Order Complaint No. 91 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,2016]
Complaint No. 91 of 2025
Dated: 30th January 2025
Quorum:

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

Mr. Venkata Sivaram Surampudy
Flat No. #906, ARK Towers, Block ‘A’,
DOWA Colony, Mayuri Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad - 500049)

… Complainant
Versus
M/s.Alien Developers Pvt. Ltd.
1.
2.

Rep by MD. Venkata Challa,
Rep by MD.Hari Challa
Sy. No. 384, 385, and 496 A, Aliens Space Station, Tellapur, RC Puram
Mandal, Gachibowli, Sangareddy District, Telangana- 502032)

…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of learned Counsel for Complainant P. Ravi Kumar, and the learned
Counsel for Respondent M. Ashwin Reddy, V. Sai Teja and Umesh Mantri and upon hearing
submissions made by both parties, and the matter reserved over for consideration till this date,
this Authority passes the following ORDER:

2.

The Complainant has filed complaint on hand under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "RE(R&D) Act", read
with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), alleging commission of violation and contravening of
the provisions of the said Act and Rules and sought for the appropriate reliefs against the
Respondent.

Page 1 of 10

---

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent–developer, Aliens Developers Private

Limited, represented by its Managing Directors Mr. Venkata Prasanna Challa and Mr. Hari
Challa, has collected 50% of the flat cost amounting to Rs. 48,00,000/- from the Complainant
during the period in between November 2019 and March 2020. Despite collecting such
substantial consideration, the Respondents failed to execute or issue a registered Agreement of
Sale for the flat promised in the “Aliens Space Station” project.
4.

It is further submitted that the Respondent collected GST from the Complainant without

executing a valid agreement or registration, which the Complainant contends amounts to an
unlawful collection of tax. Repeated requests for issuance of the Agreement of Sale were
allegedly ignored by the Respondent and its staff.
5.

The Complainant stated that the Respondent persistently refused to share essential

project documentation and was manipulating the Customer Information Sheet (CIS) by
issuing altered or duplicate copies with edited details, including changing flat numbers. The
Complainant alleged that the Respondent frequently shifted the flat allotment from one unit
to another and exerted pressure on him to accept a flat that had been previously rejected due
to design issues and a higher cost beyond his budget.
6.

The Complainant further stated that the Respondent continued to demand the remaining

50% of the sale consideration without providing any clarity or commitment regarding the
final flat allotment. It is also alleged that although the Respondents initially promised a larger
private corridor area exclusively for Flat No. 1959 at no additional cost, they subsequently
rolled back from the promise and that the said flat was already under dispute, thereby
reneging on the earlier assurance.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
7. In view of the facts mentioned above, the complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

Allotment of the Flat #1759 as initially promised on the 17th Floor
(OR)Flat #1959 at 19th Floor, without compromising on flat design cost and
height of the floor, ventilation, clear lake view, space & size, quality, amenities
& facilities as initially agreed and as applicable for any other residential
projects of this kind

ii.

Provide the registered Sale Agreement immediately for flat no. 1759 at the
Page 2 of 10

---

Complete and hand over the aforementioned flat within 3-6 months for
occupancy, along with the registered Sale Agreement, Sale Deed, Occupancy
Certificate, and all other relevant documentation for any similar residential
projects.

iv.

Though the Developer has collected 50% (Rs.46,23,511/-) of the total amount
between November, 2019 and February 2020 and promised to provide the
abovementioned flat for occupancy within 3years from the date mentioned on
the first Customer Information Sheet (CIS) but has repeatedly failed to do so,
causing huge monetary losses and mental harassment for all these years.
Hence, he strongly demand the Developer to pay the interest forgone and
compensate for the losses and mental harassment.

v.

Direct the Developer to provide promised large private corridor area for sole
ownership at no extra price and without any obligations alongside the
abovementioned flat (and not separately). The developer needs to stick to this
commitment and hand it over along with the flat within 3-6 months.

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondent:
8.

The respondent through, Venkata Prasanna Challa, authorised representative/joint

managing director of the Respondent company, filed a counter stating that all claims that are
inconsistent with or contrary to what is stated herein have been specifically denied by the
Respondent and the Respondent has acted in good faith and with utmost transparency in their
dealings with the Complainant, and the Respondent has on numerous occasions offered flats
to the Complainant, who has either not confirmed the flats offered or requested to see an
alternative. Copies of the relevant correspondence exchanged between the Complainant and
Respondent are annexed with this counter.
9.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant was initially assigned a specific flat

No. 1759 in Station 10. However, the complainant later expressed dissatisfaction and
disapproval regarding the design and other aspects of that flat. The emails in which he was
offered the flat and subsequently rejected it are already filed, and Respondent No. 1,
respecting the Complainant's concerns, took proactive steps and suggested alternative flats
over time across various towers, including Station 10 as well and the emails showing these
offers of flats are also already filed. It is contented that either the Complainant did not revert
Page 3 of 10

---

The Respondent submitted that for contract to be concluded between the parties there

must be an offer and an acceptance of that offer which leads, to formation of a promise of a
contract and the in present case the Respondent submits that he has been offering units form
time to time to the Complainant, but however he has not accepted any single offer and
therefore a concluded contract between the parties has not yet been formed and hence as of
today no concluded contract between the two parties can be enforced under law, nor can the
Complainant seek specific performance for it and this renders the captioned complaint
untenable and thus liable to be dismissed.
11.

The respondent submitted that the Complainant's request to allot flat 1759 or 1959 in

Aliens Station 10 cannot be granted, as both units currently have a third-party interest.
Additionally, the request for compensation for mental harassment is untenable since no
evidence has been provided to substantiate this claim, and when the Respondent has made
it’s best efforts, it cannot be held accountable for not being able to assign a unit to the
Complainant.
12.

The complainant's prayer for possession within 3-6 months, along with an occupation

certificate is also untenable, as the Complainant has provided no document to indicate that
he was promised possession within those timelines, and that since the allotment of the unit
itself could not be finalised, the question of possession timelines does not arise.
13.

The Respondent submitted that the subject project was registered with this Authority,

and the completion date is December 14, 2026, and the said date is available to the public
since the project received registration. The Complainant is deemed to be aware of this fact,
and he has never challenged the stated date and filed this Complaint requesting possession
with full knowledge of the completion date reflected on the Authority's website. Therefore,
for all practical purposes, the effective date of possession for the Complainant and the public
at large is only 14th December 2026. It has submitted a copy of the RERA Reg certificate
showing the completion date of 14th December 2026.
14.

The Respondent submitted that it cannot hold onto inventory indefinitely. If the

Complainant was unable to decide about a flat offered to him, the Respondent must proceed
Page 4 of 10

---

The Respondent submitted that if the Complainant insists on being assigned unit 1759

or 1959 in Station 10, his case will suffer from frustration. According to Section 56 of the
Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract to do the impossible is void. Therefore, even if this
Authority directs the Respondent to enter into an agreement for sale for Flat 1759 or 1959 in
Station 10, it will immediately be hit by the above Section.
16.

The Respondent submits notwithstanding the above, and without prejudice to its rights

and contentions, Respondent remains committed to resolving the issue and is prepared to
offer alternative flats such as 1) Flat No.2762, measuring 1675 sq. ft in Station 10; 2) Flat
No.2103, measuring 1675 sq. ft in Station 1; 3) Flat No.1711, measuring 1769 sq. ft; 4) Flat
No. 1811, measuring 1769 sq. ft; 5) Flat No.1911, measuring 1769 sq. ft; 6) Flat No.2011,
measuring 1769 sq. ft in Station 2, without any additional financial implication or burden on
the Complainant. These flats are part of the same integrated township as Station 10.
17.

The Respondent submitted that the allegations concerning the Customer Information

Sheet (CIS), changes in flat numbers, GST collection, and various issues raised by the
Complainant, the Respondent has denied that it misled or harassed the Complainant. The
document on record itself shows that the parties were unable to reach a consensus regarding
the unit to be allotted despite the Respondent's best efforts.
18.

The Respondent submitted that the Complainant is trying to misuse the goodwill

gestures and communications made by the Respondent in good faith to resolve the situation
and to prejudice the Authority.
19.

The Respondent submitted that it is settled law that no court can rewrite existing

contracts. This applies to the Authority as well. If the Complainant fails to show that both
parties had agreed and were ad idem regarding a particular unit, the Authority lacks the power
to draw up a contract for the Complainant by directing the Respondent to provide a flat. The
negotiation and consummation of contracts is a private domain, and no court can create
contractual bargains on behalf of private parties. Even if the Authority directs the allotment
of units 1959 or 1759, it will be nullified by the fact that a decree to do the impossible is void.
Page 5 of 10

---

There is no violation of the RERA in the instant case. Section 31 of the RERA requires

that a complaint be filed only when there has been a violation of the provisions of the RERA.
In the present case, there is no violation of the RERA provisions; therefore, the complaint
cannot be entertained by the Authority and is therefore not maintainable.
D. Rejoinder Filed by the Complainant
21.

The Complainant strongly denied the allegations in the respondent's counter and asserts

that the respondent has never been transparent, be it the document sharing, that allocation,
communication and response are transparent, or allocate flats honestly. The complainant stated
that the respondent’s actions amount to harassment, arbitrary denial of flat allocation,
concealment of important facts, and violations of real estate regulations. Moreover, the
respondent consistently pressured the Complainant to move away from the initially chosen flat
and repeatedly tried to impose unfavorable alternatives, using excuses, delays, and threats to
achieve these shifts for personal gain.
22.

The complainant, in his rejoinder, alleged that the respondent failed to inform or update

him about important regulatory changes, such as the project's RERA registration. The main
issues include collecting money for flats that were later declared unavailable, a lack of
transparency regarding GST charges without a formal sale agreement, and reallocation of flats
without notice or consent. These actions suggest deliberate misconduct and an intention to
deprive the petitioner of his rightful property. The petitioner emphasises that all payments and
commitments were made for a specific flat of his choice, and the respondent’s subsequent
actions amount to cheating, concealment, and non-compliance with RERA provisions.
23.

Finally, the complainant stated that the respondent’s actions amount to harassment,

arbitrary denial of the flat allocation, concealment of important facts, and violations of real
estate regulations. The complainant concluded by reaffirming his entitlement to all the reliefs,
sought for, highlighting the respondent’s failure to comply with RERA regulations, and
affirming the right to have clear title and possession of the flat No. 1759 booked vide booking
form on 23.11.2019 and for execution of agreement for sale in respect of the said No. 1759.
E. Points for consideration:
24.

After deliberation on the facts and circumstances of the present case and the documents

filed in this behalf, the following issues sprout for consideration: Whether the Complainant is
entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? If yes, to what extent?
Page 6 of 10

---

Upon a meticulous perusal of the pleadings, submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for both parties, and the documentary evidence adduced on record, this Authority
proceeds to adjudicate the lis on its merits. The gravamen of the Complaint revolves around
the Respondent's alleged failure to execute and register an Agreement for Sale despite receipt
of substantial consideration from the Complainant, coupled with assertions of coercive tactics,
arbitrary reallocations, and contravention of the statutory mandates enshrined in the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
26.

It stands conclusively established that the Respondent received amounts aggregating to

approximately 50% of the total sale consideration from the Complainant during the period
between November 2019 and February/March 2020. Despite such receipt, the Respondent
admittedly failed to execute and register an Agreement for Sale in respect of the flat booked by
the Complainant. Such conduct is in direct and unequivocal contravention of the mandatory
statutory mandate contained in Section 13(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, which prohibits a promoter from accepting more than ten percent of the cost of an
apartment without entering into a registered Agreement for Sale.
27.

The Respondent has sought to justify its failure by contending that no concluded

contract came into existence, allegedly owing to the Complainant’s non-acceptance of
alternative flats offered from time to time. This Authority finds such contention to be wholly
untenable in the facts of the present case. The booking form dated 23.11.2019, coupled with
contemporaneous payment receipts, unequivocally evidences the allotment of Flat No. 1759,
Station 10, in favour of the Complainant. The Respondent’s obligation to execute an
Agreement for Sale crystallised the moment it accepted consideration exceeding the statutory
threshold.
28.

From the record, it is further evident that the Respondent itself generated uncertainty

by issuing inconsistent Customer Information Sheets (CIS), reflecting different flat numbers,
and by accepting payments and GST amounts referencing Flat No. 1959, even though the
Complainant had never formally sought a change from the originally booked Flat No. 1759.

Page 7 of 10

---

The Respondent has sought to resist the relief sought by asserting that Flat No. 1759

presently forms part of the landowner’s share under a supplementary agreement executed in
the year 2025. This Authority finds that the said document is unregistered, conspicuously silent
as to its date and month of execution, and has been brought into existence long after the
Complainant’s booking and substantial payments. In the considered view of this Authority,
such a document cannot be permitted to defeat vested rights already accrued in favour of the
Complainant.
30.

It is a settled principle of law that a promoter cannot, by its own unilateral and

subsequent acts, alter the status of an already allotted unit to the detriment of an allottee. Having
accepted consideration and indicated allotment of Flat No. 1759, the Respondent was fully
aware of its subsisting obligations. The subsequent transfer of the said flat to the landowner’s
share, if any, is entirely self-induced and cannot be used as a shield to escape statutory liability.
31.

The Respondent’s attempt to invoke Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, on

the plea of impossibility of performance, is equally misconceived. The doctrine of frustration
cannot be invoked where the alleged impossibility is the direct result of the promisor’s own
conduct. The impossibility pleaded herein is not supervening or external, but self-created. A
party cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong.
32.

In this context, the maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria

squarely applies. The Respondent, having created third-party interests or contractual
complications subsequent to the Complainant’s booking, cannot now plead helplessness before
this Authority. Such an argument, if accepted, would strike at the very root of allottee protection
envisaged under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 regime.
33.

This Authority further notes that while Flat No. 1959 was demonstrably encumbered

by a pre-existing third-party interest, as borne out from the orders dated 24.11.2023 passed by
the Hon’ble DRT-II, Hyderabad in OA No. 343 of 2019, no such encumbrance existed in
respect of Flat No. 1759 at the time of booking by the Complainant. The Respondent, despite
being aware of the earlier agreement of sale and litigation pertaining to Flat No. 1959,
nevertheless accepted monies and issued vouchers referencing the said flat. Such conduct
borders on gross regulatory impropriety.

Page 8 of 10

---

The email correspondence placed on record further reveals that the Respondent

repeatedly sought to shift the Complainant to alternative units whenever the Complainant
insisted on clarity and adherence to the originally booked flat. This Authority finds that the
delay and failure in concluding the Agreement for Sale are wholly attributable to the
Respondent’s conduct and not to any indecision or default on the part of the Complainant.
35.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Respondent has clearly violated the

mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016, by collecting substantial consideration without executing and registering an Agreement
for Sale. Such violation squarely attracts the consequences contemplated under Section 61 of
the RE(R&D)Act.
36.

However, this Authority also takes judicial notice of the fact that the project “Aliens

Space Station” is presently a distressed project undergoing revival through the SWAMIH
Investment Fund I, a Government of India-backed initiative. In the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the present case, and in the larger interest of safeguarding the completion of
the project for the benefit of all allottees, this Authority, while recording the violation, refrains
from imposing a monetary penalty at this stage.
37.

This indulgence shall not be construed as a precedent or a waiver of statutory

compliance. The Respondent is hereby cautioned that any further deviation, non-compliance,
or delay in adhering to the directions issued herein shall invite strict penal action under Section
63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, without any further leniency.
38.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Authority is satisfied that Flat No. 1759 was

validly allotted to the Complainant, remained free from third-party encumbrances at the
relevant time, and continues to be enforceable against the Respondent. The Respondent is,
therefore, legally bound to execute and register the Agreement for Sale in respect of the said
flat, subject to receipt of the balance sale consideration.

G. Directions of the Authority
39.

In exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of

the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and in furtherance of the findings
and conclusions drawn hereinabove, the following directions are hereby issued:
Page 9 of 10

---

The Respondent shall execute the agreement of sale in respect of the flat/booked unit
no. 1759 as prayed for by the complainant, subject to the complainant making payment
balance sale consideration amount to the Respondent, and the Respondent shall register
the Sale Agreement within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.

40.

The Respondent is hereby informed that failure to comply with the directions issued

herein shall attract further penal consequences under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) 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

Page 10 of 10

---