers.
18.

The complainants submit

that the

second respondent, without

performing property mutation in the buyers' names to provide property tax
notices, collected an additional amount of ₹6,000 from the complainants and

4 of 14

failed to provide the same. The respondents also refused to issue a payment
receipt for the collected amount.
19.

The complainants submit that the respondents have an obligation to

adhere to HMDA laws and regulations concerning the construction of BT
roads; however, they failed to comply.
20.

The complainants submit that the respondents were required to ensure

the formation and registration of an association of allottees within three
months of 51% of the units being booked. The respondents failed to fulfill this
obligation.
21.

The complainants submit that the lift installed by the respondents was

of poor quality and was not properly initialized. As a result, it required
maintenance starting from May 2022, causing significant inconvenience to
elderly residents and expectant mothers. Low-quality wiring materials were
used, leading to the failure of the motherboard. Consequently, the
complainants had to bear the cost of approximately ₹1,00,000 for the lift
repair.
22.

The complainants submit that poor-quality painting materials were

used, which caused the paint to fade completely within six months.
23.

The complainants submit that, on March 6, 2022, the second

respondent held a meeting with the flat owners/buyers to discuss pending
and unresolved issues. During this meeting, the second respondent assured
the complainants that the first respondent would take care of project
maintenance for two years and that a drinking water connection would be
provided within three months of receiving the occupancy certificate. Relying
on the respondent's assurances, the complainants paid the remaining balance
of the sale consideration.
24.

Other Constructional Flaws:
a. Substandard construction quality, with numerous wall cracks
appearing throughout the building within one year. The basement floor
is deteriorating, and the main gate is rusted and cracked.
5 of 14

b. The security room was constructed using temporary cement walls.
c. Shower taps were not installed in the bathrooms.
d. Apartment windows were not equipped with rain roofs or supports.
e. Low-quality materials were used for painting, plumbing, and
electrical work.
f. A garbage disposal system was not installed.
25.

The complainants submit that the facts unequivocally demonstrate that

the respondents employed unfair practices and procedures in selling
apartments to prospective buyers.
26.

The complainants further submit that the respondents not only failed to

fulfill their promises but also subjected them to mental torture through acts
of cheating, emotional blackmail, suppression of facts, threats, and
arrogance, causing significant monetary loss.
27.

The complainants respectfully submit that they have exhausted all

other means, including email notices and complaints, to seek a remedy.
Therefore, they now approach this Hon'ble Authority Dispute Redressal
Commission, requesting appropriate action against the respondents and
suitable relief for their willful negligence and deficiency in service.

B.

Relief(s) sought:

28.

In view of the facts mentioned above, the complainants pray for the

following relief(s):
i.

Direct the respondents to submit the project completion certificate to
the complainants.

ii.

Direct the respondents to register the project (MAHA HOMESMUTHYAM) as a RERA project in strict compliance with the provisions
of the TS RERA Act.

6 of 14

iii.

Direct the respondents to compensate complainants (2, 5 & 8) for rent,
bank interest, and the delay in the possession of the flats for the period
from April 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022, in accordance with the RERA Act.

iv.

Direct the respondents to provide a drinking water connection, which is
a mandatory amenity, and rectify the failure to provide water purifier
provisions.

v.

Direct the respondents to allocate car parking slots as per HMDA
approval and G.O.Ms. No. 168 dated 07.04.2012.

vi.

Direct the respondents to install fire extinguishers as per HMDA
approval and the TS Fire Service Act, 1999.

vii.

Direct the respondents to relocate the electricity meter board panel to a
safer location to prevent fire hazards due to water pipe leaks, in
compliance with the TS Fire Service Act, 1999.

viii.

Direct the respondents to install an individual transformer for the
apartment block.

ix.

Direct the respondents to construct a rainwater harvesting system as
per HMDA approval and commitments made.

x.

Direct the respondents to form and register a legal association of
allottees for the Muthyam block and submit all original link documents
to the association.

xi.

Direct the respondents to provide all necessary payment receipts,
apartment insurance for three years, and any pending documents for
individual complainants.

xii.

Direct the respondents to pay the remaining initial electricity bill
amount of ₹13,175 to the temporary association.

xiii.

Direct the respondents to comply with BT road construction as per the
affidavit submitted to HMDA and the RERA Act.

xiv.

Direct the respondents to install a new, branded lift in the apartment.

xv.

Direct the respondents to repaint the apartment walls with two coats of
Asian Paints.

xvi.

Request this Hon'ble Authority to investigate the fraudulent, unfair, and
deceptive

practices

committed

by

the

respondents

in

cheating

7 of 14

prospective buyers of flats and take appropriate legal action against
them.
xvii.

Direct the respondents to pay the complainants ₹50,000 towards the
cost of legal expenses.

xviii.

Pass any other orders that this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

C. Respondent Reply:
29.

The respondent submits that the respondent has purchased the land

and applied for permission to construct apartments consisting of Ground + 5
upper floors in the year 2019. The construction was completed in accordance
with the permission granted by HMDA, without any deviations on the said
land.
30.

Regarding the RERA registration, the respondent states that during his

inquiry at the office, he was informed that RERA registration was not
mandatory at that time.
31.

The respondent could not visit the RERA office due to the COVID-19

pandemic. Additionally, RERA provided an extension for completing the
project within an additional time frame, which the respondent adhered to.
32.

The construction was delayed by three months in the years 2021-2022

due to the impact of COVID-19. This delay was caused by a shortage of labor
and government orders to halt construction work for several months.
33.

The delay of three months was neither wilful nor intentional but was

solely due to the reasons mentioned above.

D.

Points for consideration:

34.

on basis of rival contentions of the parties and law on the subject, the

Points that arise for consideration in this case are as under:-

8 of 14

1. Whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs sought and if so, to
what exten?
2. Whether the Respondent has violated provisions of RE(R&D) Act,2016?

35. Point 1 and 2: The issues raised under Point 1 and Point 2 are inherently
interconnected. Any deliberation or findings on point one will inevitably have
a bearing on the other. Therefore, in the interest of judicial propriety and to
avoid redundancy, it is appropriate to address and decide both points through
a common discussion.
36.

The complainants have sought a total of 18 reliefs as detailed in para

28. The Authority has carefully examined each of these reliefs and addresses
them point by point as follows:
i.

The complainants have requested the Respondent to hand over the
Completion Certificate. Upon review, the Authority observes that the
Respondent obtained the Occupancy

Certificate from competent

authority on 11.04.2022, as evidenced by the submitted records, and
the same has been provided to the allottees. It is pertinent to clarify that
the Completion Certificate is issued by the architect of the project and
is a prerequisite for obtaining an Occupancy Certificate from the
competent authority. Since the Occupancy Certificate incorporates the
requisite completion details and has already been handed over to the
complainants, their prayer in this regard is without merit.
ii.

The complainants have also raised concerns regarding the registration
of the project with this Authority. The Authority notes that the
Respondent applied for HMDA permission on 28.06.2019 and received
it

on

31.01.2020

(Permission

No.

025257/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA/280622019). This timeline indicates that
the

project

commenced

after

the

Real

Estate

(Regulation

and

Development) Act, 2016 (RE(R&D) Act) came into effect. Section 3 of the
RE(R&D) Act mandates that no promoter shall advertise, market, or sell
any real estate project in a planning area without registering the project
9 of 14

with the Authority. The Respondent's explanation that he was unaware
of the registration requirement does not absolve him of this statutory
obligation. The legal principle of ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance
of the law is no excuse) applies here, reinforcing that promoters are
expected to be fully informed of their legal responsibilities. The
Authority finds the Respondent in violation of Section 3 of the RE(R&D)
Act for initiating marketing and sales activities without obtaining RERA
registration. However, since all plots in the project have already been
sold through execution of sale deeds, the primary objective of RERA
registration ensuring transparency and safeguarding consumer rights
during the marketing phase and as further obtained occupancy
certificate

from

Nevertheless,

the

competent

authority

Respondent's

has

become

non-compliance

redundant.

undermines

the

regulatory framework and the consumer protection intent of the Act.
Accordingly, the Authority holds the Respondent liable for noncompliance and reserves the right to impose penalties under the
applicable provisions to uphold the objectives of the legislation and
deter future violations.
iii.

The complainants seek compensation in their present complaint. The
Authority clarifies that the RE(R&D) Act distinguishes between interest
and compensation, treating them as separate entitlements. As per the
Act, this matter is transmitted to Adjudicating officer on the matter of
compensation specifically as sought by the complainants.

iv.

The complainants have contended that the Respondent failed to provide
a Manjeera water connection despite collecting ₹45,000 from them and
the same were returned unnoticed. The complainants allege that the
Respondent assured them that the connection would be provided within
three months of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate. During the
hearing, the Respondent admitted to collecting ₹45,000 from the
complainants with the intent to arrange the water connection. However,
the Respondent later discovered from the competent authority that
laying the required pipeline was not feasible. The Authority observes
that the Respondent's assurance to the complainants was made without
10 of 14

prior verification with the competent authority, leading to an unfulfilled
promise. While the complainants have prayed for directions to rectify
the failure, the Authority cannot issue such an order when the
provision of a pipeline is not feasible. The complainants may approach
the appropriate competent authority to address this matter.
v.

The complainants have sought the allocation of car parking slots as per
HMDA approvals and G.O. Ms. No. 168. The Authority notes that as per
G.O. Ms. No. 168, dated 07.04.2012, the stilt parking provided are
deemed to be satisfied.

vi.

The Authority views that the transformer provided for both the blocks
have the capacity and KV if satisfied, there is no objection in having
common transformers.

vii.

The Respondent shall lay the BT road for the complainant’s project.

viii.

The complainants have sought a direction to the respondent promoter
to install fire extinguishers in the project in compliance with HMDA
approvals and the Telangana State Fire Service Act, 1999. The Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RE(R&D) Act) obligates
the promoter to comply with all applicable laws, including those
prescribed by competent authorities. The National Building Code (NBC)
and the Telangana State Fire Service Act, 1999, mandate the
implementation of fire safety norms, including the installation of fire
extinguishers at accessible locations as a basic requirement in all
projects. It is the promoter's responsibility to ensure that these
fundamental safety measures are adhered to. In view of the statutory
requirements, this Authority directs the respondent promoter to install
adequate fire extinguishers in the project to ensure compliance with fire
safety regulations.

ix.

The complainants have sought rectification of the rainwater harvesting
system. The respondent promoter is directed to rectify the rainwater
harvesting system to ensure its functionality and compliance with
applicable standards.

x.

Section 11(4)(e) of the RE(R&D) Act mandates the promoter to facilitate
the formation of an association, society, or cooperative society of the
11 of 14

allottees, in accordance with applicable laws. It is, therefore, the
respondent promoter's obligation to enable the formation of such an
association for the allottees of the concerned project. Additionally, as
per Section 11(4)(b) of the Act, the promoter must hand over all
documents and approvals obtained from the relevant competent
authorities to the association upon its formation. Consequently, the
respondent promoter is directed to facilitate the formation of the
association for the allottees and subsequently transfer all relevant
documents to the association.
xi.

The complainants have contended that the respondent promoter is
obligated to clear all dues and taxes before handing over the project.
However, the promoter has failed to pay pending electricity charges and
property taxes in full. The complainants discovered these outstanding
dues after taking possession.The evidence submitted, including a billing
statement from the Southern Power Distribution Company dated
13.07.2022 in the name of "Maha Homes," shows an outstanding
amount of ₹26,350. While the respondent promoter cleared 50% of this
amount upon request, the remaining dues remain unpaid. As per
Section 11(4)(g) of the RE(R&D) Act, the promoter is required to pay all
outgoings,

including

electricity

and

property

tax

dues,

before

transferring the project to the allottees. Failure to do so renders the
promoter liable even after the transfer. Accordingly, the respondent
promoter is directed to refund the remaining 50% of the amount paid by
the allottees towards these outstanding dues.
xii.

The complainants have raised concerns regarding fading paint. As per
Telangana RERA Rule 38, Annexure Clause 12, under the defect
liability period, painting is categorized as subject to wear and tear. The
complainants' demand for repainting after two years of use falls under
this exception. Hence, this Authority cannot grant relief for repainting.

xiii.

The respondent promoter is directed to adhere strictly to the sanctioned
plan approved by the competent authority and ensure that no
deviations are made from the

E. Directions of the Authority:
12 of 14

38.

In light of the above, this Authority, by virtue of this Order, deems it

appropriate to issue the following directions to the Respondent Builder:
39.

The Respondent is directed to undertake and complete necessary

changes and rectifications as detailed below within 60 days from the date of
receipt of this Order. Upon completion, the Respondent shall submit
documentary evidence of compliance to this Authority.
a. For contravening Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, this Authority,
exercising its powers under Section 59 of the said Act, imposes a
penalty on Respondents Rs 6,58,226/- (Six lakh fifty eight thousand
two hundred and twenty six rupees only). This penalty is imposed for
marketing/selling villas of the Project without registering the project
before this Authority. The amount is payable in favor of TGRERA FUND
through

a

Demand

Draft

or

online

payment

to

A/c

No.

50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036, within 30
days of receipt of this Order by the Respondents/Promoter.
b. The Respondent shall strictly adhere to the sanctioned plan approved
by the competent authority.
c. The Respondent shall lay the BT road.
d. The Respondent is directed to install adequate fire extinguishing
facilities within the concerned project premises in compliance with
applicable regulations.
e. The Respondent shall rectify the deficiencies in the rainwater
harvesting system to ensure its proper functioning.
f. The Respondent is further directed to refund an amount of Rs.
13,175/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand One Hundred and Seventy-Five
only) to the Association of Allottees of the said project. Such refund
shall be made immediately upon the registration of the said Association
under the applicable law.
g. The Respondent is hereby mandated to facilitate the formation of the
Association of Allottees in accordance with the relevant statutory
provisions and ensure the association's registration within the
prescribed legal framework.
13 of 14

h. Upon the formation and registration of the Association of Allottees, the
Respondent is directed to hand over all original and relevant
documents pertaining to the concerned project to the Association, in
compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
40.

The Complaint stands disposed of with the aforementioned directions.

41.

No order as to costs.

42.

The parties are hereby informed that failure to comply with this Order

shall be liable for penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the Act, 2016

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdDr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

14 of 14