Order Complaint No. 984 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.984 OF 2024
21st Day of April 2025
Quorum:

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

1. Hari Prasad Peddi, S/o.Peddi Veeresham,
Villa No.8, Luneti Villas, Kismathpur,
Bandlaguda Jagir, Hyderabad-500086.
2. Vineet Kumar Goyal,
Aged about 54 years, R/o.505, Rahul Inspiron,
Hyderguda, Near Rahul Richland Apartments,
Attapur, Rajendranagar, K.V. Rangareddy, Telangana.
3. Kasam Kishan, S/o. Kasam Rajaiah, Aged about 45 years,
R/o.Flat.No.607, Amber Block, My Home Jewel,
Madeenaguda, Miyapur, Serilingampally,
K.V. Rangareddy, Telangana.
4. Errabelly Hanumantha Rao, S/o. Errabelly Narsinga Rao,
Aged about 53 years, R/o.H.No. q no b 10/73, pts,
Jyothinagar Ramagundam, ntpc, Somanapalle,
A.P. Colony, Karimnagar, Telangana.
5. Venkata Satya Ganeshwara Rama Kumar Batchu,
S/o. Kasi Viswanadham, Aged about 48 years,
R/o.Flat.no. b-203, Bhavya's Anandam Nizampet Road,
Nizampet Rangareddi, Telangana.
6. Katukuri Ramana Reddy, S/o. Katukuri Sudheer Reddy,
Aged about 63 years, R/o. Villa no.38, Vajram Aster Homes,
Tellapur Road, Near My Home Sayuk, Gopanpally,
Nalagandla, R.R.Dist, Telangana.
7. Chilukuri Upender, S/o. Chilukuri Kumaraswamy,
Aged about 63 years, R/o. 5-6-163/4/5/1/A/1,
Krishna Nagar, NTPC, Ramagundam, Somanapalle,
Karimnagar, Telangana.
8. Vamsi Kiran Gaddam, S/o. Surya Narayana,
Aged about 50 years, R/o. Flat No.403, Vamsi Sadan Apartments,
Sri Ram Nagar Colony B, Kondapur, Serilingampally, K.V. Rangareddy.
9. E.Venkateswara Prasad, Aged about 56 years,

1 of 26

R/o.H.No. MIG-2215, BHEL Township, 3rd batch,
Serilingampally, Nalagandla, K.V. Rangareddy, Telangana.
10. Neerumalla Vamshi Krishna, S/o.N. Venkanna,
Aged about 38 years, R/o. Flat no.405, Adhira Enclave,
Road No. 10x, Bandari Layot, Nizampet Village,
R.R Dist Telangana.
11. Nageswara Rao Dande, S/o. Radha Krishna Murthy Dande,
Aged about 49 years, R/o.H.No. MIG-I-II-704A,
Venkata Sai Homes Flat No. 107, 1st and 2nd Phase,
back side Bhuvan Vijaya Community Hall, KPHB Colony,
Kukatpally.
12. Srinivas Koleti, Aged about 56 years,
R/o. QNO C-11/42, PTS NTPC Jyothi Nagar,
Ramagundam, Peddapalli, Telangana.
13. Dereddy Madan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Dereddy Adi Shesha Reddy,
Aged about 43 years, R/o.H.No. 2-55, Balapanur, Kurnool,
Andhra Pradesh, 518112.
14. K.Bharath Kumar, Aged about 45 years, R/o.H.No 5-45,
KPHB Colony, Kukatapally, Hyderabad.
15. Yeduruvada Veera Bhadra Rao, S/o. Yeduruvada Balakrishna,
Aged about 56 years, R/o.H.No. 59/1,
Opp Rajadhani High School, Greenfields, Nizampet,
K.V. Rangareddy, Hyd.
16. Chakka Sanvv Praveen, S/o. Chakka Kameshwara гао,
Aged about45 years, R/o.Flat.no. 302, Luxor heights,
Alkapoor Colony, Near Shivalayam, Puppalguda,
Rajendranagar, K.V.Rangareddy, Telangana.
17. Pachika Sammi Reddy,S/o. Adi Reddy,
Aged about 60 years, R/0.9-200/21/A1, Plot.No-29,
Road No.4E, Reddys Avenue, Nizampet,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana.
18. Chittineni Nagaraja, S/o. Chittineni Satyanarayana,
Aged about 40 years, H.No. 1-4-1380, Vinayak Nagar,
Bodhan, Nizamabad, Telangana.
19. Subrahmanyam V Akkunuri, S/o. A SY Sarma,
R/o. 12-2 709/65, Navodaya Colony, Gudimalkapur Market,
Mehdipatnam, Hyd.
20. Police Nanda Kumar Reddy, S/o.P.Govardhan Reddy,
Aged about 33 years, R/o.Flat.no.401,
DNR Shilpa Residency, Road No. 19, Shilpa Venture,
HMT Swarnapuri Colony, Miyapur, R.R Dist.
21. Kattamuri SNVSM Babu, S/o. Ramsubrahmanyam,
2 of 26

Aged about 39 years, R/o.H.No. 5-2-50/A1/6,
Gollagudem, Amalapuram, A.P.
22. M Ashwin Kumar, S/o. M.Ramesh,
Aged about 39 years, R/o. 104/C, Gulmohar Park Colony,
Serilingampally, K.V. Rangareddy Lingampalli, Telangana.
23. Shetpelli Srikanth, S/o. Shetpalliy Venkata Ramana,
Aged about 48 years, R/o.H.no.5-3-6 10/D,
Vidya Nagar colony, Kamareddy, Nizamabad, Telangana.
24. Lingala Mohan Rao, S/o. L. Jalaiah,
aged about 61 years, R/o. A-1201, Jewel Heights,
Kaithalapur, Greenhills road, Madhapur, KPHB-15,
Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist.
25. P.Srinivas Rao, S/o.P. Sambaiah,
Aged about 58 years, R/o.Flat.No. a-808,
Mayfair Apartments, Ramachandrapuram,
Tellapur, Sangareddy, Telangana.
26. Murali Krishna Chintapalli, S/o.Brahmanandha Murthy,
Aged about 62 yeas, R/o. Flat No. B406, Pragati Paradise,
Pragathinagar, Nizampet, Medchal-Malkajgiri Telangana.
27. Amara Jagadeesh, S/o. Amara Koteswar Rao,
Aged about 30 years, R/o.H.no. QNO 2010/C, NH 5,
Government Junior College, BHEL township,
Ramachandrapuram, Sangareddy, Telangana.
28. Vasala Sowmya, D/o. Vasala srinivas,
Aged about 33 years, R/o.H.No.9-5-424, Markandeya Nagar,
Markandeya Temple, Karimnagar, Telangana.
29. Pinnoju Phanindra Chary, P.Malla Chary,
Aged about 33 years, R/o.Plot No.256, Subhodaya Colony,
Hayathnagar, R.R Dist.Telangana.
30. Sabyasachi Pradhan, S/o. Kishore Chandra Pradhan,
Aged about 43 years, R/o.H.no. 8-3-988/11/3/B,
Flat No. 202 Yashwini Enclave Srinagar Colony,
Opp Satyasai Nigamam Gate No. 2, Srinagar Colony,
Khairatabad, Hyd.
31. Korandla Veera Reddy, S/o. Korandla Malla Reddy,
H.No. 9-200/283, Plot No 283 5B Lane Reddys Avenue,
Nizampet, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana.
32. Minpuri Rajesh Babu, S/o. Late Anjaiah Minpuri,
Aged about 46 years, R/o. Flat No. 405, A-Block,
SBSY avatar Apartments, Beside Bharat Petroleum,
Ramachandrapuram, Dist Sangareddy.
33. Tudugani. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Tudugani Kalidas,
3 of 26

Aged about 50 years, R/o.H.no 1-9-312/2 to 1-9-312/2A,
Flat No. C-407, Vaidehi Nivas golden Palms
Achytha Reddy Marg, Vidya Nagar, Adikmet,
Musheerabad New Nallakunra, Hyd.
34. Bhavanasi Madhusudhana Rao, Aged about 60 years,
R/o.F.No.903,S.y.71, Hamptons, Serilingampally,
Raghavendra Colony, kondapur, R.R. District, Telangana.
35. Bhavanasi Venkata Manjula, W/o.Bhavanasi Madhusudhana Rao,
Aged about 59 years, R/o.H.No.903, ARK Hamptons,
kondapur, K.V.Rangareddy, Telangana.
36. Padarthi Siva Phanindra Harish, S/o. Srinivas Pratap Kumar Padarthi,
Aged about 30 years, R/0.62-19-925,
Sree Krishna Nagar 2/6,Old Guntur,
Kothapeta, Andhra Pradesh.
37. Venkannapatrudu Bandaru, S/o. Late B.Akkanna Patrudu,
Aged about 45 years, R/o. H.No. C5-4 PTS,
NTPC, Jyothi Nagar, Ramagundam, Somanapalle.
38. Aravind Babu Bhonagiri, S/o. B.Vidya Sagar,
Aged about 46 years, R/o. Villa 25
Vasudeva Bloomfield Ecstasy, Tellapur,
Sangareddy, Telangana.
39. Venkataratnam S P, S/o. Parthasarthy,
Aged about 48 years, R/o. 2-2-18/20/6,
Flat No. 301, Goutham Residency, D D colony,
Near Ahobila Mutt, bagh Amberpet, Amberpet, Hyderabad.
40. Madhukar Pabba, S/o. Vaikuntam Pabba,
Aged about 47 years, R/o.H.No. 15-2-327,
Ramesh Nagar, Godavarikhani, Ramagundam,
Karimnagar, Telangana.
41. Neerumala Nagarathnam, W/o. Chandramoult,
Aged about 66 years, R/o.H.No. 14-33,
Near Super Bazar Chowrastha, Indiramarg,
Huzurabad, Karimnagar, Telangana.
42. Lingamaneni Gangarao, S/o. Lingamaneni Narayana,
Aged about 68fears, R/o. Flat No. 503, Green Space Residency,
Road No. 28, Alkapoor Township, Neknampur,
Manikonda, Puppalguda, Rajendranagar, K.V.Rangareddy.
43. Gadiparthi Anjaneyulu, S/o. Gadiparthi Venkateshwarlu,
Aged about 54 years, R/o. Opp Pearls inn,
Flat no. 301, Lakshmi Durga Estates,
Madinaguda, Miyapur, Hyderabad.
…Complainants
Versus
4 of 26

1. Sahithi Constructions Ltd.
Represented through its Managing Director,
Sri Boodati Laxmi narayana and
Partner Smt.Parvathi Office at PlotNo.1222,
4th & 5th floor, Road No.35, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana
2. Smt. Pamayyagari Parameshwari,
R/o. H.No.1-9-278/5/2/2, Balaji Nagar,
Near Venkateswara Temple, Ramnagar Gundu,
Hyderabad 500044.
3. Sri.Pamayyagari Ramachander Goud, S/o. Sri. P. ArjunGoud,
R/o. H.No.6-12, Tellapur-502302
4. Sri. Pamayyagari Pradeep Goud,
S/o. Sri.P.Pamayyagari Pradeep Goud,
R/o. H.No.6-12, Tellapur 502302
5. Sri. Pamayyagari Hari Krishna Goud,
S/o. Sri. (late) Pamayyagari Arjun Goud,
R/o.H.No.6-11, Tellapur 502302
6. Sri. Pamayyagari Pandu Goud,
S/o. Sri.(late)P.Gurulingam Goud R/o.H.No.4-29, Tellapur 502302.
7. Sri.Pamayyagari Bhoopal Goud S/o. Sri. P.Pandu Goud,
R/o.H.No.4-29, Tellapur 502302.
8. Sri. Pamayyagari VenuGoud, S/o. Sri. P. Pandu Goud,
R/o.Beside Hanuman Temple, Tellapur 502302.
9. Sri. Pamayyagari Karan Goud,
S/o.Sri.(late)P. Gurulingam Goud, R/o.H.No.4-30, Tellapur 502302
10. Sri. Pamayyagari Sridhar Goud S/o.Sri.P.Karan Goud,
R/o.H.No.4-57/4, Near Pochamma Temple, Tellapur 502302.
11. Sri.Pamayyagari Arun Goud S/o.Sri. P.Karan Goud,
R/o.Hanuman Temple, Tellapur.
12. Sri.Pamayyagari Santosh Goud, S/o. Sri.P.Karan Goud,
R/o.H.No.4-30, Tellapur.
13. Sri.Pamayyagari Meghanath Goud,
S/o.Sri(late) P.NarayanaGoud, R/o.H.No.4-20, Tellapur.
14. Sri. Pamayyagari Nishanth Goud S/o.Sri Meghanath Goud,
R/o.H.No.4-20, Tellapur.
15. Sri. Pamayyagari Vishal Goud S/o. Sri Meghanath Goud,
R/o.H.No.4-20 Beside Hanuman Temple, Tellapur 502302.
16. Sri. Pamayyagari Narsing Rao (BabuGoud),
5 of 26

S/o. Sri. (late) P. Venkat Kishtaiah Goud, R/0.9-3/1,
Ramachandrapuram, Tellapur.
17. Sri.Pamayyagari Harish Goud S/o. Sri. P.Narsing Rao Goud
R/o.9-3/1,Ramachandrapuram, Tellapur.
18. Sri.Pamayyagari Avinash Goud S/o. Sri. P.Narsing RaoGoud
R/o.H.No.4-20, Tellapur 502302, Tellapur.
19. Sri.Pamayyagari Surender Goud
S/o.Sri.(late)P. Venkat Kishtaiah Goud, H.No.4-20, Tellapur.
20. Vinod kedia, S/o.late Banwarlal kedia,
R/O. H .No-5-9-22/52, Adarsh nagar, Hyderabad-5000463.
21. Sumeet Kumar Kedia, S/O, Vinod Kedia,
R/O.H.No-5-9-22/52, Adarsh nagar, Hyderabad-5000463.
22. Sri. Nethi Vidya sagar s/o nethi bikshaiah
R/O. H.no-1-64, cherukupalle village, kethepally mandal,
Nalgonda-508211
23. Smt. Nethi Kamalamma, W/o Nethi Vidya Sagar,
R/o H.No - 1-64, cherukupalle Village, Kethepally Mandal,
Nalgonda- 508211
24. Smt. Nyavanandi Sai Rekha W/o. Nyavanandi Deepak,
R/o H.No 2-139, Malkoor Mandal, Maanik Bhandar,
Nizamabad, Telangana-500503
25. Matha Trading Plot No: A-2, Alwyn Colony
Phase 2, Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500072
26. Jt. Commissioner of Police (Crimes & SIT),
Central Crime Station Building Old Commissioner Office
Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Telangana 500029
27. Inspector of Police/Station House Officer,
Central Crime Station Central Crime Station Building,
Old Commissioner Office Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-29

…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing on
28.02.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for Complainants, Patlolla
Sudarshan Reddy and Sri Prahallad Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.20 & 21,
Sri Shyam S. Aggarwal, Counsel for Respondent Nos.22, 23 & 24, Sri M. Rajender Reddy
& Sri S.U. Khan and none for the remaining Respondents, and after hearing the
arguments, this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants under Section 31 of

the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
6 of 26

“Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against
the Respondents.
Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainants submitted that the landowners i.e., Respondent Nos.2 to 19,

to develop their respective lands parcels in to gated community consisting of residential
apartment / amenities/ structures for common usage, have approached the developer,
i.e., Respondent No.1 herein and agreed to give for development of their respective extents
i.e., Ac. 1-24.50 Guntas equivalent to 7804.50 Sq.vds vide DAGPA No. 36564 of 2019
pertaining to Respondent Nos.2 to 15 and Ac.0-21.50 Gts., equivalent to 2601 50 Sq.vds,
executed vide DAGPA No.6966 of 2020 pertaining to Respondent Nos.16 to 19. Thus total
to an extent of Acs.2-16 Gts., equivalent to 10406 Sq.yds situated at Tellapur Village,
Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, registered with the Office of DistrictRegistrar, Medak at Sanga Reddy was given for development to Respondent No.1 by
Respondent Nos.2 to 19. The said Development Agreements also contain the units fallen
to each of their share and the both the parties are absolutely entitled to deal with their
respective extent of units.
4.

The Complainants stated that Respondent No.1 along with Respondent Nos.2 to

19 executed the following with the Complainants herein:
S.No. Name of the
Complainant
1.
Hari Prasad Peddi

Flat
No.
514

2.

Vineet Kumar
Goyal and his
wife Bhawna
Goyal

1504

3.

Kasam Kishan

804

4.

Errabelly
Hanumantha Rao

910

Extent
(size)
1655
sq. feet,
with 38
sq.
yards
2038
sq. feet,
with 46
sq.
yards

Amount
paid
39,72,000/-

Doc. type

Doc. date

AoS

16/09/2019

35,39,600/-

27/01/2022

2038
sq. feet,
with 47
sq.
yards
2099
sq. feet,
with 48
sq.
yards

50,44,050/-

Regd.
Sale Deed
bearing
Doc.
No.3015
of 2022
AoS

54,57,400/-

AoS

21/11/2019

12/04/2022

7 of 26

5.

Venkata Satya
Ganeshwara
Rama Kumar
Batchu
Katukuri Ramana
Reddy

416

7.

Chilukuri
Upender

612

8.

Donepudi
Pratyusha

409

9.

E. Venkateswara
Prasad
Neerumalla
Vamshi Krishna

210

11.

Nageshwara Rao
Dande

614

12.

Srinivas Koleti

313

13.

Dereddy Madan
Mohan Reddy

410

14.

K. Bharath
Kumar

315

15.

Y. Sharada
Yasasvi

111

16.

Chakka Sanvv
Praveen

712

17.

Pachika Sammi
Reddy

808

6.

10.

602

915

1841
sq.feet,
with 42
sq yards
1582
sq. feet,
with 36
sq.
yards
1783
sq. feet,
with 41
sq.yards
1582
sq. feet,
with 36
sq.
yards

47,86,600/-

AoS

14/08/2019

37,96,800/-

AoS

12/09/2020

43.23,775/-

AoS

18/11/2019

35,55,400/-

30/06/2022

2099
sq. feet
1655
sq. feet,
with 38
sq.
yards
1655
sq. feet,
with 38
sq.
yards
1655
sq.feet,
with 38
sq.yards
2099
sq.feet,
with 48
sq.
yards
1655
sq. feet,
with 38
sq.yards
1655
sq.feet,
with 38
sq.yards
1783
sq.feet,
with 41
sq.yards
1585
sq. feet,
with 36
sq.yards

54,57,400/.
39,72,000/-

Regd.
Sale Deed
bearing
Doc. No.
23549 of
2022
Receipt
AoS

18/07/2019,
21-09-2019
1/10/2019

41,78,875/-

AoS

26/09/2019

41,00,000/-

AoS

20/02/2020

56,67,300/-

AoS

14/08/2019

43,03,000/-

AoS

18/10/2021

54,57,400/-

AoS

01/10/2019

47,24,950/-

AoS

16/09/2019

31,45,500/-

AoS

07/09/2020

8 of 26

18.

Chittineni
Nagaraja

613

19.

Subrahmanyam V
Akkunuri

609

20.

Police Nanda
Kumar Reddy

1008

21.

Kattamuri
SNVSM Babu

1405

22.

Ashwin Kumar

1113

23.

Shetpelli Srikanth

1007

24.

Lingala Mohan
Rao

306

25.

P.Srinivas Rao

813

26.

Murali Krishna
Chintapalli

1002

27.

Amara Jagadeesh

114

28.

Vasala Sowmya

301

29.

Pinnoju
Phanindra Chary

213

30.

Sabyasachi
Pradhan

1210

31.

Korandla Veera
Reddy

906

1655
sq.feet,
with 38
sq.yards
1585
sq.feet,
with 36
sq.yards
1585
sq.feet,
with 36
sq.yards
1582
sq.feet,
with 36
sq.
vards
1655
sq.feet,
with 48
sq.vards
1221
sq.feet,
with 28
sq.yards
1585
sq.feet,
with 36
sq.yards
1655
sq.feet,
with 38
sq.yards
1582
sq.feet,
with 36
sq.yards
1655
sq.feet,
with 37
sq.yards
2109
sq.feet,
with 48
sq.yards
1655
sq.feet,
with 38
sq.yards
2099
sq.feet,
with 48
sq.yards
1585
sq.feet,

43,03,000/-

AoS

25/09/2019

41,60,625/-

AoS

16/11/2019

43,27,050/-

AoS

09/10/2019

67,07,100/-

AoS

26/08/2021

49,65,000/-

AoS

21/09/2019

40,00,000/-

AoS

26/01/2021

50,72,000/-

AoS

12/10/2020

42,61,625/-

AoS

24/07/2022

39,15,000/-

AoS

14/02/2020

43,03,000/-

AoS

25/09/2019

67,48,800/-

AoS

17/12/2020

52,13,250/-

AoS

20/01/2021

67,00,000/-

AoS

13/02/2020

40,50,000/-

AoS

20/20/2020

9 of 26

32.

Minpuri Rajesh
Babu

1513

33.

Tudugani Vijay
Kumar and
Tudugani
Namratha

403

34.

Padarthi Siva
Phanindra Harish
and Padma
Sravani
Bhavanasi
Bhavanasi
Venkata Manjula
and
B.Madhusudhana
Rao
Venkannapatrudu
Bandaru

1310

2097
sq.feet,
with 48
sq yards

1103

706

37.

Aravind Babu
Bhonagiri

1305

38.

Venkataratnam S
P and others

710

39.

Madhukar Pabba

1308

40.

Neerumala
Nagarathnam

1006

41.

Lingamaneni
Gangarao

1516

42.

Saritha Koganti

510

35.

36.

5.

with 36
sq.yards
1655
sq.feet,
with 38
sq.yards
2001
sq.feet,
with 46
sq.
yards

15,97,903/-

AoS

01/01/2021

44,77,200/-

20/06/2022

31,39,680/-

Regd.
Sale Deed
bearing
Doc.
No.3015
of 2022
AoS

2001
sq.feet,
with 46
sq yards

83,04,000/-

AoS

08/10/2021

1585
sq. feet,
with 36
sq.yards
1585
sq.feet,
with 36
sq.yards
2099
sq.feet,
with 48
sq yards
1585
sq.feet,
with 36
sq.yards
1585
sq.feet,
with 36
sq.yards
1848
sq.feet,
with 42
sq.yards
2099
sq.feet,
with 48
sq.yards

38,00,000/-

AoS

20/02/2020

47,55,000/-

AoS

06/01/2021

62,97,000/-

AoS

01/01/2021

47,55,000/-

AoS

06/01/2021

38,04,000/-

AoS

03/10/2019

77,19,600/-

AoS

14/10/2021

54,57,400/-

AoS

21/09/2019

07/09/2021

The Complainants further submitted that Respondent No.1 was indulging in

fraudulent activities and cheated the Complainants along with other allottees in other
projects and accordingly, various cases were filed against Respondent No.1 before

10 of 26

Respondent Nos.26 & 27 and the properties relating to all projects were attached in
accordance with the provisions under the Telangana Protection of Depositors of Financial
Establishments Act, 1999 and the Chairperson of Respondent No.1 Company got
arrested.
6.

Complainants further submitted that Respondent No.1 obtained finance from the

Respondents No.20 to 25 and the cases registered before the Respondent No. 26 and 27
as such they have been made as parties to the above petition.
7.

Finally, the Complainants submitted that they are genuine purchasers and

obtained the sale agreements, regd. sale deeds by the Respondent No.1 & Respondent
Nos.2 to 19, however, Respondent No.1 failed to commence construction and handover
the respective flats to the allottees, neither did Respondent No.1 refund the amounts paid
by the Complainants.
Reliefs prayed for:
10.

Aggrieved by the actions of the Respondent No.1, the Complainants sought for the

following relief(s):
a. Give a direction to the Respondents/ Builders/Landlords to complete the project
and hand over to the petitioners.
b. If fails to complete the project direct the Respondents/ Builders/Landlords to return
the amounts along with interest @24% P.A.
c. To award Compensation/ Damages.
d. To pass such other relief or reliefs that the authority deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
Directions seeking refund:
11.

Out of the Complainants mentioned above, following Complainants filed an

Affidavit seeking refund of amounts paid by them which have been duly taken on record:
1. Dereddy Madan Mohan Reddy – Complainant No.13
2. Vamshi Krishna Neermalla – Complainant No.10
3. Chakka Sanvv Praveen – Complainant No.16
4. Venkannapatrudu Bandaru – Complainant No.37
5. Chittineni Nagaraja – Complainant No.18
6. E. Venkateswara Prasad – Complainant No.9
7. Murali Krishna Chintapalli – Complainant No.26
8. Nageswara Rao Dande – Complainant No.11
9. Sabyasachi Pradhan – Complainant No.30
10. Linganmaneni Gangarao – Complainant No.42
11. Minpuri Rajesh Babu – Complainant No.32
12. K. Ramana Reddy – Complainant No.6
13. Venkata Satya Ganeshwara Rama Kumar Batchu – Complainant No.5
11 of 26

14. Kasam Kishan – Complainant No.3
15. Vasala Sowmya – Complainant No.28
16. Korandla Veera Reddy – Complainant No.31
17. Srinivas Koleti – Complainant No.12
18. Pachika Sammi Reddy – Complainant No.17
Counter on behalf of the Respondents:
Respondent No.1
12.

None appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.1 builder despite service of notice,

and therefore, he was set ex-parte vide Order dated 17.10.2024.
Respondent Nos.2 to 19
13.

None appeared on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 19 despite service of notice,

and therefore, they were set ex-parte vide Order dated 17.10.2024.
Respondent No.20 & 21
14.

Respondent Nos.20 & 21 filed reply and submitted that the claim stated to have

been made under Section 31(1) of the Act, 2016, praying to (a) give a direction to the
Respondents/Builders/Landlords to complete the project and handover to the
petitioners, and (b) if fails to complete project direct the respondents / Builders /
Landlords to return the amounts along with interest @24% p.a. and other reliefs in
respect of schedule property of land admeasuring acres 1-24.5 guntas equivalent to
7,804.50 square yards and acres 0-21.5 guntas equivalent to 2,601.50 square yards,
total admeasuring acres 2-16 guntas equivalent to 10,406 square yards, situated at
Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram mandal, Ranga Reddy district, is not maintainable
either on facts or in law and the same is liable to be dismissed.
15.

It was further submitted that Complainants are guilty of suppression and

misrepresentation of the facts. That as per the copy of complaint, only the counsel has
signed the complaint and not the complainants and that the Complaint is prepared in a
mechanical manner without furnishing proper information and without complying with
requirements thereof. That even the statements made in the Complaint are vague, do not
furnish proper, required and complete information in regard to alleged dispute and that
for the said reason, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
16.

It was further submitted that Respondent Nos.20 & 21 are the victims of the acts

of Respondent No.1 developer and that they are the purchasers of flats in the proposed
project wherein they stand at the same footing that of the Complainants, but, they have

12 of 26

been mischievously mis-described and termed as financiers thereby damaging their
name and reputation and causing harm to them in several aspects.
17.

Respondent Nos.20 & 21 further submitted that the complaint is silent as to on

what basis the Complainants have branded these Respondents as financiers. Neither any
information is furnished in the complaint nor any source of such alleged information is
given. They submitted that no relief has been sought for by the Complainants against
Respondent Nos.20 & 21 in the present complaint and except making vague and absurd
statements that the Complainants came to know that the Respondent No.1 obtained
finance from the Respondent Nos.20 to 25 and that as such they are made parties to the
Complaint, no proper and required details thereof are given in the complaint, making the
very petition defective and improper.
18.

Further, such vague information provided by the Complainants is not sufficient

to array Respondent Nos.20 & 21 as the parties, without there being any grievance of the
Complainants against the said Respondents and nor any relief is sought against them.
19.

Respondent Nos.20 & 21 submitted that they purchased the flat Nos.315, 605,

609, 613, 614, 702, 710, 811, 812, 905, 906, 909, 915, 1005, 1006, 1008, 1013, 1108
& 1109 and 608, 611, 612, 708, 808, 810, 816, 912, 916, 1004, 1016 & 1111, in Sahithi's
Nirupama project, situated at Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram, Sangareddy by
paying valid sale consideration thereof.
20.

Submitting that there are no merits in the complaint and no relief is prayed

against Respondent Nos.20 & 21, they prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Respondent Nos.22 to 24
21.

Respondent Nos.22 to 24 also filed a reply duly submitting that the complaint is

not maintainable. They submitted that Respondent Nos.22 to 24 are not aware about the
alleged purchase of their respective flats under unregistered agreements of sale from the
Respondent No.1.
21.

As the Complainants have not levelled any allegations against them, they

submitted that they are not necessary parties to the present complaint.
22.

It was further submitted that the allegation that Respondent Nos.22 to 24 have

financed Respondent No.1/Promoter and the cases registered before Respondent Nos. 26
and 27 as such they are made as parties to the complaint, is false. That there is no nexus
13 of 26

between Respondent Nos.22 to 24 and Respondent No.1 and that the Complainants have
not filed any material document to prove their case against Respondent Nos. 22 to 24.
They added that Respondent Nos.22 to 24 are not parties to the alleged unregistered
agreements of sale between the Respondent No.1 and Complainants. Further, there is no
contractual relationship between the Complainants and Respondent Nos. 22 to 24.
23.

It was further submitted that Respondent Nos.22 to 24 purchased flats under

registered agreements of sale cum GPA from the Respondent No.1, which are as follows:
Respondent No.
Respondent
No.22

Flat No.
1315
1501
1409
1513
1514

Document No. & date
45699/2021, 15.12.2021
45708/2021, 15.12.2021
45695/2021, 15.12.2021
45688/2021, 15.12.2021
45686/2021, 15.12.2021

Respondent
No.23

1313
1213
1308
1305

45702/2021, 15.12.2021
45692/2021, 15.12.2021
45698/2021, 15.12.2021
45693/2021, 15.12.2021

Respondent
No.24

1214
1014
1112
0114
1207
0103
0111
0903
0112
1314
0805
1116
1405
1209
1516

45704/2021, 15.12.2021
45703/2021, 15.12.2021
45701/2021, 15.12.2021
45700/2021, 15.12.2021
45697/2021, 15.12.2021
45705/2021, 15.12.2021
45707/2021, 15.12.2021
45706/2021, 15.12.2021
45709/2021, 15.12.2021
45696/2021, 15.12.2021
45694/2021, 15.12.2021
45691/2021, 15.12.2021
45690/2021, 15.12.2021
45689/2021, 15.12.2021
45687/2021, 15.12.2021

24.

It was further submitted that Respondent Nos.22 to 24 paid considerable

amounts under the above agreements of sale cum GPAs to the Respondent No.1 and also
agreed to pay the balance sale consideration on the date of execution of registered sale
deed. Respondent Nos.22 to 24 also similarly situated persons like the Complainants
and waiting for their occupation/possession in respect of their flats respectively.
25.

It was submitted that the Complainants have no claim against the Respondent

Nos.22 to 24 and no relief is also sought against them and therefore, no relief can be
granted against Respondent Nos.22 to 24, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed
against Respondent Nos.22 to 24.

14 of 26

Respondent No.25
26.

Respondent No.25 also submitted a reply submitting that registered sale deeds

with Respondent No.1 were entered vide Sale Deed No.8305/2021, 8306/2021,
8307/2021 towards purchase of Flat No.1103 on 11th Floor, admeasuring 1874 Sq. ft in
Sahiti-Nirupama's residential complex together with undivided share of land equivalent
to 43 Sq. yds out of 10406 Sq. yds, Flat No.110 on 11th Floor, together with undivided
share of land equivalent to 48 Sq. yds out of 10406 Sq. yds, Flat No.1416 on 14th Floor,
together with undivided share of land equivalent to 42 Sq. yds out of 10406 Sq. yds
respectively.
27.

It was further submitted that Respondent No.1 along with landowners i.e..

Respondent Nos. 2 to 19 executed the above-mentioned registered sale deeds in favour
of Respondent No.25 and the said transaction was legitimate along with exchange of
amounts as mentioned in the sale deeds.
28.

It was submitted that Respondent No.25 does not have any knowledge of

transactions entered by Respondent No.1 with the Complainants herein. Neither is
Respondent No.25 party to the said transactions as is evident from the agreements of
sale filed by Complainants, nor does he have any knowledge of Respondent No.1
executing such transactions with the Complainants. As such Respondent No.25 is not
privy to the alleged transactions executed between the Complainants and the Respondent
No.1.
29.

It was accordingly submitted that Respondent No.25 is not a proper and necessary

party to the present litigation moreso because there is, admittedly, no relief prayed
against Respondent No.25 by the Complainants and therefore, it was prayed to dismiss
the complaint.
Respondent Nos.26 & 27
30.

In the batch of matters that were filed by the allottees in the Project – Sahiti

Nirupama, Respondent Nos.26 & 27 filed a reply highlighting numerous complaints
against Boodati Laxminarayana, Managing Director of Respondent No.1 Company. The
complaints alleged that Mr. Laxminarayana, through social media, advertised pre-launch
offers from June 2019 onwards, collecting substantial sums from the complainant and
other customers without securing the necessary land acquisitions and permissions.
Despite repeated requests for refunds, the company continuously extended deadlines

15 of 26

and eventually ceased responding to customers, leading to the lodging of these
complaints.
31.

It was further submitted that during the early stages of the investigation, previous

Investigating Officers arrested A-1 Boodati Laxminarayana, A-2 Parvathi (his wife), and
A-3 Sathwik, following searches of their offices and residences, where material evidence
was seized. He, along with his marketing director, initiated pre-launch sales, collecting
approximately ₹103 Crores. Further investigations revealed that he expanded these
activities, launching 12 additional projects in Hyderabad and surrounding areas,
collecting about ₹1,290 Crores from 3,000 customers and defaulting on these obligations,
notably in the Sarvani Elite project.
32.

They also submitted that they have identified and attached the properties of the

accused, including lands purportedly involved in these fraudulent activities. A total of 60
cases have been registered against all Sahiti projects. The Respondents conducted
searches on several individuals’ homes and offices, seizing incriminating material and
₹25 Lakhs in cash. Bank transactions are being scrutinized with forensic auditors to
trace the funds. Finally, that the investigation had reached an advanced stage, with a
charge sheet expected to be filed imminently.
Points for consideration:
33.

After deliberating upon the contentions of the parties and the documents filed by

them, the following issues sprout for consideration:
I.

Whether the Respondent No.1 Developer has failed to perform its
obligations under the Act and thereby violated the provisions of the Act,
2016?

II.

Whether Respondent Nos.2 to 25 are have failed to perform its obligations
under the Act and thereby violated the provisions of the Act, 2016?

III.

Whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? If yes,
to what extent?

Observations of the Authority:
34.

Before going into the discussion, it is pertinent to note that the Complainants,

along with other allottees in the project formed “Nirupama Welfare Association” registered
vide Registration No.844 of 2022 represented through Sri Peddi Hari Prasad as President,
amongst other members.

16 of 26

Point I
35.

As this Authority was in receipt of number of complaints against Respondent No.1

with respect to this Project – Sahiti Nirupama, this Authority entrusted the task of
conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the Project to an investigating body being the
Engineering Staff College of India (“ESCI”), so as to facilitate collecting such relevant
information as regards the Project for proper adjudication of the present dispute. The
investigative body submitted a Technical & Financial Report dated 18.12.2023. In the
Technical Report, following information could be gathered:
a. Respondent Nos.2 to 19 are owners of the immovable property in vacant land to
an extent of Ac.0-10.75 gts and Ac.0-10.75 gts respectively totalling to Ac.0-21.50
gts equivalent to 2601.50 sq yds in Sy. Nos. 8/E1, 8/E2, 8/A, 8/A2 of Tellapur
Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana State and
also owners of the immovable property in vacant land in an extent of Ac.1-24.50
guntas equivalent to 7804.50 sq yds in Survey Nos. Nos.8/AA, 8/EE, 8/E, 8/E1,
8/E2, 8/A, 8/A2 of Tellapur Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy
District, Telangana State. Therefore, total extent of the land being 10,406 sq yds
being Ac.2.15 guntas.
b. Respondent No.1 Builder entered into a Development Agreement Cum Irrevocable
General Power of Attorney on 12.08.2019 vide Document No.36564/2019 at
SRO,

Sangareddy

with

Respondent

Nos.6 to

19

and

vide

Document

No.6966/2020 dated 11.02.2019 with Respondent Nos.2 to 5 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Development Agreements”). In the said Development
Agreements, the Respondent No.1 has agreed to construct a multi-storeyed
residential apartments complex which includes 02 Cellars + 01 stilt floor for
parking space, with 15 (fifteen) upper floors & amenities. It was also agreed that
the sharing ratio amongst the parties shall be 45%: 55% (45% to the landowner
and 55% to the developer). Therefore, a total of 76 flats comprising of 1,28,220
Sq. ft. (One Lakh Twenty-Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Only) and
26 flats comprising of 43,026 Sq.Ft. (forty-three thousand and twenty-six) were
falling in the share of the landowners i.e., Respondent Nos.6 to 19 and
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 respectively, and the remaining in the share of the
Respondent No.1 Builder.
c. That it was also agreed between the parties to the said Development Agreements
that the Respondent No.1 shall obtain required permissions/plans and approvals
from the concerned authorities and further that the Respondent No.1 shall
complete the development and construction on the Project Land in 36 (ThirtySix) months with a subsequent grace period of 06 (Six) months from the date of
sanction of the final approved plan by the competent authorities. In this regard,
17 of 26

it is pertinent to note that the Respondent No.1 Developer agreed that in the event
of delay, the developer shall pay delay charged, a sum equivalent to Rs.4 (Rupees
Four Only) per Sft per month that fell to the share of the landowners subject to
applicable IT TDS from time to time.
d. Accordingly, pursuant to this Agreement, the Respondent No.1 Developer
executed several unregistered and registered deeds, as submitted by the
Complainant Association from 2019 onwards. In the interim, the Respondent
No.1 Developer also applied for HMDA permission on 30.03.2020 vide Application
No.

035702/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA/30032020.

Thereafter,

HMDA

technical

approval was accorded on 17.05.2021 for 2 Cellar + 1Stilt + 15 Upper floors in
Survey No. 8/AA,8/EE,8/A,8/A2, 8/E,8/E1,8/E2, of Tellapur Village, Tellapur
Muncipality Mandal, Sanga Reddy District to an extent of land of 8,649.56 Sq.
Mts. Comprising of 16 flats in each floor totalling to 240 [235 +5(amenities)] flats.
Therefore, a total of 240 flats were to be constructed out of which, 102 (76 +26)
fell to the share of the landowners i.e., the Respondent Nos.2 to 19, and
remaining 138 flats to the share of the Respondent No.1 Developer.
e. By virtue of the above-mentioned Development Agreement dated 12.08.2019, the
Respondent No.1 entered into 157 transactions with the Complainants.
f.

Consequently, the Project was registered under TS RERA vide registration No.
P01100003433 dated 24.09.2021 which is valid upto 31.05.2026.

g. It was also submitted that the present stage of work assessed is 16% of the total
work.
h. The competent authority under the Telangana Protection of Depositors from
Financial Establishments Act, 1999 attached the land after receipt of several
complaints from the allottees/homebuyers in accordance with Section 3 of the
said Act, 1999 vide G.O.Ms No.1387 dated 12.07.2023.
36.

It is clear from these findings that the despite having obtained permission from

competent authority and registration from this Authority, construction could not be
concluded within the stipulated timeframe as committed in the respective Agreements of
Sale as well as competent authority permission and RERA registration.
37.

As per the submission of the Complainants, Respondent No.1 was arrested by the

competent authorities under Telangana Protection of Depositors from Financial
Establishments Act, 1999, and has not been able to conduct any business on account of
the attachment and the arrests. In such circumstances, it is not expected, neither is it
probable for the Respondent No.1 to complete the construction of the Project “Sahiti
Nirupama” and thereby comply with the provisions of the Act, 2016 more specifically
18 of 26

Section 11(4) which provides the duties of the promoter. Observing the series of events
taken place with the Respondent No.1 Builder in this project as well as other projects
which this Authority has taken cognizance of, it is manifest that the Respondent No.1
Builder never intended to construct or handover any flats to the allottees but merely
siphoned monies for defrauding the innocent allottees who invested their life savings in
the said Project. Additionally, despite the validity of the RERA Registration extending
until 31.05.2026, it is implausible that the Respondent Developer will accomplish the
construction within this specified timeframe.
38.

Section 11 (4) of the Act, 2016 obligates the Developer to be responsible for all

obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules
and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to
the association of allottees, till the conveyance of all the apartments. It also obligates the
Developer to be responsible to obtain the completion certificate, to obtain the lease
certificate, for providing and maintaining the essential services, on reasonable charges,
till the taking over of the maintenance of the project by the association of the allottees,
enable the formation of an association or society or co-operative society, execute a
registered conveyance deed of the apartment in favour of the allottee along with the
undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of allottees, etc,
which the Respondent No.1 Developer has failed to do. Looking at the progress of the
construction and the stage at which the development of the Project is proceeding, this
Authority has no faith in the Respondent No.1 Builder.
39.

Further, Section 14(1) of the Act, 2016 puts on obligation on Respondent No.1

Builder to complete the project. Section 14(1) stipulates that “the proposed project shall
be developed and completed by the promoter in accordance with the sanctioned plans,
layout plans and specifications as approved by the competent authorities.” Clearly, despite
having the permission from competent authority & registration for this Authority, due to
reasons unknown, Respondent No.1 failed to commence and complete the construction
in accordance with the sanctioned plan thereby violating Section 14(1) of the Act, 2016.
40.

The Respondent No.1 is also in violation of the Rule 14(1)(c) of the Rules, 2017

that obligate the promoter to file quarterly reports of the construction along with
photographs, list of number and types of apartments offered for sale, etc. In lieu thereof,
for not having complied the functions and duties of the promoter under the Act, this
Authority deems it fit to keep in abeyance, the registration granted to the Respondent
No.1 Builder in respect of the Project – Sahiti Nirupama bearing Regn. No.P01100003433
dated 24.09.2021. Further the Respondent is directed not to advertise, market, book,
19 of 26

sell or offer for sale, or invite any person to purchase in any manner. The Secretary of
TG RERA is directed to block access to the said project’s RERA Registered number, and
the operative part of the order shall be displayed on the webpage associated with the
project’s RERA Registered number. Point I is answered in affirmative.
Point II
41.

Respondent Nos.2 to 19, despite service of notice, failed to appear and failed to

file a reply as mentioned above. Whereas, Respondent Nos.20 to 25 filed their respective
replies, and preliminarily submitted that they entered into legitimate transactions with
Respondent No.1 and that they do not have any knowledge of the transactions which
Respondent No.1 has entered with the Complainants/allottees. Further, that no specific
relief has been prayed against them and hence, the complaint be dismissed against them.
This Authority has perused the material on record. Admittedly, Respondent No.1 entered
into registered sale deeds with Respondent Nos.20 & 21 and also registered agreement
of sale with Respondent Nos.22 to 24 and registered mortgage deeds with Respondent
No.25. It is these Respondents’ submission that they are equally victim to the actions of
the Respondent No.1 as that of the Complainants as Respondent No.1 has abandoned
the project and now that Respondent No.1 is embroiled in so many criminal cases, even
the land that belonged to Respondent Nos.20 & 21 by way of registered sale deed, has
been under attachment by the competent authorities under the Telangana Protection of
Depositors from Financial Establishments Act, 2016.
42.

This Authority notes that the Complainants have not sought any specific relief

against Respondent Nos. 2 to 25. Furthermore, Respondent Nos. 20 to 25, as evidenced
by their submissions, had a legitimate right or entered into a bona fide transaction with
Respondent No. 1 through duly registered documents. In the considered opinion of this
Authority, in the absence of any specific relief claimed against Respondent Nos. 20 to 25
and in the absence of any cogent material presented by the Complainants to substantiate
a case against them, no liability can be imputed to Respondent Nos. 20 to 25.
43.

However, with respect to Respondent Nos.2 to 19, admittedly, they are landowners

to the Project. The definition of a Promoter under Section 2(zk) is extracted as under:
“(zk)

“promoter”

means,—

(i) a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an independent
building or a building consisting of apartments, or converts an existing
building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose of selling all or
some of the apartments to other persons and includes his assignees; or
(ii) a person who develops land into a project, whether or not the person also
20 of 26

constructs structures on any of the plots, for the purpose of selling to other
persons all or some of the plots in the said project, whether with or without
structures

thereon;

or

(iii) any development authority or any other public body in respect of allottees
of—
(a) buildings or apartments, as the case may be, constructed by such
authority or body on lands owned by them or placed at their disposal by the
Government;

or

(b) plots owned by such authority or body or placed at their disposal by the
Government, for the purpose of selling all or some of the apartments or plots;
or
(iv) an apex State level co-operative housing finance society and a primary
co-operative housing society which constructs apartments or buildings for its
Members or in respect of the allottees of such apartments or buildings; or
(v) 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 constructed or plot is developed for sale; or
(vi) such other person who constructs any building or apartment for sale to
the general public.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, where the person who
constructs or converts a building into apartments or develops a plot for sale
and the person who sells apartments or plots are different person, both of
them shall be deemed to be the promoters and shall be jointly liable as such
for the functions and responsibilities specified under this Act or the rules
and regulations made thereunder;
44.

A plain and literal interpretation of this definition would encompass a landowner

within the ambit of a promoter, as it includes any person who undertakes construction
or causes construction to be undertaken. In light of Respondent Nos. 2 to 19 having
executed a development agreement in favor of Respondent No. 1, it is the considered
opinion of this Authority that the said landowners have, by such execution, effectively
caused the construction of the project in question.
45.

This Authority has also taken note of the Order passed by the Hon’ble High Court

of Bombay in Wadhwa Group Housing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vijay Choksi & Anr. (Second Appeal

21 of 26

No.21842/2023) reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 660, in which, it is categorically held
as under:
17.
….Thus, definition of the term “Promoter” under Section 2(zk) of RERA is
wide enough to include every person who is associated with construction of
the building such as builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate
developer or by any other name or even the one who claims to be acting as
the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land. One of the
principal objectives of RERA is to bring transparency in real estate sector
and to protect the interests of the consumers in the real estate project. The
term ‘Promoter’ has been so widely defined that it virtually includes every
person associated with construction of the building. Thus, even a person
who is merely an investor in the project alongwith the Promoter and who is
entitled to benefit in the real estate project is also covered by definition of
the term ‘Promoter’. In the present case, I need not delve deeper into the
enquiry as to whether Appellant is covered by the expression ‘Promoter’ or
not. While registering the project as ongoing project under Section 3 of the
RERA, Appellant’s name has been included in the list of Promoters.
Therefore, Appellant cannot run away from the fact that it is the promoter in
respect of the project ‘The Nest’. Explanation to Section 2(zk) makes all
persons who construct or convert building into apartments or develop a plot
for sale, as well as a person who sells apartments or plots to be promoters
making them jointly liable as such for the functions and responsibilities
specified under the Act, or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.
Thus, a person who does not actually construct or causes to be
constructed a building but merely takes part in the joint venture and
sells flats, becomes a Promoter. Appellant admits that it is entitled to a
share in the joint venture in the constructed area, which it is entitled to sell.
Thus, the Appellant is entitled to sell flats in the project and accept
consideration for such sale. There is therefore no doubt to the position that,
both Appellant as well as the second Respondent are Promoters and are
jointly liable in respect of the responsibilities under the RERA and Rules and
Regulations made thereunder.
18. In my view therefore, mere falling of flat in the share of the second
Respondent under the Joint Development Agreement, would not excuse the
Appellant from the responsibilities and liabilities under the RERA, Rules and
Regulations made thereunder qua that flat. RERA does not demarcate or
22 of 26

restrict liabilities of different promoters in different areas. The liability is joint
for all purposes under the Act, Rules and Regulations.
…
23. Thus, under Section 18(1)(b), the liability to return the amount received
from the flat purchaser is on the Promoter. Since the Appellant is covered by
definition of the term ‘Promoter’, it is also jointly liable to refund the amount
along with the other promoter, being the second Respondent. Section 18
cannot be narrowly interpreted as sought to be suggested by Mr. Engineer,
to include only that promoter who actually received the amount. The
objective behind enactment of RERA must be borne in mind. If such narrow
interpretation of Section 18 is accepted, it would give a license to developers
to deliberately accept payments in the accounts of one of the promoters and
then escape the liability to refund or to pay interest by taking a specious
plea that the other promoters are not liable in respect of those payments. Mr.
Engineer has sought to draw distinction between projects launched before
and after coming into force of RERA by submitting that now the monies must
be received in the registered account, which was not the case before
registration under RERA. To my mind, this distinction sought to be made
cannot be a ruse to escape the liabilities as promoter under RERA. The Act
applies even to ongoing projects and therefore the account in which monies
are received by promoters is irrelevant for the purpose of determining joint
liability of promoters under Section 18.
24. The Appellant’s contention about absence of privity of contract between
it and the Complainant is totally misplaced. Definition of the term ‘promoter’
under Section 2(zk) of the RERA would indicate that even persons/entities
with whom a flat purchaser does not enter into contract are also covered by
definition of the term ‘promoter’. Therefore, it is not necessary that there has
to be an agreement between every Promoter and the flat purchaser. As
observed above, it is a matter of indoor management between the Promoters
and the flat purchaser who is not supposed to know the intricacies of the
arrangements made between several promoters amongst themselves. When
a claim is raised in respect of a real estate project by a flat purchaser, all
promoters become jointly liable qua that flat purchasers, irrespective of
whether there is privity of contract with each of the promoter or not. This is
the scheme of RERA and mere absence of privity of contract with a particular
promoter does not relieve such promoter in respect of the liabilities under
RERA. 25. I am therefore of the view that Appellant cannot escape the
23 of 26

liability to refund the amount received towards sale of flat to Respondent
No. 1.”
46.

A meticulous examination of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of

Bombay unequivocally establishes that the landowners, i.e., Respondent Nos. 2 to 19
herein, fall within the definition of a "Promoter" and are consequently equally responsible
for the discharge of their obligations under the Act, 2016. In this context, it is further
observed that the agreements for sale produced by the Complainants explicitly indicate
that Respondent Nos. 2 to 19 were parties to the sale transactions of the flats effected by
Respondent No. 1. Moreover, by virtue of the Development Agreement dated 12.08.2019,
registered as Document No. 36564/2019 at the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Sangareddy,
executed with Respondent Nos. 6 to 19, and the Development Agreement dated
11.02.2019, registered as Document No. 6966/2020, executed with Respondent Nos. 2
to 5, it is evident that 76 flats, aggregating to 1,28,220 sq. ft., and 26 flats, aggregating
to 43,026 sq. ft., were allocated to the share of the landowners, namely Respondent Nos.
6 to 19 and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, respectively. Accordingly, Respondent Nos. 2 to 19
squarely fall within the definition of a "Promoter" under the Act, 2016, and therefore,
cannot

evade

their

statutory

liability

towards

the

Complainants/allottees,

notwithstanding the fact that they may not have received any sale consideration, as
opined in the judgment above.
47.

Therefore, Point II is answered accordingly, and Respondent No.2 to 19 are jointly

and severally liable as promoters under the provisions of the Act, 2016 whereas, no
liability accrues to Respondent Nos.20 to 25.
Point III
48.

As can be seen in Para No.11 above, some of the Complainants sought for refund

of their amounts as paid to the Respondent No.1 which can be evidenced from their
respective agreements of sale. In this regard, it is pertinent to note Section 18 of the Act,
2016, which stipulates as under:
“(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment,
plot or building,—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be,
duly completed by the date specified therein; or
(b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension
or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason,
he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw
from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the
amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may
24 of 26

be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including
compensation in the manner as provided under this Act:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he
shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing
over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.”
49.

An interpretation of this provision confers upon each allottee a statutory right

under the Act, 2016, to seek a refund of the amounts paid in the event that the promoter
fails to adhere to the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement for sale executed
by them. In the present case, despite obtaining the requisite approvals from the
competent authority and securing registration with this Authority, Respondent No. 1 has
failed to commence and complete the construction of the project, thereby failing to deliver
possession of the flats to the allottees as per the agreed timelines. Pursuant to the
respective agreements for sale, Respondent No. 1 was contractually bound to hand over
possession of the flats to the respective allottees within a period of thirty-six (36) months
from the date of execution of the agreements, along with an additional grace period of six
(6) months, thereby making the expected handover timeline approximately within the
year 2024, given that all agreements were executed in the year 2021. However, the failure
of Respondent No. 1 to adhere to this contractual obligation renders the Complainants
entitled to claim a refund of the amounts paid, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 18 of the Act, 2016.
50.

Therefore, Point III is answered accordingly and Complainants as mentioned in

Para No.11 of this Order are rightfully entitled to refunds of their amounts.
Directions of the Authority:
51.

In light of the discussions made above, this Authority, vide its powers under

Section 37 and 38 of the Act, 2016, issues the following directions:
i.

As Respondent No.1 Promoter has defaulted in complying its functions and duties
as provided under the Act and the Rules, as discussed in Paras 34 to 39, and the
promoter has failed to commence construction, complete the Project and
handover the flats to the allottees, in line with Section 7(1)(a), this Authority kept
the registration granted to the project i.e., Regn. No. P01100003433 dated
24.09.2021 in abeyance until further orders/directions in this regard.

ii.

Consequently, all developmental rights of the Respondent No.1 Developer are
hereby terminated henceforth, with respect to Project – Sahiti Nirupama and the
Respondent No.1 Promoter is restrained not to advertise, market, book, sell or
offer for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner, the apartment in the
25 of 26

said Project or part of it as otherwise, penalty shall be imposed in accordance with
Section 63 of the Act, 2016.
iii.

The Respondent No.1 Developer’s name shall be displayed in the list of defaulters
and the photograph of the Promoters i.e., Sri Boodati Laxminarayana and Smt.
Boodati Parvathi shall also be displayed on the TG RERA website.

iv.

As has been stipulated in the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay
(Wadhwa Group Housing Pvt. Ltd.), the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to 19 are jointly
and severally liable and are hereby directed, under Section 18 of the Act, 2016, to
refund the amounts made by the Complainants mentioned in Para No.11 read
with Para No.4, to the Promoter along with interest at the rate of 11.10% p.a. as
per Rule 15 of the Rules, 2017 as mentioned, wherein interest is applicable from
the date on which the respective Agreement of Sale sought to give possession of
the respective flat, within a period of 90 (ninety) days; and

v.

Until the final disposal of refunds are processed to the Complainants/Allottees,
the Respondent Nos.2 to 19 mere directed not to enter into any developmental
agreement or such other agreement of similar nature with any other
developer/contractor or construct on its own or give on lease to any third-party,
and not to alienate/sell/transfer or create any third-party rights on the Project
land i.e., 2601.50 sq yds in Sy. Nos. 8/E1, 8/E2, 8/A, 8/A2 of Tellapur Village,
Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana State and 7804.50
sq yds in Survey Nos. Nos.8/AA, 8/EE, 8/E, 8/E1, 8/E2, 8/A, 8/A2 of Tellapur
Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana State; and

vi.

The “Nirupama Welfare Association” registered vide Registration No.844 of 2022”
is directed to collate all the claims for refund as mentioned above, from the
Complainants herein, and to assume responsibility for ensuring the refund is
processed from the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 to 19 along with the applicable interest
as mentioned above; and

vii.

The parties are hereby informed that non-compliance of directions of the
Authority shall attract penalty under Sections 63 of the R.E (R&D) Act, 2016.

52.
Accordingly, for adjudication of further reliefs prayed for by the Complainants,
matter be listed on 30.06.2025.

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

26 of 26