Order Complaint No. 623 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.623 OF 2023
1st Day of August 2024
Corum:

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

Ms. Erranki Santhoshi Priya

…Complainant
Versus

M/s Abacus Constructions
Represented through its Authorised Representative

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing
on

18.10.2023,

14.11.2023,

20.12.2023,

30.01.2024,

15.02.2024

and

03.04.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for the Complainant,
Sri G.N.S.S. Prasad, and Counsel for the Respondent, Sri Uppal Kiran Kumar
along with Authorized Representative of the Respondent, and upon hearing the
arguments, this Authority passes the following ORDER:

2.

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

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

1 of 17

Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant submitted that Complainant booked a two-bedroom flat

bearing No. 710 with Respondents project namely “AVANTE KALPATARUVU” which
is registered with this Authority vide Regn. No. P02500002612 for a total sale
consideration of Rs.94,80,900/-. At the time of booking of the said flat, Respondent
informed that all the link documents are in order and that the Respondent obtained
all necessary permissions from concerned authorities and there are no legal issues.
Further, it was informed that present project was approved by nationalized bank and
Complainant can avail loan from any nationalized bank.

4.

Accordingly, the Complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.09.2022 and

Rs. 2,97,747/- on 23.09.2022 and Rs. 5,00,000/- on 01.11.2022 and Rs. 4,93,241/on 04.11.2022, Rs. 5,00,000/- on 01.11.2022 and Rs.4,93,241/- on 04.11.2022 to
enter into Agreement of Sale. The Complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.
19,90,988/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred and EightyEight Only) by borrowing the amounts from financial institutions towards second
instalment. The Respondent informed to the Complainant that after payment of
second instalment they will provide all the link documents, if any case the
complainant fails to pay the second instalment, then Respondent will cancel the said
flat and the amount which Complainant paid will be forfeited.

5.

After repeated requests the Respondent sent the draft Agreement of Sale and

also, sent some of the link documents such as Development Agreement and rest of
the documents sent by them is not in legible condition and it was informed that the
original Title Deed has been lost. The Complainant alleged that the draft Agreement
of Sale does not comply with relevant provisions under the Act, 2016 and the
Respondent has not followed the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed in

2 of 17

case of Irei Grace Raltch Pvt Ltd and Abhishek Kanna and others. The Complainant
requested changes to the agreement and legible link documents, however, the
Respondent refused to make such changes and suggested seeking a loan from private
banks.

6.

The Complainant made several requests through e-mails dated 06.01.2023,

30.01.2023, 03.02.2023, 16.02.2023, 22.02.2023, 20.03.2023 and 30.03.2023
requesting to amend the Agreement of Sale as per the Guidelines of the Apex Court
and the Act, 2016, TP Act and Contract Act and further requested that to provide all
the legible link documents so as to proceed with further. Since, the original Title
Deeds were lost, the Complainant also requested to provide police complaint and
non-traceable certificate and paper publications, if any, which is mandatory to
process loan in any nationalized banks. The Respondent, instead of providing the
documents, replied that the Agreement of Sale prepared is as per the policy of their
Company, and they will not provide the link documents which are required to process
the loan from nationalized bank and further informed to avail loan from some private
banks and provided a list of such banks.

7.

The Complainant further submitted that the Respondent sent a mail on

06.04.2023 and subsequently a Letter dated 14.06.2023 received by Complainant
on 16.06.2023, demanding to pay third instalment of Rs.26,13,870/- (Rupees
Twenty-Six Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Only) along with
interest of Rs.50,927/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty-Seven
Only). In that letter, the Respondent stated that the Cellar, First Slab for Units No. 1
to 15 has been completed. However, on the contrary, the construction was still in the
initial stage and even 1st Cellar of the blocks had not been completed as alleged in
the letter dated 14.06.2023.

3 of 17

8.

Aggrieved by the said circumstances, the Complainant prayed as follows:
a. To declare the letter dated: 14.06.2023 vide its CRN No. 0060033081 is illegal
arbitrary and same is not binding on the Complainant; and
b. To direct the Respondent to provide all the link documents in legible form
including Police Complaint, Non-Traceable certificate and paper Publications;
and
c. To direct the Respondent to amend the Agreement of Sale as per the guidelines
of the Hon'ble Apex Court and as per Contract Act, TP Act and RERA Act; and
d. To direct the Respondent to pay the cost of this complaint.

Reply by the Respondent:
Preliminary objections
9.

Per contra, vide reply dated 20.12.2023, the Respondent submitted that the

Complainant has deliberately and intentionally suppressed that the booking of the
subject Flat has stood cancelled and/or terminated on account of the continued and
persistent default and/or breaches by the Complainant of the terms and conditions
of the Booking Application Form and the provisions of the Act, 2016.

10.

It was submitted that the understanding between the parties was duly

recorded in the Booking Application Form read with the Cost Sheet, both dated
29.08.2022. The Respondent having already acted upon the same on account of the
admitted failure of the Complainants to come forward to execute Agreement for Sale
and make timely payments as per the Payment Schedule agreed to by the
Complainants and the refund, if any, was in accordance with the terms and
conditions contained in the Booking Application Form read with the provisions of the
RERA Act.

4 of 17

11.

The failure of the Complainants to adhere to the terms and conditions of the

agreement has impacted the liquidity flow that could otherwise be made available to
the Respondent for the Project under construction in as much as the timely
payments are directly proportionate to the Respondent's project construction
progress and any sudden and continued delayed payments and/or refusal to make
payments increases the overhead burden on the Respondent in terms of corporate
commercial viability in the interest of other stake holders at large. The Respondent
has thus suffered losses on account of the Complainants holding onto the said Flat
for their self-serving purposes, which constrained the Respondent to cancel and/or
terminate the booking of the Flat as stated above. The Respondent is entitled to it's
claim in this respect. Instead of complying with the requisitions contained in the PreTermination Notice dated 27.06.2023; the terms and conditions of the Booking
Application Form read with the Cost Sheet; and their obligations under the RERA
Act, the Complainants have belatedly, as an afterthought, filed the above Complaint
in a bid to cover up its own default and to pressurize the Respondent to cave into its
illegal demands.

12.

The Complainant is in admitted breach for not having come forward for the

execution and registration of the agreement for sale despite being repeatedly called
upon by the Respondent to execute an Agreement for Sale. The Complainant failed
and/or neglected and deliberately delayed the execution of the Agreement for Sale
under the pretext of clauses allegedly not as per the RERA Act and/or raising
frivolous title queries and/or questioning the title validity and frivolous and
unwarranted demand of documents, despite the same being uploaded on the RERA
website and available in public domain.

5 of 17

13.

The consequences of breach and/or default are provided in the Booking

Application Form governing the parties, and more particularly clauses 11, 15 and
17, as already acted upon by the Respondent. Under the Booking Application Form,
upon cancellation/termination the right which remains of refund, if any.

14.

The refund, if any, and/or cancellation of the amount would thus be governed

by the terms and conditions including the terms of cancellation of the booking
allotment executed between the Parties therein as contained in the Booking
Application Form read with the Cost Sheet. Further, the Respondent is also entitled
to recover the losses caused to the Respondent as stated above.

15.

The

Complainant

has

suppressed

and

not

disclosed

various

vital

documents/letters/correspondences/emails, particularly the execution of the
Booking Application Form and Cost Sheet dated 29.08.2022; the various reminders
as also emails sent to the Complainant for execution and registration of Agreement
for Sale in respect of the said Flat; the Pre- Termination Notice dated 27.06.2023 and
the consequence of default/breach under the Booking Application Form read with
the RERA Act made known to the Complainant by the Respondent. Despite the
aforesaid misconduct, the Complainants have sought relief for stay of the reminder
notice dated 14.06.2023 from this Hon'ble Authority, which cannot be granted in the
facts and circumstances of the present case.

16.

It is a settled position in law that a party who approaches a court with unclean

hands does not deserve any judicial sympathy and/ or is not entitled to any equity
or entitled to be granted any reliefs from the court. The present Complaint ought to
be rejected on this ground alone.

6 of 17

17.

There is no cause of action and/or no cause of action has arisen in favour of

the Complainant as it is the Complainants who have violated the provisions of RERA
by not executing the Agreement for Sale and not making payments as per the
Payment Schedule voluntarily agreed to by the Complainants who are now trying to
take advantage of their own fault.

18.

The Respondent has complied with his obligations under the RERA. All the

requisite information and documents to be furnished by the Promoter for registration
of real estate project has been made and disclosed by the Respondent. The
Declaration regarding legal title to the land on which the development of the project
is proposed; the authenticated copy of Title certificate in respect of the land on which
the development of project is proposed duly certified by the Advocate upon perusal
of various documents and chain of title, have amongst other documents in respect
of the Project been duly uploaded on the RERA Website for public viewing. It is only
thereafter upon compliance that the TG RERA Authority has granted Registration of
the Project under No. P02500002612. The Complainants have chosen to purchase
the said Flat after considering all the documents and information provided by the
Respondent and also uploaded on the RERA Website, hence the lame excuses on the
documents are nothing but an afterthought.

19.

The draft format Agreement for Sale with representations and warranties

made by the Respondent has been duly uploaded on the RERA Website, much prior
to the booking done by the Complainants, which is in compliance with the draft
Agreement for Sale format prescribed in the Act, 2016 and also the same has been
approved by the TG RERA Authority along with deviations and subsequently
uploaded on the TG RERA Website and in public domain. The same was also
communicated to the Respondent at the time of booking. The Complainants had

7 of 17

sufficient opportunity to view it before executing the Booking Application Form for
earmarking of the subject Flat.

20.

The Hon'ble Authority is empowered to establish the transparency in the real

estate business transactions, but limited to question the title validity, which is under
the ambit of the civil court jurisdiction, the Complainants with malafide intention
and for self-serving motives indirectly raised the issue pertaining to the title flow of
the Respondent on the pretext of missing original title document of 1962, without
considering the fact that the Respondent devolved and holding undisputed title till
date; which is even regarded by other customers and bankers in sanctioning loans
to the Respondent's said project. It was submitted that the act of the Complainant is
nothing than a mere attempt to abuse the process of law, to trouble the Respondent
initially by tactics to defer the making of agreed payments, and now by this
Complaint which apparently becomes cost to the Respondent, in the larger interest
of other stakeholders.

Facts on behalf of the Respondent
21.

The Respondent submitted that Complainant had approached the Respondent

personally in and around August 2022 and expressed their interest in booking a flat
in Respondent's said Project. After being fully apprised of and having completely
understood with the scheme of development, design and specifications/ amenities to
be provided in the said Project, the Complainants showed their keen interest in
booking a 2-BHK Flat viz. Flat bearing No.710 on the 7th Floor admeasuring 840 sq.
ft. i.e. 78.06.sq. mtrs. carpet area in the Complex ("the said Flat") along with one car
parking space.

8 of 17

22.

The Complainants being and satisfied with the aforestated information and

documents, booked the said Flat by Booking Application Form dated 29.08.2022.
The said Booking Application Form contained details of the said Flat booked, terms
and conditions, cost of the said Flat of Rs.94,80,900/- (exclusive of taxes) ("Flat
Cost"). Society Charges & Other charges, amounting to Rs.6,06,142/-, aggregating
to total lump sum consideration amount of Rs.1,00,87,042/- (Rupees One Crore
Eighty-Seven Thousand and Forty-Two only), exclusive of stamp duty and
registration charges and taxes. A separate Cost Sheet was also provided to
Complainants containing the detailed break-up of the total lumpsum consideration
amount and other terms and conditions including the terms of cancellation of the
booking, as more particularly mentioned therein, which was also agreed, confirmed
and signed by Complainants. It bears all the particulars of the periodic payment
instalments out of mutually agreed sale consideration required for furtherance
including flat documentation.

23.

The Complainant, accordingly, made payment of Rs.19,90,988/- (Rupees

Nineteen Lakhs Ninety Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty-Eight Only), inclusive of
taxes, vide cheques dated 29.08.2022, 12.09.2022, 28.10.2022 and 04.11.2022
respectively as per the terms and conditions of the Booking Application/ agreed
Payment Schedule. Simultaneously, to proceed and comply with the formalities, the
Respondent requested Complainant to come forward and execute the Agreement for
Sale in respect of said Flat, as required under the law. In this regard, the Respondent
issued Letters dated 16.09.2022, 11.11.2022, 14.03.2023 (attaching Tax Invoice
dated

13.03.2023),

05.04.2023

(attaching

Tax

Invoice

dated

04.04.2023),

07.06.2023 (attaching Tax Invoice dated 02.06.2023) in addition to several verbal
requests and reminders during the interim and during this course, calling upon

9 of 17

Complainant to come forward and execute the Agreement for Sale, however the
Complainant have miserably failed and neglected to execute the same.

24.

All attempts were made to call upon Complainant to come forward to execute

the Agreement for Sale. The Complainants had deliberately failed and neglected to
respond and/or comply with the requisitions and later as an afterthought raised
frivolous queries and/or demand, inter alia, for documents of title link documents
and alleged objections to the clauses of Agreement for Sale, which is duly approved
by the TG RERA Authority as stated hereinabove.

25.

It was also submitted that the Complainant by himself had duly enquired,

verified and satisfied about the title link documents of the Respondent and
permissions in place prior deciding and booking the said Flat. At the very first
instance when the Complainant refused to comply with agreed payment instalment
towards her flat booking, on one of the alleged pretext of referred missing original
link document pertaining to 1962, ignoring the succeeded original title documents
and permissions obtained till date; still the Respondent had reminded and requested
the Complainants several times, that the referred document i.e. historical sale deed
document bearing registered document no. 376 of 1962, was unavailable in office
possibly due to misplacement at site office, and further the Respondent even
informed the Complainant for providing the said document's true copy similarly as
the Respondent submitted to its other customers and also submitted to various
appropriate

authorities

including

TG

RERA.

However,

the

Complainants

unwarrantedly continued insisting the Respondent to provide original of the referred
sale deed document, as an alleged pre-condition to executing Agreement for Sale and
for making payment of outstanding dues towards the said Flat.

10 of 17

26.

Secondly the Respondent duly complied with the RERA Act, for which the TG

RERA Authority has issued registration number to the Respondent's said Project as
cited in above paras. That the draft of Agreement of Sale which the Respondent's
submitted for registering with TG RERA, the same has been given to the
Complainant, in par with other customers of the said Project as also uploaded on the
TG RERA Website in public domain. In that draft which has been approved by the
TG RERA Authority and other customers of the said Project have been issued and
used without any issues/objections, the complainant raised frivolous objections on
some of other alleged pretext, intentionally to defer and/or avoid making the timely
agreed payment towards the flat booking.

27.

Despite repeated requests and reminders to come forward and execute

Agreement for Sale and make payment of outstanding dues to avoid delay interest
and/or cancellation/ termination of carparking / booking of the said Flat, the
Complainants then chose to maintain stoic silence. As on 27.06.2023, an amount of
Rs.19,90,991/- along with interest of Rs.1,53,685/- aggregating to Rs.21,44,676/is outstanding as instalment dues not paid and/or default committed by the
Complainants. Left with no option, the Respondent was constrained to send a PreTermination Notice dated 27.06.2023 by and under it's email dated 27.06.2023 as a
final reminder prior to cancellation / termination of the booking of the Flat from it's
records. The Complainants failed and neglected to comply with the requisitions
contained in the various letters read with the said Pre-Termination Notice within a
period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said Notice. The Respondent acted
upon the same after having waited for sufficient time mentioned under the Notice.
The said booking of Flat has stood cancelled / terminated in terms of the Booking
Application Form read with the Cost Sheet on account of continued and persistent
failure and neglect of the Complainants.

11 of 17

28.

In view of the foregoing grounds, the Respondent prayed to dismiss the

present complaint.

Rejoinder by the Complainant:
29.

During the course of hearing, it had come to the notice of this Authority that

the main contention raised by the Complainant was the discrepancy in the Draft
Agreement of Sale provided by the Respondent that the same is not in accordance
with Rule 38 of the Rules, 2017. Therefore, the Complainant was directed to file a
rejoinder specifically pointing out the alleged differences in the Draft Agreement
provided by the Respondent and the one stipulated in the Rules, 2017.

30.

Therefore, vide Rejoinder dated 15.02.2024, the Complainant submitted that

the Authorized Agent and Marketing Team of the Respondent Company made several
calls and requested to book a Flat in "Kalpa Taruvu Avante" and ensured that all the
Title Deeds are in order and same was registered with RERA. Complainant
approached and booked a Flat and requested to provide all the link documents so as
to verify the title of the Respondent. But the Respondent has not provided the link
documents and promised that they will provide after receipt of the booking amount
and the Respondent further ensured that all the Nationalized Banks will provide the
Housing Loans against the Flats in the present Project.

31.

It was submitted by the Complainant that when the original link document

was lost, the Respondent ought to have informed the Complainant but the
Respondent never informed to the Complainant prior to receipt of the Booking
Amount. That the said link document is very much essential to establish the title of
the present title holder and also very much essential to avail loan from the
Nationalized Banks.

12 of 17

32.

It was further submitted that the Respondent further alleged that the

Respondent Company has uploaded and available all the title Deeds and
permissions. In fact, the Respondent has not uploaded the single document to
establish the title of the present title holder and as per the procedure contemplated
under the Act, 2016.

33.

The Complainant submitted that the Booking Application Form and

Agreement of Sale are not in accordance with the either Act, 2016 or the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882, or the Contract Act, 1872 and the Agreement of Sale is completely
a one sided i.e., unilateral and such Agreement is void. He added that the Booking
Application is also one sided and no liabilities have been incorporated towards
Developer/Respondent Company. At the time of booking, no time was given to the
Allottee/Complainant to peruse the conditions mentioned in the Booking Application
and they have deceived the Complainant stating that the conditions mentioned in
the form are in accordance with the Law.

34.

In addition to this, the Complainant pointed out some differences between the

Draft Agreement of Sale provided by the Respondent and the Agreement of Sale under
Annexure to Rule 38. He accordingly prayed to grant the reliefs as prayed for.

Observations and Directions of the Authority:
35.

It is categorically observed that the Complainant’s main contention is that the

link document of the year 1962 has not been provided by the Respondent despite
him repeatedly asking for it as the said document is required to process his loan. He
also contended that the Draft Agreement of Sale provided by the Respondent does
not conform to the stipulations in the Annexure to Rule 38 of the Rules, 2017.

13 of 17

36.

Per contra, the Respondent submits that the Respondent has complied with

his obligations under the Act, 2016 and that all the requisite information and
documents to be furnished by the Promoter for registration of real estate project has
been made and disclosed by the Respondent. He further added that the copy of title
certificate in respect of the land on which the development of project is proposed is
duly certified by the advocate upon perusal of various documents and chain of title,
and along with other documents in respect of the Project have been uploaded on the
RERA Website for public viewing.

37.

To this, the Complainant submitted that at the time of booking or upon his

subsequent meetings with the Respondent, the Respondent stated that the original
title deed of bearing registered document No. 376 of 1962, was unavailable in office
due to misplacement, that however a copy of the said document has been supplied
to other customers and none have raised any objection to the same. The Respondent
in this regard, while reiterating the same stance, submitted that several other
allottees/customers have obtained loan on a copy of this very document and the
original document is not necessary for procuring the same.

38.

During the course of hearing the Respondent submitted that there is no

dispute on the title of the Respondent’s project land parcel till date. He also brought
to the notice of this Authority that public notices had been published at the relevant
time for loss of the registered document no. 376 of 1962 and the Respondent has
also pursued with the concerned department for the said document and the same is
within the knowledge of the Complainant. He also submitted that appropriate steps
in this regard are being taken to recover the original document but, in the meantime,

14 of 17

there was no hurdle for the Complainant to obtain loan as several other customers
had obtained loan with a copy of the registered link document no. 376 of 1962.

39.

As regards terms of the Draft Agreement of Sale provided by the Respondent

is concerned, it is observed that there are not many significant differences with the
Draft Agreement of Sale provided in the Annexure to Rule 38 of the Rules, 2017.
However, it is observed that the Respondent ought to have mentioned the title flow
to the project land in an elaborate manner within the Agreement of Sale as has been
stipulated in the Draft Agreement of Sale provided in the Annexure to Rule 38 that
will enable the allottees to know the status of the encumbrance on the land.

40.

Even though few differences are there, this Authority is of the view that the

potential allottees may find it difficult to ascertain their rights and liabilities in the
such Agreements which is not word-to-word identical as that stipulated in Draft
Agreement of Sale provided in the Annexure to Rule 38. The intent and purpose of
bringing such Draft Agreement of Sale is to ensure transparency and uniformity in
the process of allotment and to avoid any ambiguities for the allottees.

41.

The Complainant had raised the issue with respect to the discrepancies in the

Draft Agreement of Sale provided by the Respondent as well as seeking original copy
of the 1962 document several times with the Respondent vide e-mails and the
Respondent in-turn, vide e-mails several times sought for payment as per the
payment schedule agreed by the Complainant. As the Complainant failed to abide by
the payment terms stipulated in the Booking Application Form and Cost Sheet dated
29.08.2022 i.e., the Complainant failed its obligation under Section 19(6), the
Respondent cancelled the allotment made in favour of the Complainant in terms of
the Booking Application Form and Cost Sheet dated 29.08.2022.

15 of 17

42.

This legislation aims to safeguard the interests of both the promoter and the

allottee. While the Complainant should have recognized the Respondent's inability to
procure the 1962 document, and the fact that other allottees secured loans without
it, the Respondent should have understood the Complainant's vulnerable position.
The Complainant was understandably concerned that discrepancies between the
Agreement of Sale and the rules might impact its rights.

43.

This Authority has perused the material on record, considered the contentions

raised by the parties. This Authority has perused the alleged differences and also
perused, in detail, the stipulations under the Annexure to Rule 38. In consideration
thereof and in view of the observations made above, this Authority, vide its powers
under Section 36 and 37 of the Act, 2016, and in the interest of the allottee, passes
the following directions:
a. The Respondent is directed to change the Draft Agreement of Sale as provided
on the TGRERA Website and also use the Draft Agreement of Sale provided as
Annexure to Rule 38 henceforth with the potential allottees, if any in order to
avoid any future discrepancies; and
b. Admittedly, the Respondent has collected more than 10% of the total sale
consideration without entering into an Agreement of Sale with the
Complainant in violation of Section 13 of the Act, which attracts penalty under
Section 61. Therefore, a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) is
imposed on the Respondent payable within 30 days in favour of TG RERA
FUNDS

through

Demand

Draft

or

online

payment

to

A/c

No.50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036, failing which
appropriate action under Section 63 of the Act, 2016 shall be initiated against
the Respondent; and

16 of 17

c. It is observed that on one side, the Complainant is not following the terms of
the payment schedule and one the other he is aggrieved by the both the
contents of the Draft Agreement of Sale and by the ownership documents
provided by the Respondent. As only the token amount is paid by the
Complainant and moreover, after verifying all the required documents the
Complainant has paid such amounts. Further, it is also observed that the
GHMC has approved and released the permit on prima-facie title. With respect
to sanction of loan by any schedule, it is obvious, prima facie ownership
document will be submitted to bank for ownership verification. As the
Agreement of Sale has not materialised between the Complainant and the
Respondent, the Complainant is at liberty to seek refund of the total amount
paid by him without any cancellation charges.

44.

In lieu thereof, the present Complaint stands disposed of. Parties are hereby

informed that failure to comply with the directions stipulated above shall attract
penalty under Section 63 and 67 of the Act, 2016.

45.

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

Appellate Tribunal in accordance with Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

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

17 of 17