Order Complaint No. 601 of 2021

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.601 OF 2021
26th Day of September, 2023
Corum:

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

1. Sri Sreekanth Veerla
2. Smt. Pampa Modak
3. Sri Bindhu Madhav Purohit

…Complainants
Versus

M/s Maha Homes rep. through Sri Santosh Gundla

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing on
09.08.2023 and 12.09.2023 before this Authority in the presence of Sri Sreekanth
Veerla, Ms. Pampa Modak and Sri Bindu Madhav, Complainants, and none for the
Respondent and upon hearing the arguments of both the parties, this Authority
passes the following ORDER:
2.

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

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read
with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”).

A. Facts of the Complaint:
2.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Complainant raised issues with
respect to the Respondent Builder not registering its Project with this Authority and
further upraised this Authority of the various difficulties faced by the residents of
M/s Maha Homes with regard to septic tank, water tank being side by side, that
there is no proper roadway, there are water leakages and that there is delay in
occupation. He also submitted that because the Respondent is not registering its
1 of 5

project with this Authority, the banks are not sanctioning loans. The Complainants
also pleaded that the work done by the Respondent on the Project is not as per
expectation and accordingly prayed to take action against them in this regard.
3.

The Complainant, Sri Srikanth Veerla, along with the Complaint has filed an

incomplete Agreement of Sale dated 25.11.2019 clearly establishing its rights in the
Respondent Builder’s residential project. He filed Encumbrance Certificate which
determines that the Sale Deed has been entered into between the Respondent Builder
and the Complainant, Sri Srikanth Veerla on 06.01.2021, along with the HMDA
Permission & Plan Copy dated 23.08.2019 copy, Brochure issued by the Respondent
Builder and the Sale Deed of the Respondent Builder duly acquiring the land on
which the present Residential Project is built. Complainant, Sri Bindu Madhav
Purohit filed his registered Sale Deed dated 28.04.2021 entered into between the
Respondent Builder and the Complainant, along with Encumbrance Certificate,
HMDA Permission & Plan Copy dated 23.08.2019 copy, Brochure issued by the
Respondent Builder.

B. Notices issued to the Respondent:
4.

Accordingly, this Authority issued Notice dated 08.11.2021 to the Respondent

Builder, (a) for filing a reply to the present complaint and (b) a Show Cause Notice
dated 01.02.2022 as to why penalty under Section 59(1) of the Act should not be
imposed for violating Section 3 & 4 of the Act. However, this Authority did not receive
any reply on behalf of the Respondent.

C. Hearing Conducted:
5.

That the matter was called for hearing on 09.08.2023 and also on 12.09.2023.

Despite issuing Summons dated 01.08.2023 and 08.09.2023, the Respondent failed
to appear. The Complainants appeared and orally submitted that the parking area

2 of 5

was meant to accommodate 4 (four) parking spaces as per the HMDA plan, however,
the Respondent Builder has crammed in 20 (twenty) parking slots which blocks the
driveway. They further submitted that two transformers are provided in the HMDA
permission, however the Builder has provided only one transformer. They also orally
submitted that the Respondent Builder has asked them to pay taxes since 2019, the
year in which the Agreements of Sale were entered into between the Respondent
Builder and the Complainants and submitted the payment receipts before this
Authority.

D. Points for consideration by this Authority:
6.

That, after hearing oral contentions of the parties, the following issues sprout

for consideration:
i.

Whether the Respondent has violated Section 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act,
2016?

ii.

Whether the Parking Space as given in the HMDA Plan is 4, but the
Respondent has crammed 20 spaces making it difficult for the cars to
pass through the driveway?

Point (i)
7.

Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is

apparent that the Respondent Builder was accorded HMDA Permission on
23.08.2019. Further, the Brochures were released soon after obtaining the said
Permission dated 23.08.2019 which attracted the present Complainants to purchase
a flat in the said residential unit. Accordingly, Agreements of Sale were entered into
and subsequently Sale Deeds of 2021, which have been filed by the Complainants.
As per the Encumbrance Certificate produced by the Complainants, 18 out of 20
flats in the said Apartment are sold without complying with provisions under Section
3(1) and 4(1) of the Act.

3 of 5

8.

In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that the Project concerned is 662.52

Sq Meters as per the HMDA Permission Letter dated 23.08.2019 which satisfies the
condition stipulated under Section 3(2) of the Act. Therefore, this undoubtedly
establishes that the Respondent Builder, in abject contravention of Section 3(1) and
4(1) has proceeded to sell the flats in the residential project in question without
submitting any application before this Authority.

9.

Since this Authority, has already issued a Notice dated 08.11.2021 and

Reminder Notice dated 01.02.2022 as to why penalty under Section 59(1) of the Act
should not be imposed for violating Section 3 & 4 of the Act, and no reply has been
submitted by the Respondent Builder in this regard, therefore, this Authority deems
fit that penalty ought to be imposed on the Respondent Builder for apparent violation
of the provisions of the Act and the Rules thereunder. Therefore, a penalty of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) under Section 59(1) of the Act, for
registration of 18 flats @ Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) each and
Rs.15,000/- each for advertising remaining two flats in violation of Section 4 of the
Act, is imposed on the Respondent Builder payable within 15 days of the date of
receipt of this Order in favor of TS RERA FUNDS through Demand Draft or online
payment to A/c No.50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036.

Point (ii)
10.

As per the HMDA Permission Letter dated 23.08.2019 vide Application

No.025256/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA/28062019, the building permission has been
sanctioned for stilt + 5 (five) floors where stilt floor is considered that parking is
deemed to be satisfied as per GOMs No.168 dated 07.04.2012.

Therefore, the

parking space is rightly provided by the Respondent.

4 of 5

E. Directions of the Authority:
11.

After consideration of the facts and circumstances, this Authority directs the

Respondent Builder to register its Project “Madhuram” before this Authority within
15 days of the receipt of this Order, as otherwise action under Section 63 of the Act
shall be taken in accordance with law.

12.

In lieu thereof, the present complaint stands disposed of.

13.

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

5 of 5