Order Complaint No. 698 of 2021

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.698 OF 2021
25th Day of October, 2023
Corum:

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

Sri Ravinder Reddy Chalamalla

…Complainant
Versus

M/s Anmol Infra

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for
hearing on 08.08.2023, 17.08.2023,08.09.2023 and 05.10.2023 before this
Authority in the presence of Complainant present in person, and Adv. Vikas
Singh Thakur, Sri Mandeep rep M/s Anmol Infra on behalf of 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 “RERD Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the
“Rules”) seeking directions from this Authority to take action against the
Respondent.
A. FACTS OF THE COMPLAINT:
3. The facts of the case, Complainant on the 11th of March, 2018,
purchased two plots (Plot# 235 & 218) from Respondent, making an upfront
payment of 50% of the sale consideration. Two separate Agreements of Sale
were executed.
1 of 7

1. Starting from August 2018, the Complainant made repeated visits to
Respondent office, with the intention to pay the remaining 50% and
initiate the registration process. However, Respondent declined to accept
the payment or register the plots, citing the necessity of obtaining HMDA
approval.
2. When HMDA approval was granted on the 1st of August, 2019, the
Complainant once again approached Respondent Infra, expressing the
readiness to pay the outstanding balance. Nevertheless, Respondent
declined the payment and registration, asserting that they could only
proceed after obtaining RERA approval for the project.
3. On the 30th of October, 2020, Respondent received RERA approval
without informing the Complainant. The Complainant only learned of this
from other sources and approached Respondent in November 2020, once
more expressing the intention to pay the balance and register the plots.
Respondent continued to delay, stating that they were in the process of
allotting the plots.
4. It was not until February 2021 that the Complainant was informed by
Prakash of M/s Anmol Infra that the two plots originally sold to the
Complainant (235 & 218) had been allocated to the landowner, a fact
that had not been disclosed earlier.
5.

The Complainant persisted with visits to the Respondent's office, and
in March 2021, their employee, Manideep Reddy, reached out and
proposed the registration of two alternate plots, namely 'Plot# 352 & 353,'
in place of the Complainant's original plots. Plot# 352 had already been
sold to another individual, and the Respondent agreed to retrieve it and
register it in the Complainant's name. The Complainant accepted this
proposal, despite it being less favorable, as the area of the new plots was
76 square yards smaller than the original ones. Nevertheless, the
Complainant consented to the registration of Plot# 352 & 353,
irrespective of the reduced yardage.

6.

However, the Respondent continued to delay the registration process,
even offering Plot# 348 as an interim measure. It was subsequently
discovered that Plot# 348 had been double registered. Respondent
2 of 7

continued to extend registration dates, and after the Complainant's last
communication with them on the 7th of September, 2021, Anmol Infra
ceased all communication.
7.

In November 2021, the Complainant approached the RERA office
seeking justice.

8. Points to Prove that

Respondent has breached the Agreement of

Sale with false allegations on the complainant:
i. Anmol Infra alleged that the promised plot have been gone to the
Landowner share that is Plot# 235 & 218 on 3rd of January, 2020,
wrongly alleging that the Complainant did not come forward for
registration. However, it is evident that Anmol Infra did not contact
the Complainant to facilitate payment of the outstanding balance,
and

they

themselves

delayed

the

registration

process.

The

Complainant had consistently sought to complete the registration
since August 2018.
ii. Anmol Infra initially stated that they could not register plots
without RERA approval. Phone recordings of conversations with
their employee Sai Krupa in January and March 2020 contradicted
this, as they had confirmed registration could not proceed until
RERA approval was obtained. Anmol Infra had not executed any
registrations for their buyers within the entire venture prior to
obtaining RERA approval, which was granted on the 30th of
October, 2020. They initiated registrations for their share of the
plots only after the 7th of January, 2021. This contradicts their
allegation that the Complainant had not come forward for
registration in January 2020.
iii. Anmol Infra continued to delay the Complainant's registration even
after obtaining RERA approval on the 30th of October, 2020. The
Complainant had sought registration numerous times and received
assurances of plot allotment and registration dates. Anmol Infra's
actions

were

inconsistent

with

their

allegation

that

the

Complainant did not come forward for registration in January
2020.
3 of 7

iv. The Complainant sent a legal notice on the 5th of March, 2021,
demanding the registration of Plot# 235 & 218. Anmol Infra
received this notice but did not respond. Their claim that the
Complainant did not come forward for registration is contradicted
by their failure to acknowledge the legal notice.
v. Anmol Infra informed the Complainant about the allocation of the
Complainant's plots to the landowner in February 2021. However,
between March 2021 and July 2021, Anmol Infra's employee,
Manideep Reddy, engaged in multiple phone calls with the
Complainant, discussing the registration of Plot# 352 & 353 as
alternatives to the Complainant's original plots. The Complainant
accepted this offer and was prepared to proceed with the
registration, despite it being less favorable than the original
agreement. The Complainant's allegation that Anmol Infra had not
informed them about the allocation to the landowner before
February 2021 raises questions about the company's transparency.
vi. The Complainant consistently expressed readiness to pay the
remaining 50% balance but awaited the registration process, as per
Anmol Infra's instructions.
B. Relief sought(s)
13.

The Complainant seeks strong action against Anmol Infra for their

breach of the Agreement of Sale and for their alleged deceitful intentions.
C. REPLY BY THE RESPONDENT:
14.

Respondent contends that the Agreements dated 11-03-2018 were not

Agreements of Sale but agreements related to investment. The nature of
these Agreements, they argue, should be determined by their contents
rather than their title. According to Anmol Infra, these Agreements
established an investment arrangement. The possibility of adjusting this
investment toward the sale consideration was contemplated in the event of
layout approval. They maintain that no Agreements of Sale were established
on the 11th of March, 2018.
4 of 7

15.

The Respondent further submits that, upon mutual deliberations,

they were prepared to adjust the investment amount toward the partial sale
consideration. In pursuance of this, they made repeated attempts to contact
the Complainant, offering numerous opportunities for the registration of the
two plots in the "4th Avenue" venture through the execution of a registered
sale deed or registered agreement of sale in the Complainant's favor.
Regrettably, the Complainant did not exhibit a genuine interest in this
matter and cited various reasons for not proceeding with the registration of
the subject plots. Eventually, the alternative plots were also transferred to
third parties.
16.

The Respondent explains that the change in the project's name from

"Medicon City" to "4th Avenue" was a modification made during the course
of the project's development. They assert that this name change did not
adversely affect the Complainant, as the new name, "4th Avenue," had been
officially registered with RERA.
17.

The Respondents submit that they are fully prepared to refund all the

amounts paid by the Complainant, along with applicable bank interest. They
have made arrangements to deposit the refunded amount into the
Complainant's bank account. However, the Complainant has not provided
his bank account details, which is the sole reason for the delay in
processing the refund.
18.

The Respondents respectfully request this Authority to dismiss the

frivolous complaint.
D. Hearing Conducted:
18.

This Authority summoned both parties for hearings on the 8th of

August, 2023, 17th of August, 2023, 8th of September, 2023, and 5th of
October, 2023, where the parties reiterated the points mentioned in their
written submissions. During the first hearing, the learned counsel for the
Respondent reiterated the same arguments as presented in their written
response submitted to this Authority on the 25th of February, 2022, and the
24th of November, 2022. The Respondents also expressed their willingness
to register an alternative plot or refund the entire amount paid by the
5 of 7

Complainant, along with applicable bank interest, as they could no longer
register the initially promised plot due to HMDA inspection and after the
final approval the initial mentioned plots in the Agreement were being
granted to the landowners.
19.

Given the vagueness of the prayer submitted by the Complainant in

Form M, the Bench inquired about the specific relief being sought. The
Complainants informed the Bench that they were willing to pay the
remaining balance amount for the plot if the Respondents could offer a
similar plot and indicated a lack of interest in a refund. In response, the
Respondents requested additional time to achieve an amicable settlement.
Despite the ample time provided for mutual resolution, no agreement was
ultimately reached.
20.

During

the

subsequent

hearing,

the

learned

counsel

for

the

Respondent made oral submissions that, during the period allocated for
amicably settling the matter, the Complainants expressed satisfaction with
one of the offered plots, which was subsequently registered in the
Complainant's name. However, both parties were unable to agree on the
registration of the second plot.
E. Observations made by the Authority:
21.

The Authority explained to the Complainant the importance of

purchasing a plot only after local authorities' approval and RERA
registration, as layout drafts presented by Developers before approval from
competent authorities are just preliminary proposal and are unreliable. The
Authority observes that the Complainant was well aware of the fact that the
Respondent, at the time of the entering into the said Agreement, did not
apply for any approvals from the competent authority. Therefore, the
Complainant's action in proceeding with the transaction, despite this
knowledge, is considered negligence on the Complainant's part.

6 of 7

22.

Further, Authority also notices that the transaction of the said plots

was entered into prior to the approval of the layout by the Authorities, and
the Complainant was fully aware of these facts. The Authority is of the view
that this transaction does not fall within its jurisdiction and is not subject to
the merits of the present complaint. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed as
not maintainable.
23.

In the event of any grievances with this Order, the parties may seek

recourse with the TS Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The appeal must be
made within 60 days from the date of receiving this Order. (As per
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 handle matters under the Act until the regular Tribunal is established.)
24.

Complaint stands disposed of.

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas Rao, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu, Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/Dr.N.Satyanarayana, IAS (Rtd), Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA

7 of 7