Order Complaint No. 809 Of 2021

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.809 OF 2021
23rd Day of March, 2024

Corum:

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

Sri A. Chandra Sekhara Reddy

…Complainant
Versus

M/s Blueprint Projects LLP
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
Sri Kiran Parimi

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing on
12.09.2023, 19.10.2023, 20.12.2023 and 15.02.2024 before this Authority in the
presence of the Complainant in person along with his Counsel, Sri Vidhyadhar
Reddy and Counsel for Respondent, Sri Polkampally Pavan Kumar Rao & Ors. and
upon hearing the arguments of both parties, this Authority passes the following
ORDER:

2.

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

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

1

(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”)
requesting appropriate action against the Respondent Builder.
A. Brief facts on behalf of the Complainant:
3.

The Complainant submitted that he purchased / acquired totally 782.62 Sq.

mtrs of land for himself and 3264.24 sq mtrs in name of his wife and children,
totally aggregating 4046.86 sq mtrs in Sy No.23, Gachibowli village Serilingampally
Municipality, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana during the years 2000 to 2006. That
the Complainant along with 15 other owners entered into Development Cum
General Power of Attorney with Respondent, represented by its designated partner
Sri Kiran Parimi S/o Sri P. Obula Naidu, for development. That in terms of the said
Development Agreement, for construction of 'Retail/Commercial/I.T. Office space’,
the Complainant with 15 other landowners offered part of their respective lands,
and in total merged into single lot, and aggregating 1 Acre 29 guntas, and the said
Development agreement is registered vide document No.3598/2016 dt. 07.05.2016
in the office of the Sub Registrar, Balanagar, R.R. District. The extent of land
owned by the Complainant which is covered in the said agreement is 154.03 Sq.
Mtrs, family members of 642.43 sq mtrs, totally aggregating to 796.46 sq mtrs.
4.

That according to the said Development Agreement, the Respondent offered

a share of 41% to the landowners in the built-up area of 'Ground+7 Floors'. One of
the conditions of the Development agreement stated that the Respondent may
explore the possibility of constructing one more floor only, and that the share of the
landowners in the one such additional floor will be 31% of the built-up area. That
the landowners identified additional land of Ac.0-9.95 guntas in total, which could
be offered for development to the Respondent, and offered their respective shares of
land owned by them, on proportionate basis. That therefore, by an Addendum
No.13263/2017, dated 13-09-2017, to the original Development Cum General
2

Power of Attorney 3598/2016 dated 07-05-2016, the Complainant's extent of land
offered for development increased to 176.53 Sq. Mtrs, and extent of members of
family increased to 736.29 sq mtrs, hence totally aggregating to 912.82 sq mtrs.
The Addendum dated 13-09-2017 also incorporated building 8th floor, implying that
the construction is for ground plus 8 floors (Total Nine floors).
5.

That as per the terms of Agreement in para 5 of the Addendum dated 13-09-

2017, the Respondent will inform the landowners including the Complainant, that
the Respondent would inform the release of permissions from GHMC and that
parties will enter into a supplementary agreement within one month, on readiness
from the Respondent. That it is specifically mentioned in para 6 of the Addendum
that the terms of agreement 3598/2016 dated 07.05.2016 will remain in full force
except the revision of extent of project land and ear marking the floors falling to the
share of the Respondent.
6.

That the Respondent did not inform the Complainant that the GHMC

approvals were received or registration with Telangana RERA. That The Respondent
did not inform the complainant about the stage of construction at any point in
time. And that therefore, no responsibility/duty was cast on the Complainant to
inform their readiness to enter into supplementary agreement.
7.

That

in

February

2019,

the

Respondent

sent

draft

agreement

for

construction of additional 2 floors i.e., 10th and 11th floors above accepted Nine
floors. That the Complainant did not accept the proposal, as compensation for
delay of project, lack of transparency in project implementation by Respondent,
misrepresentations

of

the

Respondent

and

undue

advantages

sought

by

Respondent was not rectified. That suddenly, the Respondent sent intimation by email and WhatsApp, that supplementary agreements were entered into with some
of the landowners at their request as per the earlier discussions. There were no
3

such discussions with the Complainant. The details of supplementary agreements
were not disclosed to the Complainant.
8.

The Complainant submitted that sudden intimation post facto about an act

of already signing and execution of supplementary agreements without disclosure
of the approved plans, stage of completion of the project, raised reasonable
suspicion in the mind of the Complainant. The Complainant obtained the
registered supplementary agreements done in favour of some of the landowners
including Respondent themselves, their family members, and few others, and found
from the contents of the agreements that ground plus 10 floors (11 floors) are
constructed without consent by the Complainant. It is also seen that without
consent of all the landowners, including the Complainant, Respondent promoters,
their family members and their friends (Six persons out of which three are
Respondents themselves, one is wife of Respondent, and remaining two are their
induced/coopted members out of total sixteen landowners, leaving Ten landowners
in dark) Respondent have usurped their choice location of the floors and areas,
tried to regularize a violation of illegal / fraudulent act of trying to build extra
floors, delaying the project schedule abnormally, to escape the liabilities and
depriving the rightful choice of the Complainant herein.
9.

That on further enquiries, it is found from the website of Telangana RERA

that the GHMC approvals for Eleven floors were received on 01-11-2019. Date of
completion of the project in the disclosure made to RERA is stated to be 05-032024 contrary to the agreement 3598/2016 dt 07-05-2016, according to which the
maximum period for which permissions were sought to be approved was one year
from the date of agreement or not later than 3 months from the date of approvals in
the case of adjoining land given for development to Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd whichever is later. That Meenakshi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. obtained approvals

4

from GHMC on 08.12.2017. According to the terms of Development Agreement
No.3598/2016 the project of 'Nine floors' should have been handed over on
completion, latest by December 2019. Against this the Respondent unilaterally
delayed the project and declared in RERA that the date of completion of project is
proposed to be 05.03.2024, a time span of 8 years.
10.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent had no intention for

construction of Ground plus 7 floors from the beginning and wanted to derive
undue benefit by construction of extra floors contrary to the express mandate
stipulated in the agreement 3598/2016 dated 07-05-2016 that he could explore the
possibility of construction of only one more floor alone above G + 7 floors. The
sharing ratio for this one extra floor was reduced from 41% to 31% also with
Respondent's representation about need for Cellar for parking, while keeping the
Complainant in dark that few of landowners have been induced and coopted by
Respondent.
11.

It was submitted that the Respondent inducted another Landowner Shri B.

Bhaskar Reddy, R/o Villa No-54, Meenakshi Bamboos, Gachibowli, Hyderabad as a
partner in development of the project without intimating the Complainant about
the change of constitution of the LLP. Shri B. Bhaskar Reddy and his wife Smt.
Vishali Reddy, are landowners in the project and the induction of Shri B. Bhaskar
Reddy as Partner results in conflict of interest, as regards negotiation for areas,
apportionment of location, terms of time period of Completion and other
Commercial terms, as this aspect of him having become party to Respondent was
never disclosed until Complainant stumbled on such private arrangement.

5

12.

The Complainant submitted that no further correction in Development

Agreement No.3598/2016 dt 07/05/2016 with addendum date 13/09/2017, was
consented and signed, and there was no consent for construction of two more
floors, and no transfer of development rights were shared by the Complainant.
13.

That it is now verified from RERA website that the Respondent obtained

permission on 06.03.2018 for Ground +8 floors (Nine floors), in terms of
Development agreement 3598/2016 dt. 07.05.2016, and this was never shared
with Complainant. Instead of completing the project as agreed upon in the agreed
upon Development agreement, behind the back of Complainant, the Respondent
fraudulently, illegally, obtained the GHMC, permission for two extra floors than was
agreed upon, by misrepresentation and without legal title for the same.
14.

That on further enquiry it is learnt that the Respondent (Developer) has

made sale of substantial area of the build-up area and has not reflected the same
on record to RERA, and not to the public view as is stipulated under Section 11,
read with Rule 3, 4 of the Rules, 2017. He submitted that the Respondent Promoter
has taken advances towards sale of a value of about 1.7 crores in 2017-18, 18
crores value during 2018-19, more than 10 crores value in 2019-20, 8 crores
during 2020-21, 21 crores during 2021-22. All these advances, sales are not
reflected for public view or to the RERA as can be seen. This is apparently with view
to utilize the sale advances, not in legally stipulated terms of RERA. That this is a
clear violation of Section 11, and the Respondent is liable for penalty under Section
61 read with Section 69 of the Act, 2016.
15.

That as per the Development Agreement No. 3598/2016 dt. 07.05.2016, this

was an ongoing project when RERA came into force w.e.f. 04-08-2017, and as per
Section 3 of the said Act, the subject project ought to have been registered under
RERA and progress of Project, advances taken, sales made, scheduled timelines
6

ought to be declared in the RERA website. That this was clearly violated by the
Respondent in as much as Respondent did not take registration, did not reflect the
developments and the project timeline schedules, the details of areas sold, and
advances taken. That Non-registration in RERA when it was to be done within three
months from promulgation of the Act, by end of October 2017, reveal intent not to
register in RERA, usage of funds out of purview of RERA, and a clear violation of
provisions of Section 3 of the RERA Act.
16.

As per Section 4 of the said Act, the Respondent has to have valid

documents with authentication of title, the time period of completion, the amount
received from allotters and buyers to be deposited in the Separate Account to be
maintained in Scheduled bank and to be withdrawn only for construction of
Projects, after due certifications by an engineer, architect and a chartered
accountant. That the Respondent does not have consent of the Complainant as
regards building further floors on the land given for development by the
Complainant and there was no consent to avail the TDR of the Complainant which
also have been utilized behind the back of the Complainant. That the Respondent
has obtained permission for two more floors without valid and subsisting title for
the same.

17.

The Complainant submits that the foregoing facts show that the Respondent

and its partners have fraudulently obtained GHMC permission without express
consent of the Complainant. The permission so fraudulently obtained is beyond the
agreed number of floors and project period. The delay, and fraudulent extension of
time frame and attempted illegal floors, caused mental agony, delayed the scope of
seeking early tenant, foregone rent, and increased burden of taxes.

7

18.

That the Complainant and family owns 11.4% of the project land. Excluding

the Respondent and their family, Complainant and his family own 18.5% of the
project land given for development. The Complainant family and two other deprived
families together own 55% of the project land, excluding the Respondent.
B. Relief Sought
19.

Accordingly, the Complainant prayed for the following reliefs:
a. As all the conditions of the Section 7 (a), (b), (c) are attracted, the
Complainant prays that the registration granted to the Respondent may be
revoked under Section 7 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016
b. Appropriate action be taken under Section 59, read with Section 69 of the
Act against the Respondent for violation of provisions of Section 3 of Act,
2016.
c. Appropriate action be taken under Section 60 read with Section 69 of the Act
against the Respondent for violation of provisions of Section 4 of Act, 2016.
d. Appropriate action be taken under Section 61 read with Section 69 of the Act
against the Respondent for violation of provisions of Section 11 of Act, 2016.

C. Reply on behalf of the Respondent:
20.

Vide Reply dated 02.03.2022, the Respondent Builder submitted a detailed

explanation countering each averment raised by the Complainant which is briefly
overviewed herewith. He submitted that Sri G. Mohan Rao and 18 others were
owners of land at Survey No.23, Gachibowli Village, admeasuring Ac.8.11 gts.,
having acquired the same during the period 2000 to 2006. That after the sale of
some extents of land by few of the owners, all the owners held the land to an extent
8

of Ac.8-4.2 gts. That the landowners executed a registered Memorandum of
Understanding and subsequently entered into a development agreement cum
general power of attorney bearing No.3498/2016 with the Respondent herein on
30.04.2016 for development of the subject land to an extent of Ac.1.29 gts. That
the said extent of land was increased by Ac.0-9.95 gts vide Addendum Agreement
No.13263/2017 dated 13.09.2017. He submitted that subsequent thereto,
Respondent

obtained

G+8

floors

permission

No.53449/HO/WZ/Cir-11/2016

dated

Respondent

permissions

obtained

revised

06.03.2018
for

from

GHMC

and

that

G+10

floors

vide

Order

thereafter,
vide

the

Order

No.53581/HO/Cir-11/2016 dated 01.11.2019. That the Project was registered
under RERA vide registration No. P02400001385 dated 11.11.2019 for G+8 floors.
That as there was no provision for updating the revised permissions in RERA
portal, the Developer has again registered the revised project under RERA for G+10
floors vide Registration No. P02400002530 dated 01.02.2021.
21.

The Respondent submitted that this Authority is not meant to adjudicate

this type of personal grievances or for settling personal scores. He added that this
forum being a summary forum is not empowered to deal with complicated and
intricate questions pertaining to factual aspects which are to be adjudicated by civil
courts on full trial, wherein the veracity of the documents and the evidence is
tested on the touchstone of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. And that such elaborate
procedure is not contemplated under the summary procedure prescribed before
this Authority and that therefore the Complainant’s averments are beyond the
purview of this Authority.
22.

With respect to the allegation as to violation of Section 3, 4 and 11 of the

Act, the Respondent submits that it has already registered this Project and
obtained RERA Regn. No. P02400001385, dated 11.11.2019 & P02400002530,

9

dated 01.02.2021. Further, that there is no dispute in so far as the compliances
mandated under Section 4 of the Act, 2016. That the Respondent has an
appropriate, and a legal and valid Development agreement followed by a
Supplemental Agreement which was frozen between the Landowners and the
Developer, read with the full powers given to the Developer.
23.

He added that certain sales have been made by the Respondent Developer

according to his entitlement in the Development Agreement. That all the sale
considerations are deposited into a single bank account, without any diversion of
funds and that all those funds have been utilized only for the development of the
subject commercial building. Further, the Respondent submitted a detailed table
enlisting the execution of the project in terms of amounts spent/expenditure
incurred, receipts and stage completion of the Project. He added that these
amounts are all properly accounted for, and the relevant certificates issued by the
Chartered Accountant/Architect/Engineer are uploaded onto the TS RERA website
concerning

this

Project.

That

according

to

the

Chartered

Accountant/Architect/Engineer, the investments that have been infused into the
Project by the Respondent are more than the sale considerations received from the
purchasers. That as the investment is more than the receipts, and the building
construction is almost accomplished, and the timelines for completion are not yet
expired, the Complainant cannot allege that Section 11 has been violated.
24.

In lieu thereof, he submitted that the Complainant is not entitled to reliefs

prayed for.
D. Hearing conducted:
25.

On 15.02.2024, both parties appeared. The Complainant reiterated the

contents of his Complaint, whereas, the Respondent submitted that the matter is in

10

the nature of a dispute pertaining to factual aspects which are to be adjudicated by
civil courts on full trial. He relied upon Order passed by this Authority in
Complaint No.2/2020 titled “Sri Boyenpally Sri Jayavardhan vs. Sri P. Raja Rao &
Ors.” in support of his contention. Whereas, the Complainant on the other hand
submitted that the disputes between landowner and developer are well within the
jurisdiction of this Authority and relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Kerala Real
Estate Regulatory Authority in Complaint No.235/2022 titled “Dr. Purushotama
Bharathi vs. Coromandel Foundation Ltd. & Ors.”, Hon’ble Assam Real Estate
Regulatory Authority in Complaint No. RERA/ASSAM/COM/2022/24 and Hon’ble
Bihar Real Estate Regulatory Authority in Complaint No.CC/53/2018.
26.

The Complainant stated the present case differs from factual aspects in

Complaint No.2/2020 and submitted that the point as to whether a landowner can
maintain a complaint against the promoter did not arise in the said complaint and
therefore, facts of the said case cannot be made applicable to the facts of the
present case. He accordingly prayed to grant the reliefs as prayed for.
E. Points for consideration:
27.

After perusal of the pleadings, submissions of the parties and material on

record, the following issues sprout for consideration before this Authority:
a. Whether Complainant can be considered as an “aggrieved person” under the
Act, 2016?
b. Whether the Respondent is in violation of Sections 3, 4 and 11 of the Act,
2016?
c. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? If yes, to
what extent?

11

F. Observations and Directions of the Authority
Point (a)
28.

The Complainant is admittedly a landowner in the Project having certain

revenue sharing with other landowners and the Respondent Developer in the
Project.

Evidently, the Respondent also holds status as a landowner who has

assumed the role of a developer pursuant to the agreements among the landowners
within the Project. The Complainant’s preliminary submission and relief as prayed
for is to revoke the registration granted to the Respondent as the Respondent failed
to communicate subsequent changes in the development of the Project and made
certain violations of the provisions of the Act, 2016. It is observed that the
Complainant’s claim is that the profit-sharing ratio/revenue ratio of the Project has
starkly changed, affecting the Complainant’s right in the Project, on account of the
Respondent’s execution of subsequent agreements with the other landowners and
obtaining subsequent permissions from the competent authority. Whereas the
Respondent, on the other hand, is disputing the same. It is observed that the
grievance of the Complainant lies mainly in the non-implementation of the terms of
the first Development Agreement bearing No.3598/2016 dated 07.05.2016 in stricto
senso which, when is disputed by the Respondent, is a question to be adjudicated
before an appropriate civil court having jurisdiction in a proper trial.
29.

Further, a careful perusal of the definition of a promoter under Section 2(zk)

of the Act, clearly elucidates that a promoter is a person who constructs or causes to
be constructed an independent building, for the purpose of selling all or some of the
apartments to other persons and includes his assignees. Further, it also includes
any other person who acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer,
estate developer or by any other name or claims to be acting as the holder of a power
of attorney from the owner of the land on which the building or apartment is
12

constructed or plot is developed for sale. As the Complainant, along with his family
members have 4046.86 sq mtrs in the Project land, it is presumed that the
Complainant is also a promoter to the Project. Any dispute between the promoters,
more specifically with regard to the terms of their development agreement is subject
matter jurisdiction before competent civil court and does not become subject
matter jurisdiction before this Authority. Moreso because Section 11(4) enumerates
the duties of the promoter and nowhere does the Act mention the duties promoter
towards another promoter for which he can be made liable under the Act, 2016.
30.

This Authority has previously, in Complaint Nos. 284/2023, 34/2022,

133/2022, etc., opined and observed that disputes between landowner and
developer which primarily involve intricate questions of law detailed in the
development agreement therein that require a full trial by a competent civil court
and are not subject matter jurisdiction before this Authority.
31.

The Complainant also relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Kerala,

Assam and Bihar RERA, the facts of which are entirely different from the present
facts and circumstances and cannot be made applicable here. Further, these
judgments are only recommendatory in nature but not binding upon this Authority.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing observations, it cannot be said that the
Complainant is “aggrieved” as regards the provisions of this Act. Therefore, Point (a)
is answered in negative.
Point (b)
32.

The Respondent has elucidated as to how there is no violation of Section 3 &

4 of the Act by showcasing that the Respondent procured RERA Regn. No.
P02400001385, dated 11.11.2019 & P02400002530, dated 01.02.2021. Further,
he submitted that all documents as required under the provisions of Section 4 have

13

been duly submitted by him at the time of filing the application and therefore there
is no violation of the same. This Authority has verified the veracity of the claims
made by the Complainant and the Respondent and upon verification of the
Respondent’s registration. As required under Section 4(2)(l)(D), the Respondent has
filed the details of its separate bank account and also submitted a detailed table, in
its Reply dated 02.03.2022 enlisting the execution of the project in terms of
amounts spent/expenditure incurred, receipts and stage completion of the Project,
and upon a perusal of the same, it is observed that the Respondent is not in
violation of Section 3 and 4 of the Act, 2016.
33.

The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent (Developer) has made

sale of substantial area of the build-up area and has not reflected the same on
record to RERA, and not to the public view as is stipulated under Section 11, read
with Rule 3, 4 of the Rules, 2017. However, the Respondent has taken two
registrations for obtaining subsequent permissions from the competent authority
and upon verification of the subsequent registration, it cannot be said that the
Respondent is in violation of Section 11 of the Act, 2016. Therefore, Point (b) is
answered in negative.
Point (c)
34.

As has been explained above, reliefs (b), (c) and (d) cannot be granted in

favor of the Complainant. As regards relief (a) is concerned, in line with the
observations made in the foregoing paragraphs and as the Respondent is not in
default in doing anything required by or under the Act or the rules, it does not call
for revocation of registration of the Project bearing RERA Regn. No. P02400001385,
dated 11.11.2019 & P02400002530, dated 01.02.2021. Therefore, Point (c) is
answered in negative.

14

35.

In lieu thereof, the present complaint stands disposed of.

36.

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)
as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

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

15