Order Complaint No. 582 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 24th February, 2026
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO. 582/2025/TGRERA

Ch. Venkateswara Rao
(R/o- Door No. 2-65/AA Flat No. 718/818, Ace Atlantis,
Khajaguda, Hyderabad, 500089.)
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Green Space Properties, Rep. by
1. U. Mahesh Kumar, Managing Partner
2. Kundeti Ravi Chandra Babu, Managing Partner
(Office at Η Νο 03-167/222 & 223 P/GSC-2/102,
Green Space Comfort - 2, Sriram Nagar Colony,
Gajularamaram, Suraram, Quthbullapur,
Hyderabad -500055.)
…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein-above came up for
hearing before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant, and the Respondent was
absent. Upon hearing the submissions of all the parties, this Authority proceeds to pass the
following ORDER:
2.

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

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondent.
A. Brief facts of the Case as per Form M filed by Complainant
3.

The Complainant had filed the present complaint against M/s Green Space Properties

in respect of the project “Green Space INDRA NAGAR,” situated in Survey Nos. 20(P), 21(P),
26(P), 27(P) & 29(P), located at Aurangabad Village, Haveli Ghanpur Mandal, Medak District,
which was approved under DTCP TLP No. 007774/LO/DTCP/3053/0020/2022 dated
28.01.2023. It was submitted that the Respondent had failed to register the project with
Page 1 of 14

---

The Complainant had submitted that the Respondent had committed serious lapses,

including selling plots prior to obtaining RERA registration, advertising the project and selling
plots in an incomplete and undeveloped condition without obtaining the requisite NOC from
Medak Municipality, and violating the terms and conditions applicable under DTCP norms,
including failure to display information boards. It was stated that as per the DTCP approval,
the project was required to be completed by 28.01.2025, but the Respondent had failed to
adhere to the approved timelines. Further, the Respondent had executed an MOU promising
completion of the development works by 31.05.2023, but the project was overdue by 27
months.
5.

The Complainant had submitted that the Respondent had promised several amenities in

the layout, such as underground drainage, 30 ft CC roads, 100% vastu-compliant developed
plots, underground electricity cabling for streetlights, water and power connection to each plot,
footpaths with avenue plantation, streetlights, a grand entrance arch, a lush green park with
exercise cycles, and three years of maintenance. However, even as on 01.08.2025, the layout
had remained grossly incomplete. The internal roads were not cement-concreted, wild plants
were growing on the road surface, the compound wall had not been constructed, and the site
had free access to animals such as buffaloes. Photographs and video clips evidencing the
present condition had been submitted.
6.

It was stated that the Complainant had purchased Plot No. 39-50 admeasuring 1800 sq.

ft. for a total consideration of ₹37,80,000/-, under Sale Deed No. 3979/2023 dated 17.11.2023.
Despite payment of the sale consideration, no development work had been completed, and the
project had remained far from the promised state. The Complainant had submitted that the
prolonged delay, non-completion, lack of communication, and failure of the Respondent to
attend calls, WhatsApp messages, and emails had caused severe hardship, mental agony,
anxiety, and insecurity. It was further submitted that the Complainant was a senior citizen aged
70 years and was under a significant financial burden due to the Respondent’s inaction. The

Page 2 of 14

---

7.
i.

To apply for RERA registration of the project and furnish the copy of the RERA
registration number.

ii.

To give guidelines and immediate Completion of the project

iii.

Get DTCP clearance.

iv.

NOC from Medak municipality.

v.

Maximum permissible penalty to be imposed on the developer as is as he is serial
offender (case number 299/2024 of TG RERA) - even after the rearmament of the court
the respondent is not responded to RERA Court.

C. Counter filed by Respondents
8.

The Respondent, Sri Kundeti Ravi Chandra Babu, Managing Partner of M/s. Green

Space Properties, submitted his reply to the complaint. At the outset, it was contended that the
Complainant before the Hon'ble Authority was not a genuine purchaser of plots in the project
"GREEN SPACE INDRA NAGAR," situated in Survey Nos. 20(P), 21(P), 26(P), 27(P) &
29(P) at Aurangabad Village, Haveli Ghanpur Mandal, Medak District. Instead, it was
submitted that the Complainant was a partner/investor who had agreed to provide funding of
₹4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores) besides including his land admeasuring Ac. 0-30 guntas
in the project. It was stated that the understanding between the parties was that, after developing
the project as per DTCP norms, the Complainant would receive developed plots proportionate
to his 30 guntas of land, in addition to approximately 7,500 Sq. yards of developed plots
towards his funding of ₹4,00,00,000/-.
9.

It was submitted that the Complainant failed to perform his part of the contract.

Referring to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 20-10-2022, the Respondent pointed
out that the Complainant had funded only ₹2,35,00,000/- out of the agreed ₹4,00,00,000/-,
leaving a balance of ₹1,65,00,000/- to be funded. It was argued that due to this failure, the
Respondent suffered a severe financial crunch and could not complete the project amenities on
time. The Respondent asserted that had the Complainant not agreed to fund the project,
Page 3 of 14

---

The Respondent detailed the execution of agreements and allotment of plots to

substantiate that the Complainant had suppressed material facts. It was submitted that the
Complainant gave his 30 guntas of land under a Registered Development Agreement
(Document No. 50 of 2022) and subsequently entered into a Registered Supplementary
Agreement (Document No. 1642 of 2023). Pursuant to the Supplementary Agreement dated
06-04-2023, the Complainant received 9 and odd plots (Plot Nos. 1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 to 14 &
15/part) comprising 1442.35 Sq. yards, which was proportionate to his land contribution.
Furthermore, towards the partial funding provided, the Complainant got registered 29 and odd
plots (Plot Nos. 34 to 53, 65/part, 66 to 73 & 78) comprising 4576.74 Sq. yards under 16
separate registered Sale Deeds in the year 2023 itself.
11.

Thus, it was submitted that the Complainant was already in possession of a total of

6019.09 Sq. yards of developed plots. It was alleged that the Complainant suppressed these
facts, specifically the Development Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding, the
Supplementary Agreement, and the registration of the 16 Sale Deeds, and filed the present false
complaint to harass the Respondent and extract more land, ignoring the legal principle that one
must approach the court with clean hands.
12.

It was further submitted that the Complainant, with mala fide and dishonest intentions,

lodged a complaint with the Police at Havelighanpur, registering a case in Crime No. 96 of
2025. It was argued that the Complainant took undue advantage of the non-completion of
amenities, which was caused by his own failure to release the balance funds, to misrepresent
facts. The Respondent contended that even after receiving 6019.09 Sq. yards, the Complainant
alleged "Advertising and selling of plots in incomplete state without obtaining NOC," a
question which the Respondent argued the Complainant had no locus standi to raise, given his
status as a funding partner rather than a standard purchaser.
13.

Regarding the status of the project amenities, the Respondent submitted that CC roads,

underground drainage, water connections, the grand entrance arch, and electricity with street
lights were already completed. It was admitted that the lush green park with a Gym/Cycling
track was yet to be completed due to the fund crunch, but the Respondent undertook to
complete the same in a short while.
Page 4 of 14

---

In conclusion, it was reiterated that the Complainant had no locus standi to approach

the Hon'ble Authority as he was an investor who funded the project for profit and had already
secured a major portion of developed plots. It was submitted that the complaint was neither
maintainable in law nor on facts. Consequently, the Respondent prayed that the Hon'ble
Authority dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant
15.

It was respectfully submitted by the Complainant, Sri Ch. Venkateswara Rao, a senior

citizen aged 71 years, that these written arguments were placed before the Hon'ble Authority
for perusal and consideration in connection with the case scheduled for hearing on 21st January
2026. It was stated that the submissions highlighted serious violations of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, coupled with persistent harassment, willful noncompliance, and gross disregard for the regulatory framework by the Opposite Party.
16.

It was submitted that the Opposite Party had established a pattern of repeated legal

harassment without ensuring regulatory compliance. It was pointed out that the Developer had
been issuing repeated legal notices through its advocate, demanding payment of balance
amounts, despite the project lacking valid RERA registration. It was contended that these
notices constituted harassment and an attempt to compel payments under false pretences, which
demonstrated a willful violation of Section 3 of the RE (R&D), Act, 2016, mandating project
registration before any sale, booking, or demand for payment.
17.

Regarding regulatory verification and documentation, it was submitted that the

Complainant had verified the status with the Directorate of Town and Country Planning
(DTCP) and obtained confirmatory documentation regarding the project's registration status.
Furthermore, an RTI application filed with the Medak Municipality had been closed, providing
documentary evidence confirming the regulatory violations by the Opposite Party. It was
further placed on record that a First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 24th April
2025, documenting these violations, and subsequently, a Charge Sheet was filed on 30th
November 2026, further substantiating the criminal breach of RERA provisions by the
Opposite Party.
18.

The Complainant drew the attention of the Hon'ble Bench to the chronic delay in RERA

registration, which evidenced a pattern of willful non-compliance. It was highlighted that Case
No. 299 of 2024 remained in the execution stage for more than six months following the order
dated 30th July 2025, during which time Case No. 582/2025 reached the final hearing on
Page 5 of 14

---

It was further submitted that more than four and a half years had elapsed since the bulk

of funds were collected from the Complainant and other buyers. Despite such an extensive
period and substantial fund collection, it was pointed out that the Opposite Party had failed to
obtain RERA registration, failed to provide legal compliance, and showed no substantive
project progress commensurate with the funds collected, while continuing to harass buyers for
additional payments.
20.

The Complainant outlined specific legal grounds and violations. It was asserted that the

Opposite Party stood in direct violation of Section 3 of RERA, 2016, which prohibits
undertaking any real estate project without registration. Consequently, the demand for payment
without RERA registration was termed null and void. It was further submitted that the failure
to register the project despite repeated opportunities and orders demonstrated a willful breach
of Section 4 regarding registration requirements. Additionally, the repeated legal notices
demanding payment without compliance were cited as a violation of Section 9, which requires
the promoter to act in good faith. It was also contended that the Opposite Party failed to comply
with prior RERA orders under Sections 35 and 36, specifically referencing Case 299/2024,
which indicated willful defiance and contempt of the Hon'ble Bench's orders. The registration
of the FIR and the subsequent charge sheet were cited to establish that the misconduct extended
beyond civil or regulatory breach into the criminal domain.
21.

Based on these facts, grounds for blacklisting and regulatory debarment were presented.

It was submitted that the pattern of non-compliance, willful defiance of previous orders, abuse
of buyer confidence, and criminal conduct justified blacklisting. It was argued that considering
the failure of previous orders to ensure compliance, only blacklisting and regulatory debarment
would prevent further harm to aggrieved buyers, deter similar conduct, and restore the
credibility of RERA enforcement. The Complainant respectfully requested that the Hon'ble
Bench consider invoking enhanced remedial provisions to appoint an administrator to oversee
project completion, impose continuous daily penalties of up to 5% of the project cost for non-

Page 6 of 14

---

Finally, the Complainant submitted mitigating circumstances warranting sympathetic

consideration. It was highlighted that the Complainant was of advanced age and had
demonstrated substantial faith in the regulatory system by filing multiple applications, RTIs,
and FIRs. It was stated that a period of more than five years had elapsed since funds were
collected, during which the Complainant lived in uncertainty, faced delays in alternative
accommodation, lost accumulated interest on capital, and endured emotional and financial
distress. It was emphasised that, unlike the Opposite Party's defiant conduct, the Complainant
had acted in good faith by pursuing all available legal remedies and cooperating with regulatory
processes.
E. Points for Consideration
23.

The following issues arise for consideration before this authority:

I.

Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? If yes, to what extent?

II.

Whether the Respondents have violated provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016?

F. Observations of the Authority
POINT I
24.

Before adverting to the alleged violations under the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016, this Authority deems it appropriate to first determine whether the
Complainant satisfies the statutory definition of an “allottee” and consequently qualifies as an
“aggrieved person” entitled to maintain a complaint under Section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act.
25.

Upon careful perusal of the material placed on record, it emerges that the relationship

between the parties is not in the nature of a conventional promoter–allottee transaction. The
Complainant himself relies upon a Memorandum of Understanding dated 20.10.2022, which
records that he agreed to provide funding of ₹4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores) and to make
available land admeasuring 30 guntas for development of the subject project.
26.

It is further borne out from the record that, pursuant to the said arrangement and as part

of the financial and development understanding between the parties, multiple plots were
registered in favour of the Complainant. The registration of Plot Nos. 39 to 50, allegedly for a

Page 7 of 14

---

Additionally, a Registered Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney

(DAGPA) bearing Document No. 50/2022 dated 07.01.2022 was executed between the parties
for development of land admeasuring 3035.117 square metres. The said DAGPA provides for
sharing of developed area in the ratio of 70:30 between the parties, thereby evidencing a
structured development participation rather than a unilateral sale by a promoter to a buyer.
28.

The material on record thus indicates that the Complainant is a landowner who entered

into a Development Agreement with the Respondent-promoter and also agreed to extend
financial participation in the project. His entitlement to developed plots arises from the
contractual area-sharing arrangement under the DAGPA and MOU, and not from a standard
allotment issued by a promoter to an intending purchaser in the open market.
29.

For clarity, reference must be made to Section 2(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016, which defines “allottee” as follows:
“allottee”, in relation to a real estate project, means the person to whom a plot, apartment
or building, as the case may be, has been allotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold)
or otherwise transferred by the promoter, and includes the person who subsequently
acquires the said allotment through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include a
person to whom such plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, is given on rent.

30.

The legislative intent underlying the definition of “allottee” is to extend statutory

protection to purchasers or home/plot buyers who acquire plots, apartments or buildings from
a promoter in the ordinary course of a real estate transaction. The scheme of the RE(R&D) Act
is consumer-protective in character and is intended to regulate transactions between promoters
and buyers.
31.

In the present case, the Complainant’s position is materially distinct. He is a landowner

who entered into a Development Agreement providing for a 30% share in the developed area
and who additionally participated in the financial structuring of the project as envisaged in the
MOU. The plots registered in his favour are traceable to the contractual development and
sharing mechanism, and not to a typical allotment as contemplated under Section 2(d) of the
RE(R&D) Act.
32.

It is further relevant to note that a landowner who enters into a Development Agreement

involving sharing of constructed area or saleable area may, depending on the factual matrix,
fall within the extended definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act,
Page 8 of 14

---

In view of the above analysis, this Authority holds that the Complainant, being a

landowner who entered into a development and area-sharing arrangement with the Respondent
and whose entitlement to saleable area flows from such contractual arrangement, does not fall
within the statutory definition of an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.
Consequently, the relief sought with regard to completion of the project in terms of the
Development Agreement-cum-GPA and Memoranda of Understanding executed between the
parties cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings under Section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act.
POINT II
34.

This Authority has herein above recorded a finding that the Complainant does not fall

within the definition of an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 and
therefore cannot seek allottee-specific reliefs under Section 31 in his personal capacity.
However, that finding on locus standi does not conclude the present inquiry. The jurisdiction
of this Authority is not exhausted merely because the complainant does not qualify for private
relief, the regulatory mandate of the statute operates independently of the personal status of the
complainant.
35.

The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is a beneficial and regulatory

legislation enacted to bring transparency, accountability and discipline in the real estate sector.
This Authority is entrusted under Sections 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the RE (R&D), Act with
supervisory and enforcement powers to ensure compliance with the statutory scheme. Where a
violation of a mandatory statutory provision particularly Section 3, which forms the foundation
of the regulatory architecture is brought to the notice of this Authority, it is duty-bound to
examine the same in the larger public interest. The obligation to register a real estate project is
owed not to an individual complainant but to the statute itself and to the class of present and
prospective homebuyers.
36.

In the present case, it is on record that the Respondent is undertaking development of

the project styled “Green Space INDRA NAGAR” situated in Survey Nos. 20(P), 21(P), 26(P),
27(P) and 29(P), Aurangabad Village, Haveli Ghanpur Mandal, Medak District. The
Respondent does not dispute that layout approval was obtained for the said project.

Page 9 of 14

---

The material placed before this Authority shows that layout approval was granted by

the

Medak

Municipality

/

Municipal

Corporation

vide

TLP

No.

007774/LO/DTCP/3053/0020/2022 dated 28.01.2023. Further, as per the municipal approval
obtained in the name of Sri U. Mahesh Kumar (Managing Partner of Respondent Firm M/s
Green Space Properties), the development is proposed over an extent of 25,900 square yards,
which is equivalent to 21,655.699 square metres, comprising 94 plots. Thus, the project is a
plotted development of substantial scale, spread across multiple survey numbers.
38.

The dimensions and scope of the project, as reflected in the municipal approval, clearly

demonstrate that it is neither a minor development nor a private arrangement falling within the
limited statutory exemption. Section 3(2)(a) of the RE (R&D), Act exempts only those projects
where the area proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square metres or where the
number of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight, inclusive of all phases.
The present project, measuring more than 21,000 square metres and comprising 94 plots, far
exceeds both thresholds. There is also no material to show that the project has obtained a
completion certificate prior to commencement of the RE (R&D), Act or that it falls under
renovation or repair without marketing. Consequently, the project squarely attracts the
mandatory requirement of registration under Sections 3 and 4 of the RE (R&D), Act.
39.

Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 provides in

unequivocal terms:
“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:
Provided that projects that are ongoing on the date of commencement of this Act and for
which the completion certificate has not been issued, the promoter shall make an
application to the Authority for registration of the said project within a period of three
months from the date of commencement of this Act:
Provided further that if the Authority thinks necessary, in the interest of allottees, for
projects which are developed beyond the planning area but with the requisite permission
of the local authority, it may, by order, direct the promoter of such project to register with
the Authority, and the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder,
shall apply to such projects from that stage of registration.”

40.

The language of Section 3(1) is prohibitory and mandatory. Registration of the real

estate project is a condition precedent to any act of advertisement, marketing, booking, sale or
offer for sale. The statutory embargo is absolute, subject only to the limited exemptions

Page 10 of 14

---

It has been brought to the notice of this Authority and found from the material placed

on record that the Respondent has been advertising and promoting the project “Green Space
INDRA NAGAR” without obtaining registration under the RE (R & D) Act, 2016.
Advertisement and promotion of a real estate project, in any manner whatsoever, squarely fall
within the expressions “advertise” and “market” as used in Section 3(1) of the RE (R&D), Act,
and such acts cannot legally be undertaken in the absence of prior registration with this
Authority.
42.

The Respondent cannot seek to justify non-registration by referring to private

contractual arrangements, funding disputes, Memorandum of Understanding, Development
Agreements, or inter se understandings with the Complainant. The statutory obligation to
register a project under Sections 3 and 4 is independent, mandatory and unconditional.
43.

In these circumstances, this Authority is constrained to hold that the Respondent has

undertaken development and sale activity in respect of a real estate project without obtaining
prior registration as mandated under Section 3(1) of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016, thereby
attracting regulatory consequences under the Act.
44.

This Authority also takes note that the present violation is not an isolated instance but

forms part of a continuing pattern of statutory non-compliance by the Respondents. In
Complaint No. 299 of 2024 concerning the project “Green Space Bhagiratha,” this Authority,
by a detailed Order dated 30.07.2025, had categorically held that the very same Respondents
had violated Sections 3 and 4 of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 by advertising, marketing and
selling plots without obtaining prior registration of the project. Upon recording a clear finding
of contravention, this Authority imposed a penalty of ₹3,37,800/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty
Seven Thousand Eight Hundred only) under Sections 59 and 60 of the RE (R&D), Act and
directed compliance with the statutory mandate of registration.
45.

The said Order dated 30.07.2025 attained finality. However, despite the clear findings

and directions issued therein, the Respondents failed to comply with the binding order of this
Authority. The penalty imposed was not honoured within the stipulated period, nor was
satisfactory compliance demonstrated. Such conduct compelled this Authority to initiate
further proceedings under Section 63 of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 for non-compliance of its
order.
Page 11 of 14

---

Consequently, by Order dated 21.02.2026 passed under Sections 34(g), 37, 38 and 63

of the RE (R&D), Act, this Authority recorded that non-compliance of a binding order strikes
at the statutory discipline contemplated under the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 and that once default
is established and remains unexplained, the consequence under Section 63 must follow. It was
further observed that the default was continuing and clearly wilful in nature. Accordingly, the
Respondents were held liable for non-compliance of the Order dated 30.07.2025 and were
directed to pay a penalty of ₹3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) per day of default from
the date on which compliance became due, until compliance was effected or until the penalty
accumulated to the extent of 5% of the estimated cost of the project, whichever was earlier.
The Respondents were also directed to inform the Authority upon compliance to arrest the
accruing penalty.
47.

The above sequence of events demonstrates that the Respondents have previously been

found guilty of violating Sections 3 and 4 of the RE (R&D), Act, have been penalised under
Sections 59 and 60, and thereafter again penalised under Section 63 for failure to comply with
a binding regulatory order. The continuation of development and sale activities in the present
project “Green Space INDRA NAGAR” without registration, despite such prior proceedings,
indicates a pattern of deliberate and wilful disregard of statutory mandates and regulatory
discipline.
48.

The RE (R & D) Act, 2016 is a mandatory and reformative statute enacted to ensure

transparency, accountability and protection of buyers in the real estate sector. Its provisions are
not advisory in nature, nor can compliance be deferred at the discretion of a promoter.
Registration under Section 3 is the foundation upon which the entire regulatory architecture
rests. Non-registration deprives present and prospective buyers of access to essential statutory
disclosures relating to approved layout plans, development timelines, encumbrances, financial
arrangements, promoter credentials and other material particulars required to be made available
on the Authority’s website under Section 4.
49.

In the present case, despite municipal approval for development over 25,900 square

yards comprising 94 plots and despite execution of registered sale deeds forming part of the
project activity, the Respondent has failed to obtain registration under the RE (R & D) Act,
2016. When viewed in conjunction with the prior proceedings in Complaint No. 299 of 2024
and the subsequent penalty order under Section 63, the conduct of the Respondents reflects not
inadvertence but conscious non-compliance.
Page 12 of 14

---

Accordingly, notwithstanding the finding that the Complainant in his individual

capacity does not qualify as an allottee, this Authority, in exercise of its independent regulatory
jurisdiction, holds that the Respondents have violated Section 3(1) of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016
by undertaking development, executing sale transactions and advertising the project without
obtaining prior registration of the real estate project.
51.

The consequences of such violation, including imposition of penalty under the

applicable provisions of the RE (R&D), Act and issuance of appropriate regulatory directions
to prevent further non-compliance, shall be addressed in the operative portion of this Order.
G. Directions of the Authority
52.

In light of the discussions and findings made hereinabove, this Authority, vide its

powers under Sections 37 and 38, issues the following directions to the Respondent:
i.

The Respondents, namely M/s. Green Space Properties, represented by its Managing
Partners, are hereby directed to immediately cease and desist from advertising,
marketing, booking, selling, offering for sale, or inviting persons to purchase in any
manner whatsoever any plot, apartment or building in the project “Green Space INDRA
NAGAR” situated in Survey Nos. 20(P), 21(P), 26(P), 27(P) and 29(P), Aurangabad
Village, Haveli Ghanpur Mandal, Medak District, unless and until the said project is
duly registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016.

ii.

This restraint shall equally apply to any other real estate project undertaken by the
Respondents which attracts mandatory registration under the RE (R&D), Act and has
not been duly registered with this Authority.

iii.

The Respondents are further directed to apply for and obtain registration of the project
“Green Space INDRA NAGAR” in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 of the RE (R &
D) Act, 2016 within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this Order
and to place proof of such application and subsequent registration before this Authority.

iv.

For violation of Section 3 of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 in respect of the project “Green
Space INDRA NAGAR,” the Respondents are hereby held liable for penalty under
Section 59 of the RE (R&D), Act. Accordingly, a penalty of ₹22,05,468/- (Rupees
Twenty-Two Lakh Five Thousand Four Hundred Sixty-Eight Only) is imposed upon
the Respondents, which shall be paid to the TG RERA Fund, either by way of Demand
Page 13 of 14

---

The Respondents are hereby put on strict notice that continuation of any advertisement,
marketing, sale, booking, or offer for sale in violation of Section 3 of the RE (R&D),
Act shall result in their being declared as defaulters under the Act, and appropriate
proceedings shall be initiated, including enhanced penalties, recommendation for
blacklisting, and initiation of action for debarring them from conducting business in the
real estate sector throughout the country, in accordance with law.

vi.

The Respondents shall file a detailed compliance report before this Authority within 45
(forty-five) days from the date of receipt of this Order, evidencing cessation of unlawful
activity, payment of penalty, and steps taken towards registration.

vii.

Failure to comply within the stipulated period shall attract further penal consequences
under Section 63 of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016, without further notice.

53.

The Complaint is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost.

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

Page 14 of 14

---