Order Complaint No.139 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 6th November 2025
Coram:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Complaint No.139/2024/TG RERA

Between:
Smt. K Vijaya Lakshmi W/o K. Vivanatha Raju
R/o Flat No.401, G Block, Rainbow Vistas Rock Garden,
Green Hills Road, Moosapet, Hyderabad 500018
…Complainant
AND
1. M/s Viana Homes Pvt. Ltd. through its MD Anji Reddy,
Office at Plot Nos.3 & 53, Radhika Reddy Arcade, Jayabheri One Valley,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad
2. Sri Anji Reddy, M/d of M/s viana Homes Pvt. Ltd
Office at Plot Nos.3 & 53, Radhika Reddy Arcade, Jayabheri One Valley,
Gachibowli, Hyderabad
3. Sri K. Surender Reddy,
R/o Flat No.E-1107, Rajapushpa Retreat Apartments, Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal,
Telangana
4. Smt. K. Sravanthi Reddy,
R/o Flat No.E-1107, Rajapushpa Retreat Apartments, Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal,
Telangana
5. M/s Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd., rep by its Directors, Padmavathi Sri Krishna Veerapaneni
&Sri Ghanta Azad Babu
Office at #102, Plot No.119, Kamala Residency, H. NO.8-3-991, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad – 73
6. Padmavathi Sri Krishna Veerapaneni,
Office at #102, Plot No.119, Kamala Residency, H. NO.8-3-991, Srinagar Colony,
Hyderabad – 73
7. Sri Ghanta Azad Babu,
1 of 26

---

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

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s)against the Respondents.

A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

It is submitted by the Complainant that her husband and herself were in the process of

identifying a suitable commercial property, one Sri. Sikha Balaraju approached them,
representing himself as the authorised representative of M/s Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bell
Square Marketing Agency, and explained about an ongoing commercial project being developed
by M/s Vianna Homes Pvt. Ltd, the Respondent No.1 herein.
4.

Subsequently, the Complainant and her husband were introduced to the said developer

company, which offered to sell Commercial Unit No. 45, situated on the 4th Floor, admeasuring
1000 sq. ft. of saleable area (comprising 730 sq. ft. of carpet area, 270 sq. ft. of proportionate
common area, and pro-rata undivided land measuring 16 sq. yds.) in the Commercial Complex
known as “Poojitha Tech Park” situated at Kokapet Village and Gram Panchayat, Gandipet

2 of 26

---

UNIT No. 448
UNIT No. 46
UNIT No. 33& 34
UNIT No. 50

It is submitted that the Complainant and her husband accepted the said offer and entered

into Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 with Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 for the purchase of the
Scheduled Property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 73,92,000/- (Rupees Seventy Three Lakh
Ninety Two Thousand Only), inclusive of all taxes, facilities, and amenities. They subsequently
paid an additional sum of Rs. 2,62,600/- as part of the Corpus Fund along with the applicable
GST for which the entire sale consideration amounting in total amounted to Rs. 76,33,900/(Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Only), the receipt of which
has been duly acknowledged by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
6.

It is further submitted that, apart from the aforesaid sale consideration, the Respondents

jointly collected an additional amount of Rs. 29,02,100/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Two
Thousand One Hundred Only) from the Complainant. The said excess payments were obtained
with the help of undue coercion and in complete contravention of the terms of the Agreement of
Sale dated 10.10.2022. Hence, the said act of the Respondents in collecting the excess payment
is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the Agreement of Sale and is therefore liable to be refunded
to the Complainant.
7.

It is submitted that despite receiving the total sale consideration amount, the Respondents

have deliberately delayed the registration of the Scheduled Property by executing an Agreement
of Sale dt: 10.10.2022 in favour of the Complainant. Instead, they have been continuously
evading their contractual obligations and have subjected the Complainant and her husband both
senior citizens to undue harassment and mental agony.
8.

It has been further submitted that upon persistent follow-up by the Complainant, the

Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 executed an Affidavit dated 02.07.2023, acknowledging the receipt of
the total amount of Rs. 1,02,94,100/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand One
Hundred Only) and undertook to complete the registration of the Agreement of Sale in favour of
the Complainant on or before 31.07.2023. However, despite the expiry of the said period, the

3 of 26

---

It is also submitted that the Complainant had earlier filed a complaint bearing Complaint

No. 1784/2023/TG RERA, wherein Sri. Sikha Balaraju and Sri. Anji Reddy Annapu Reddy were
made Respondents instead of impleading all the Directors and Companies involved. The said
Respondents filed their Counter Affidavit and did not deny receipt of the sale consideration but
merely challenged the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of non-joinder of necessary
parties. Consequently, the said Complaint was dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties,
with liberty granted to the Complainant to file a fresh complaint vide order dated 10.07.2024.
Hence, this present complaint is being filed afresh by the Complainant, enclosing copies of the
Counter Affidavit filed by the respective Respondents in the previous complaint for the kind
perusal of this Hon’ble Authority.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
10.

In the light of the above, aggrieved by the actions of the Respondents, Complainant

sought for the following reliefs:
i.

To direct the Respondents jointly and severally to refund said excess amount Rs.
29,02,100/- received from the Complainant with interest of 24% from the date of receipt
of said amount till full refund of said amount is made to the Complainant.

ii.

To direct the Respondents jointly and severally to pay damages of Rs. 25,00,000/- towards
mental agony suffered by the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/as cost of legal expenses in prosecuting this present complaint to her (Complainant).

iii.

To direct the Respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay monthly rent of Rs 80/per Sq.ft. i.e. Total Rs 80,000/- per month from December-2023 for the Scheduled
Property until completion of construction and handing over of possession of the same to
the Complainant.

iv.

To cancel the registration granted under Section 5 of RERA Act of Project Registration
No. P02400002546 to the Respondent No.1 for fraudulent practices adopted by the
Respondents as per Section 7 of RERA Act.

v.

11.

To pass any other order as may be granted in the interest of justice.

Complainant also sought for this interim prayer:

4 of 26

---

C. Counter on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2:
12.
i.

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed a reply and submitted as under:
That the Complainant, with mala-fide intent, had engaged in presenting fabricated and
forged documents before this Authority. The Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 filed
as Document No. 3 by the Complainant, contains altered document including forged
signatures of Respondent No. 1 and the addition of witness signatures and a date which
were conspicuously absent in the original document submitted in RERA Complaint No.
1784 of 2023. It was submitted that this act amounts to fraud on the court, intended to
mislead this Authority and obstruct the due course of justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs & Ors.(1994)
1 SCC 1 held that fraud vitiates everything. A judgment, decree, or order obtained by
playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment,
decree, or order by the first court or by the highest court has to be treated as nullity by
every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court, at any time,
in appeal, revision, writ, or even in collateral proceedings.

ii.

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 further submitted that the current version of the Agreement of Sale
dated 10.10.2022, now submitted by the Complainant, exhibits clear evidence of forgery,
as the signatures and the date appear to be added subsequently. It is incontrovertible that
such a document was executed by Respondent No.1 or on behalf of any other Respondent.
That, therefore, the fabricated document constitutes prima facie evidence of criminal
misconduct under Sections 463, 464, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which
pertains to forgery and the use of forged documents.

iii.

Given the fabrication of the Agreement of Sale, there is no valid, legally enforceable
contract between the Complainant and Respondent No.1. The Complainant's case is
fundamentally flawed and lacks any basis in law or fact. The balance of convenience is
in favour of Respondent No.1, as there exists no genuine Agreement of Sale in question.
Consequently, there is no prima facie case for the Complainant to pursue any claims
against Respondent No. 1.

5 of 26

---

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 further submitted that as prima facie it has become evident that
the Agreement of Sale filed is forged and fabricated, this Authority lacks the jurisdiction
to adjudicate matters involving serious allegations of fraud, forgery, and fabrication of
documents, which require a thorough examination of evidence, cross-examination of
witnesses, and findings of fact that are beyond the scope of summary proceedings under
the Act, 2016. This Authority does not have the jurisdiction to delve into complex factual
disputes or determine the authenticity of documents. Such matters fall exclusively within
the domain of civil and criminal courts, which have the appropriate jurisdiction and
procedural mechanisms to adjudicate these issues. The present complaint is not
maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

v.

It was submitted that the Complainant's actions manifest a clear intent to perpetrate fraud
upon this Authority in order to obtain relief. In Complaint No. 1784 of 2023, which was
dismissed vide Orders dated 10.07.2024, the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 was
presented without any witness signatures or the date of execution and including other
flaws. However, in the present proceedings, the same Agreement has been fraudulently
altered to include witness signatures and date, thereby attempting to give false credence
to a non-existent transaction. That such actions are a direct affront to the principles of
justice, equity, and fair play and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

vi.

It was further submitted that Respondent No. 1 has already filed a separate complaint
(Complaint No. 117 of 2024) before this Authority, alleging that documents were being
systematically fabricated by the Complainant in collusion with third parties, including
Sikha Balraju, M/s INFY Projects, M/s Bellsquare Pvt Ltd, and M/s Bellcom India Pvt
Ltd. The present submission of the manipulated Agreement of Sale is yet another instance
of this ongoing conspiracy to defraud Respondent No. 1 and extract money through illegal
means. As such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.

vii.

It was submitted that the Complainant has approached this Authority with unclean hands,
having engaged in fraudulent and deceitful conduct in the preparation and presentation of
her claims. That the Complainant has deliberately suppressed material facts, submitted
forged and fabricated documents, and made misleading representations with the intent to
deceive this Authority and gain undue advantage. Such conduct amounts to a clear abuse
of the legal process. It is a well-settled principle of law that a party who approaches the
court or any legal authority seeking relief must do so with clean hands and in good faith.
A person guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of facts cannot be permitted
to seek equitable relief. The Complainant, having indulged in fraudulent actions and
6 of 26

---

While narrating facts on its perspective, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 submitted that in the year

2022, Respondent No.9 herein approached Respondent No.1 herein at its registered office on the
3rd Floor, Radhika Reddy Arcade, Gachibowli. Respondent No. 9 herein has proposed that he
had a substantial client base and is interested in purchasing commercial space in "POOJITHA
TECH PARK" and expressed his intention to mediate these transactions. Although Respondent
No. 1 herein discussed the terms of an agreement, Respondent No. 9 never finalized it, and
Respondent No. 1 did not pursue the matter further. That thus, no express agreement was entered
into between Respondent No. 1 herein and Respondent No. 7 to 9. Subsequently, Respondent
No. 9 introduced Respondent No. 2 herein to several prospective purchasers, leading to the
execution of some Sale Agreements with these individuals.
14.

It was submitted that it had recently come to Respondent No. 2's attention that Respondent

No.9, using his companies, namely M/s. Bell Square Pvt Ltd / M/s. Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd. and
M/s. Infy Projects Pvt Ltd (Respondent No. 7 and 8) have been falsely representing potential
purchasers as licensed or authorized RERA agents of Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 herein
clarified that they have not entered into any agency agreement with Respondents No. 7 to 9, nor
have they authorized Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 to act on behalf of Respondent No.1. That
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 in collusion and in connivance with each other have misled prospective
purchasers by quoting higher prices than those stipulated in the Sale Agreements and
misappropriated these amounts, causing financial losses and reputational damage to Respondent
No.1. Additionally, an intending purchaser reported that Respondent No. 9 falsely represented
himself as Respondent No.1's marketing head without authorization. Despite multiple attempts
to contact him via calls and messages, Mr. Balaraju has remained unresponsive.
15.

It was further submitted that recently, one of the holders of a Sale Agreement for a

commercial space in "POOJITHA TECH PARK" filed a complaint with this Authority against
Respondent No. 1 herein vide Complaint No. 1784 of 2023, and she has arrayed Respondent
No.2 herein to the present complaint. That this present complaint has placed Respondent Nos.1
& 2 in severe legal jeopardy, as it challenges the integrity of Respondent No. 1's business
practices and has significant implications for its operations. That the allegations made in the
complaint are directly tied to the fraudulent activities and misrepresentations carried out by
Respondent Nos. 9 and his companies i.e., Respondent No. 7 & 8, who falsely presented himself
themselves as an authorized agent of Respondent No. 1 Company.

7 of 26

---

That recently, Respondent No. 1 has been informed that First Information Reports (FIRs)

have also been registered by EOW Cyberabad PS against Shri. Sikha Balaraju for fraud and
cheating amounting to Rs. 4 Crores in relation to the Respondent No. 1 project.
17.

That Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 have engaged in forging and fabricating signatures/ receipts

of Respondent No. 1 & 2, thereby putting them at severe risk. That the fraudulent actions of
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 not only involve the misappropriation of funds but also the use of
deceitful means to manipulate and mislead prospective purchasers which have led to significant
financial losses and have severely tarnished the reputation of Respondent No. 1.
18.

That Respondents No. 7 to 9 herein, without being registered as agents under Section 9,

have facilitated the sale or purchase of a commercial flat in the real estate project of the company,
and as such are liable to be punished under Section 62. To this effect, Respondent No. 1 herein
has already filed Complaint No. 117 of 2024 against Respondent Nos. 7 to 9 herein.
19.

That the Agreement of Sale being referred to by Respondent No. 1 in this matter is a

forged and fabricated document. That the Complainant had earlier filed a complaint before this
Authority registered as Complaint No. 1784 of 2023, in which the Agreement of Sale submitted
did not contain any witness signatures. However, in the present complaint, the Agreement of Sale
suddenly bears witness signatures, which raises strong suspicion and clearly demonstrates the
Complainant's fraudulent conduct. This discrepancy along with other inconsistencies, proves that
the Agreement of Sale presented in the current case is forged and fabricated and hence cannot be
relied upon.
20.

That the Complaint is based on forged and fabricated documents that were prepared and

submitted in collusion with Respondent Nos. 7 to 9, with the intent to cause deliberate harm to
Respondent No.1. The Agreement of Sale and related documents submitted by the Complainant
are fraudulent and are put to strict proof of the same. The actions of the Complainant, in
connivance with Respondents Nos. 7 to 9, amount to a conspiracy designed to mislead this
Authority and inflict financial and reputational damage upon Respondent No. 1 by forcing it into
unnecessary litigation.

D. Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.5 to 7:
21.

Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 filed their Counter Affidavit and submitted that Sikha Balaraju is

no way concerned with M/s Bellcom India Pvt Ltd and M/s Bell Square marketing agency. That
8 of 26

---

It was submitted that there is no relation between Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 5 to 7, and

the Respondent Nos. 5 to 7 never participated in any talks with the Complainant or during the
transaction of the Agreement of Sale.
23.

It was submitted that Respondent No.8 is M/s Bell Square and has been represented by

Managing Director (“MD”), Sikha Bala Raju as was mentioned in the complaint, but Shri. Sikha
Bala Raju is no way concerned with M/s Bell Square. It was specifically submitted that
Respondent No.9, Sikha Balaraju, falsely gave affidavit on 02.07.2023 mentioning MD of M/s
Bell Square and also mentioned presently M/s Infy Projects.
24.

It was submitted that the Respondent Nos. 5,6 & 7 are the Directors of M/s Bellcom India

Pvt Ltd. That M/s Bell Square, who is Respondent No.7 herein also pertaining to Respondent
Nos.5&6 as Directors but the Complainant mentioned wrongly Respondent No.8 represented by
Shri. Sikha Balaraj. It was further submitted that Sikha Balaraj no way concerned with Bellsquare
or Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd.
25.

It was submitted that the document filed by the Complainant which is registration

certificate of project vide project no. P02400002456 is pertaining to Poojitha Tech Park and
Vianna Homes Pvt Ltd. That the agreement of sale entered by Vianna Homes themselves as GPA
holder of landlords with the Complainant &the entire portion of agreement of sale does not
contain Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 names as well as signatures. It was further submitted that the
receipts were issued by Vianna Homes in favour of Complainant after receiving the amounts and
they are no way concerned with Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7.
26.

It was submitted that the affidavit issued by Sikha Balaraj clearly shows as Managing

Director, Infy Projects and he obtained said certificate from Govt. of Telangana Labour
Department. Neither Bell square nor M/s. Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd. neither made any application
under RERA. That the Respondent no.9, Shri. Sikha Balaraju, is in no way concerned with M/s
Bell Square, and he cheated several persons, and that is the reason an FIR was registered by
EOW, Cyberabad vide Cr. No. 7/2024 u/s 406 & 420 IPC.

9 of 26

---

Therefore, Respondent Nos.5, 6 & 7 prayed to dismiss the complaint against Respondent

Nos. 5,6&7 with exemplary costs.
E. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent
Nos. 1 & 2 and 5 to 7:
28.

Complainant filed a combined rejoinder to the Counter filed by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

and Respondent Nos. 5, 6 & 7 and submitted that all the allegations made in the respective
counters of Respondents against the Complainant are false and fabricated.
29.

The Complainant submitted that, the Respondents more particularly Respondents No. 1

& 2, have received total sale consideration amount by way of Cheque payments made by her as
mentioned below:
a. Cheque No.090866 dated 22-08-2022 of Rs.5,00,000/- vide Receipt dated 22-08-2022
issued by Vianna Homes Private Limited.
b. Cheque No.000022 dated 08-09-2022 of Rs.34,00,000/- vide Receipt dated 08-09-2022
issued by Vianna Homes Private Limited.
c. Cheque No.058115 dated 23-02-2023 of Rs. 10,00,000/- vide Receipt dated 16-03-2023
issued by Vianna Homes Private Limited.
d. Cheque No.058117 dated 23-02-2023 of Rs. 4,00,000/- vide Receipt dated 23-04-2023
issued by Vianna Homes Private Limited.
e. Cheque No.209614 dated 12-04-2023 of Rs.12,94,000/- vide Receipt dated 23-04-2023
issued by Vianna Homes Private Limited.
30.

The Complainant further submitted that the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 executed

by Respondents No. 1 to 4 in her favour and copy of the same is filed along with the Complaint
itself. That the Respondents No. 1 and 2, having admittedly received the sale consideration
amount, more particularly by way of cheque deposits credited to the company’s account, as stated
hereinabove, cannot now be permitted to deny the execution of the Agreement of Sale. Such
denial, in the face of the acknowledged receipt of consideration, would amount to a fraudulent
act and constitute an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 7, read with Sections 13
and 14 of the Act, 2016.
31.

That total amount of Rs. 76,33,900/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand

and Nine Hundred Only), which is inclusive of all charges and taxes, including total sale
consideration in the matter, was received by the Respondents No.1 to 4 from the Complainant
10 of 26

---

That Respondent No.2 in his counter filed in earlier complaint No. 1784/2023/TGRERA

had admitted said Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 without disputing it {at Para No. B (iii)
of Preliminary Counter dated 20.06.2024 filed by Respondent No. 2, Sri. A. Anji Reddy and
same is also fact on record in Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 own complaint in CC. No. 117/2024/TG
RERA. On contrary to above said admitted facts on record, now the Respondent No.1 & 2 are
trying to develop litigation by changing their admitted pleadings pleaded on record as submitted
supra which is nothing but amounts to unfair trade practice, cheating, fraud etc. committed by
them against the Complainant, for which they all shall jointly and severally be held liable for
costs and consequences in the matter.
33.

That as per the directions of this Authority, at the inception of the matter, the Complainant

had produced the original document of the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 before the court
of this authority, and after examining the same, the Hon’ble authority was pleased to post the
matter for the counter of the Respondents. That on bare perusal of the original document of said
Sale Agreement, it would be clear that the present copy of said Agreement enclosed with the
present complaint is a true Xerox copy of said main original Sale Agreement, but not as an alleged
fraud, fabricated and forged document. That all the allegations made by the Respondents by way
of filing a counter are false, and the alleged fraud, fabrication and forgery of said Agreement are
far from the truth in the matter.
11 of 26

---

The Complainant submitted that Respondents No.1 & 2 are always trying to defraud her

by not executing the Agreement of Sale and registering the same in her favour on one pretext or
other since the inception of the matter. Further, the Authority may recollect the facts on record
in the earlier complaint wherein the Respondent No.2 had avoided multiple notices of appearance
with the intention to delay the matter and appeared after many adjournments, including service
of notice personally by her (Complainant) apart from a telephone call made by the office of this
Authority. Even after the appearance, several adjournments were taken by him without filing a
counter and tried to drag on the matter. Because of the serious initiative of the Authority,
Respondent No. 2 (Sri. A. Anji Reddy) filed a counter in the erstwhile complaint
No.1784/2023/TGRERA. That the Respondents No. 1 & 2 are always playing delay tactics by
way of litigating the matter rather obliging to register Agreement of Sale having been received
total sale consideration through cheque payments as stated supra, which is nothing but delay
tactics playing by the Respondents No. 1 & 2 to drag the matter as did in earlier occasion to
harass, defraud her (Complainant) and willfully cause loss to her.
35.

That there has been no denial of factual contentions of the Complainant about receipt of

the amount by either of the Respondents in the matter, except raising invalid grounds of fraud,
fabrication and forgery. The relevancy and liability of the Respondents is borne on record and
documents filed along with the complaint demonstrate the fact of liability of the Respondents in
the matter.
36.

In response to the counter filed by the Respondents No.5 to 7, the Complainant submitted

that they did not deny the documents of receipts which were issued by them in terms of
acknowledging payment of the amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Seven Lakhs Only)
paid by the Complainant. But they vaguely denied all the Complainants contentions without any
valid reason or proof. Therefore, the contentions raised by the Respondents No. 5 to 7 in their
counter filed in the matter are totally not correct &hence are denied by her.

37.

She further contends that upon bare reading of the counter filed by the Respondents No.

5 to 7, it would be clear that all of them (Respondents) collusively wanted to cheat her
(Complainant) by not registering the Agreement of Sale in her (Complainant) favour, even after
receiving the total sale consideration, apart from an additional excess amount. All the actions of
the Respondents in the matter are illegal and violative of the rules and regulations of the Act,
2016. It was further submitted that the Respondents No. 1 to 4, instead of adhering to the
12 of 26

---

F. Points for consideration:
38.

After deliberating upon the contentions of the parties the following issues arise for

consideration by the Authority:
I.

Whether the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 executed between the
Complainant and Respondent No. 1 is legally valid and binding?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? If yes, to what
extent?

III.

Whether the Respondents are in violation of any provisions of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016?

G. Observations of the Authority:
39.

Before adverting to the points under consideration, it is pertinent to record that notices

were duly served upon Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 8, and 9. However, none of the said Respondents
appeared before this Authority or filed any written submissions in response. It is noted that
Respondent No. 9 had once entered appearance through learned counsel, Sri Siva Kumar, who
sought time to file a Vakalatnama. Nevertheless, neither the said counsel nor the party appeared
on the subsequent dates of hearing.
40.

Accordingly, as notices were duly served and no appearance or submissions were made

despite sufficient opportunity, Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 8, and 9 were set ex parte vide Order dated
23.01.2025. The matter was, therefore, proceeded with in their absence, treating that they had no
submissions to offer and have impliedly admitted the facts and contentions placed on record.
POINT I

41.

On a careful perusal of the contents of the Complaint No. 139/2024/ TG RERA, the

Counter Affidavit filed thereon and the Rejoinder filed by the Complainant narrated herein above,
13 of 26

---

Date of the receipt

42.

14.08.2022

Amount
(Rs.)
6,00,000

received Cheque No. And issuing Bank

22.08.2022

5,00,000

29.08.2022

25,00,000

08.09.2022

34,00,000

16.03.2023

10,00,000

23.04.2023

4,00,000

15.03.2023

6,00,000

23.04.2023

12,94,100

Total:

Rs.1,02,94,100/(Rupees One Crore
Two Lakhs NinetyFour Thousand and
One Hundred Only)

Cash in favour of M/s Bellcom India
Pvt. Ltd.
Cheque
No.090866
dated
22.08.2022 drawn on the State Bank
of India
Cash in favour of M/s Bellcom India
Pvt. Ltd.
Cheque
No.000022
dated
08.09.2022 drawn on Kotak Bank
Cheque No.058115 was issued in
favour of Respondent No.1.
Cheque
No.058117
dated
23.02.2023 drawn on ICICI bank
Cash in favour of M/s Bellcom India
Pvt. Ltd.
Cheque
No.209614
dated
12.04.2023 received by Respondent
No.1.

The Complainant has submitted in Para 5 of the Rejoinder filed on 23.01.2025 that an

amount of Rs. 37,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh Only) was paid to Respondent Nos. 5 to
7, and Respondent No.9. It has been submitted by the Complainants that Respodnent No.9, Shri.
Sikha Bala Raju, presently MD of M/s Infy Projects, who issued an Affidavit executed on
dt:02.07.2023 acknowledging he has received an amount of Rs.1,02,94,100/- (Rupees One Crore
Two Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand One Hundred Only) from the Complainant and that he was
responsible for registration of Unit No.45, admeasuring 1000 sq ft in 4 th floor of Poojitha Tech
14 of 26

---

Per contra, Respondent No.1 contended that the Complainant has filed a copy of the

Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 in the present Complaint which is a fraudulent and
fabricated document as the signatures of the witnesses have appeared in the Agreement of Sale
filed in the present Complaint, whereas, in the previous Complaint filed by the Complainant vide
Complaint No.1784/2023/TG RERA which was dismissed vide Orders dated 10.07.2024,
witness signatures were not present on the said Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022.
44.

It was therefore contended by the Respondent Nos. 1& 2 in the Counter Affidavit filed

on 03.10.2024, that the original document contained neither witness signatures nor a date of
execution; however, the version now produced bears fabricated additions of both, thereby
constituting a deliberate act of fraud intended to mislead this Hon’ble Authority. Respondent
No.1 relied upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Mohanlal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627. It was
contended that the said Agreement of Sale was not executed by Respondent No.1 and
consequently, no valid or legally enforceable contract exists between such Respondent Nos. 1 &
2 and the Complainant.
45.

It is also alleged that there exists a broader conspiracy involving systematic fabrication

of documents by the Complainant in collusion with third parties, including Sikha Balraju, M/s
INFY Projects, M/s Bellsquare Marketing Agency and M/s Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd.
46.

In response to these contentions of Respondent No.1, the Complainant vehemently

asserted in the Rejoinder filed on 23.01.2025 as well as during the course of arguments advanced
on her behalf that there has been a genuine mistake on her part in filing two different copies of
the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022, one in the erstwhile Complaint No.1784/2023/TG
RERA which was filed by the said Complainant previously against the Shri. Sikha Balaraju
(Respondent No. 9 herein) and Sri. A. Anji Reddy and another in the present Complaint No.
139/2024/TG RERA. The Complainant has contended that the Respondent No.1, M/s. Viana
Homes Pvt. Ltd., represented by Respondent No.2, has in fact acknowledged the existence of the
Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 in earlier proceedings before this Authority. It is submitted
that in Complaint No.1784/2023/TGRERA, filed by Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi (Complainant herein)
against Shri. Sikha Balaraju (Respondet No.9 in the present Complaint) and Sri. A. Anji Reddy
15 of 26

---

In view of the pleas and counter pleas of the parties highlighted herein above, the question

that arises for consideration is whether the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 was executed
and whether there exists any fraud as alleged by the Respondent No.1. It is pertinent to note that
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 admission in its Counter Affidavit dated 03.10.2024, filed in the present
proceedings at Paragraph 12, wherein it was stated to the effect as “recently, one of the holders
of a Sale Agreement for a commercial space in ‘Poojitha Tech Park’ filed a complaint with the
Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against Respondent No. 1 herein vide Complaint No.
1784/2023, and she has arrayed Respondent No. 2 herein to the present complaint.” One of the
holders of Agreement of Sale referred to in this extracted portion of said Counter Affidavit
appears to be none other than the Complainant herein, who was also the Complainant in that
Complaint No. 1784/2023. Furthermore, in the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 in
the Complaint No. 1784/2023 copy of which has been produced by the Complainant, in the
present case Respondent No. 2 has submitted therein at Paragraph 1(A) to the effect as “It is
submitted that M/s Vianna Homes Pvt. Ltd. had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated
10.10.2022 with the Complainant herein, but for reasons best known to the Complainant, the
Answering Respondent herein has been made a party and not the Company to the present
16 of 26

---

Further with regards to the alleged element of fraud being played, as submitted by the

Respondent Nos.1 & 2, is with regards to the signatures of witnesses and the date of execution
which were stated to have been missing in the erstwhile Agreement of Sale as compared to the
one submitted in the present Complaint. This aspect has been contended by the Respondent No.
1, as fraud and as such, its stand is that the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022, cannot be taken
into consideration. On this aspect, the Respondent No. 1 has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1, wherein it
was held that “fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by
taking unfair advantage of another”. The Apex Court categorically held that a litigant who
approaches the court is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant
to the litigation, and that if the litigant withholds a vital document in order to gain an advantage
on the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite
party. Respondent No.1 contended that the Complainant, by virtue of submitting two different
Agreements of Sale alleged to have been executed between Respondent No.1 as represented by
Respondent No.2 and the Complainant, has committed fraud upon this Authority, and therefore,
the Complainant’s claim does not stand tall.
49.

In the considered opinion of this Authority, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

judgment cited supra, fraud necessarily connotes a deliberate intention to deceive another in order
to gain an undue advantage. Mere inadvertence or technical error in law, may not amount to fraud
unless accompanied by a wilful intent to mislead or to cause injury. Admittedly, in the present
case, there exists a duly executed Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 between the Complainant
and Respondent No.1. The mere filing of two different copies of the same Agreement of Sale,
one containing the signatures of witnesses and another in its absence, does not, by itself,
constitute fraud, as there is no evidence of any intentional act of deceit on the part of the
Complainant so as to mislead this Authority or the Respondents. To establish the element of
fraud, Respondent No.1 was required to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Complainant
acted with an intent to deceive this Authority or to secure an undue advantage to the detriment
of others. However, their own unequivocal and unambiguous admissions of the existence of the
Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 stand contrary to their plea of fraud. It is further noted that
Respondent No.1 have themselves admitted, in Paragraph 12 of their Counter Affidavit, that an
Agreement of Sale was executed between the parties. It is therefore implied that such an
17 of 26

---

Respondent No.1 also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Mohanlal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627, regarding the fabrication of evidence. As has
been established earlier, this Authority is convinced that Respondent No.1 has failed to establish
any fabrication of evidence. Mere denial of the copy of the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022
filed in the present complaint because it differs from an erstwhile document does not make the
document “fabricated” specifically in the light of the fact that the Respondent No.1, has in its
own Counter Affidavit, as pointed out in the foregoing paras, admitted to have executed an
Agreement of Sale in favour of the Complainant herein. Accordingly, this Authority finds that
the plea of fabrication of evidence raised by the Respondents is devoid of merit and unsustainable
in law.
51.

Point I is answered accordingly.

POINT II
52.

The grievance of the Complainant pertains to the non-registration of Unit No. 45,

admeasuring 1000 sq. ft., situated at Poojitha Tech Park, Kokapet Village and Gram Panchayat,
Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as promised by Respondent No. 1 under the Agreement
18 of 26

---

This Authority observes that the Complainant has sought the relief of registration of Unit

No. 45, admeasuring 1000 sq. ft. on the 4th Floor of Poojitha Tech Park, situated at Kokapet
Village and Gram Panchayat, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, albeit as part of the
interim relief. Further, under the principal reliefs, the Complainant has prayed for refund of the
alleged excess amount paid, compensation towards damages, and payment of monthly rent until
completion of construction and handing over of virtual possession of the said unit. Therefore, it
is evident that though the prayer for registration was placed under the interim relief, it forms an
integral part of the overall grievance and is intrinsically connected to the substantive reliefs
sought by the Complainant.
54.

It is trite that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is a beneficial and

remedial legislation enacted with the avowed object of protecting the interests of allottees and
ensuring transparency, accountability, and fairness in real estate transactions. The statutory
framework seeks to balance the rights and obligations of both promoters and allottees. The
obligation of the promoter to execute and register the conveyance deed flows directly from the
provisions of Section 11(4)(f) read with Sections 17 and 19(3) of the RE(R&D) Act, which
mandate the promoter to transfer title and execute a registered conveyance in favour of the
allottee. The Respondent’s attempt to rely on a mere procedural or clerical aspect in the framing
of the relief, to defeat a substantive statutory right of the Complainant, is wholly untenable before
this Authority. Being a quasi-judicial forum constituted under a beneficial statute, this Authority
cannot permit technical or procedural lapses in the prayer clause to override the substantive rights
of an allottee under the RE(R&D) Act.
55.

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, this Authority holds that it is well within its
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and issue appropriate directions regarding the registration of Unit
No. 45, 4th Floor, Poojitha Tech Park, situated at Kokapet Village and Gram Panchayat, Gandipet
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of the Complainant, in accordance with the terms and
conditions contained in the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022.

19 of 26

---

Coming now to the relief sought by the Complainant regarding the registration of the said

unit, it is necessary to determine whether the Respondents are obligated to register the same under
the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022. Respondent No. 1 initially denied the existence of such
an Agreement; however, in the same Counter Affidavit, Respondent No. 1 has stated as follows:
“The Respondents reiterate that they have fulfilled their obligations as per the Sale
Agreement dated 10.10.2022 and allegations of harassment, trauma, or mental agony
caused to the Complainant or her husband are denied and put to strict proof of the
same.”
57.

As already observed in the preceding paragraphs, the said Agreement of Sale dated

10.10.2022 stands duly executed and valid. Clause 8.1 of the Agreement titled “Schedule for
Possession of the Said Unit” stipulates that “the Vendor/Developer assures to hand over
possession of the Unit along with ready and complete common areas with all specifications,
amenities, and facilities of the project in place on or before three (3) years.” Therefore, as rightly
admitted in Para 22 of the Counter Affidavit, Respondent No. 1 is bound by Clause 8.1 and is
under an obligation to register Unit No. 45 in Poojitha Tech Park and hand over peaceful
possession of the same to the Complainant, along with the common areas, in accordance with the
terms of the said Agreement.
58.

The Respondent no.1 have further objected on the ground that they have not received the

amounts as alleged by the Complainant and that no acknowledgments or receipts were issued by
them. However, the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 clearly records that an amount of Rs.
39,00,000/- has been paid by the Complainant to Respondent No. 1, and the balance of Rs.
34,92,000/- is payable, with a further sum of Rs. 2,62,600/- to be paid at the time of registration.
59.

The Complainant has produced receipts duly stamped by M/s Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd.

(Respondent No. 5 represented by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7) and M/s Bell Square Marketing
Agency (Respondent No. 8 represented by Respondent No. 9) for payments of Rs. 6,00,000/(dated 14.08.2022), Rs. 25,00,000/- (dated 29.08.2022), and Rs. 6,00,000/- (dated 15.03.2023).
These receipts, coupled with the documents on record, establish that the Complainant has paid a
total sum of Rs. 65,94,100/- to Respondent No. 1 directly, and an additional Rs. 37,00,000/- to
Respondent Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, aggregating to Rs. 1,02,94,100/- (Rupees One Crore Two Lakh
Ninety-Four Thousand One Hundred Only).
60.

Respondent No. 1 has denied having any relationship, contractual or otherwise, with

Respondent No. 9 and contended that no amount was received through him. However, the record
reveals that a sum of Rs. 12,94,100/- was paid by the Complainant from ICICI Bank vide Cheque
20 of 26

---

Respondent No. 1 has, in its Counter Affidavit, admitted that Respondent No. 9 had

approached them for client facilitation and introduced prospective purchasers. Although no
formal written agreement was executed between them, Respondent No. 1 admittedly entertained
the clients introduced by Respondent No. 9 and executed sale agreements with such individuals.
This clearly reflects a degree of agency or facilitation between Respondent Nos. 1 and 9. Under
Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, a promoter is statutorily obligated to disclose the names of
any associated real estate agents. The failure to do so, coupled with the promoter’s
acknowledgment of part consideration received, constitutes a material omission and indicates
negligence on the part of Respondent No. 1. A promoter cannot absolve himself of liability by
claiming the absence of a formal agency agreement when he has, in fact, benefited from such
facilitation and acknowledged corresponding payments.
62.

It is further noted that Respondent Nos. 5, 6, and 7, in their Counter Affidavit dated

10.12.2024, have contended that the receipts dated 14.08.2023 for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/and dated 15.03.2023 for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- are in no way connected with them or with
M/s Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 5). They have further asserted that Shri Sikha Bala
Raju (Respondent No. 9) is neither a representative of M/s Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent
No. 5) nor of M/s Bell Square Marketing Agency (Respondent No. 8), and that no liability accrues
to Respondent No. 5 since it was not a party to the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022.
63.

However, mere denial without substantive evidence cannot suffice to discharge their

burden. It is well settled that a bare or evasive denial, unaccompanied by material proof, cannot
override documentary evidence on record. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in Arulmigu Velukkai Sri Azhagiya Singaperumal
Devasthanam v. G.K. Kannan, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 28257, wherein the Court observed that
a mere denial in pleadings does not amount to proof and cannot displace the documentary
evidence produced by the plaintiff:
“34. If a mere denial in the pleading of the defendant is considered adequate, it instantly
dispenses him of his burden to prove his plea of denial of plaintiffs title, which then will

21 of 26

---

64.

From the material on record, it is evident that M/s Bellcom India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent

No. 5), represented by its Directors (Respondent Nos. 6 and 7), and M/s Bell Square Marketing
Agency (Respondent No. 8), represented by Respondent No. 9, were actively involved in
facilitating the sale transaction between the Complainant and the Promoter, M/s Viana Homes
Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1), in respect of the project “Poojitha Tech Park.” The receipts
produced by the Complainant establish that part of the sale consideration was collected by or
through the said entities, acting on behalf of the Promoter. Therefore, by virtue of their active
participation and acknowledgment of payments, Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 stand in a principal–
agent relationship with Respondent No. 1 for the limited purpose of this transaction.
65.

This Authority, accordingly, finds their inclusion in the present proceedings to be both

procedurally necessary and substantively justified, as their conduct is directly connected with the
execution and performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022. However, it is clarified
that no independent relief is being sought or granted against Respondent Nos. 5, 6, or 7 in their
personal capacity; their inclusion is confined to determining their role in the chain of agency and
their nexus with the Promoter.
66.

In light of the foregoing discussion, and the specific admission by Respondent No. 1

regarding the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022, this Authority holds that mere denials
unsupported by documentary evidence cannot displace the Complainant’s claim, which stands
substantiated by the Agreement, payment receipts, and corroborating materials on record.
Consequently, this Authority concludes that the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 is valid and
binding upon Respondent No. 1, who is obligated to act in accordance with Section 11(4)(f) read
with Section 17 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, by registering Unit No. 45 in favour of the
Complainant and transferring lawful possession thereof.

22 of 26

---

This Authority, therefore, concludes that while the Complainant has paid the sale

consideration amount of Rs. 73,92,000/- (exclusive of corpus fund and GST) as stipulated under
the Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022, any payment made in excess thereof cannot be fastened
upon Respondent No. 1, as there is no evidence of such demand or acknowledgment by the
promoter. The affidavit dated 02.07.2023 executed by Respondent No. 9, Shri Sikha Bala Raju,
presently the Managing Director of both M/s Infy Projects and M/s Bell Square Marketing
Agency (Respondent No. 8), acknowledges having received a total of Rs. 1,02,94,100/- from the
Complainant in regard towards the concerned unit. The said excess amount of Rs. 29,02,100/(Rupees Twenty-Nine Lakh Two Thousand One Hundred Only) being over and above the agreed
sale consideration, cannot be attributed to Respondent No. 1.
68.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that Respondent No. 1 is obligated to register the

Scheduled Property, being Unit No. 45 admeasuring 1000 sq. ft. in “Poojitha Tech Park,” situated
at Kokapet Village and Gram Panchayat, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in favour of
the Complainant in accordance with Section 17 read with Section 11(4)(f) of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Further, Respondent No. 9, representing Respondent
No. 8, M/s Bell Square Marketing Agency, is directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.
29,02,100/- to the Complainant along with interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 15 of the
Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, i.e., SBI MCLR (8.75%) +
2% = 10.75% per annum, from the respective dates of payment till actual refund.
69.

The Complainant has prayed for monthly rent for the period of delay. Clause 8.2 of the

Agreement of Sale dated 10.10.2022 stipulates that possession was to be handed over on or before
three (3) years from the date of the agreement. The present complaint was filed during the agreed
possession period and therefore a claim for compensation for delay up to the expiry of that
contractual possession period is premature. Accordingly, the Complainant is not entitled to any
claim for rent for the period up to the expiry of the contractual date for possession. However, in
the event the Respondent No.1 fails to deliver possession beyond the contractual period,
Respondent No.1 shall be liable for such interest for the delayed period in terms of Section 18 of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Accordingly, Point II is answered in
the above terms.

23 of 26

---

The Respondent No.1, M/s Viana Homes Pvt. Ltd., had filed a complaint namely,

Complaint No. 117/2024/TG RERA before this Authority, specifically alleging that the
Respondent no.9 in the said matter have acted without authorisation from Respondent No.1, M/s
Viana Homes Pvt. Ltd. and have misrepresented several potential customers to tarnish the image
and reputation of Respondent No.1, apart from causing financial losses to the innocent
purchasers. Therefore, appropriate action had been initiated against the said Respondent no. 9
therein for violations under the provisions of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016, which are not being
repeated hereunder. The Respondent Nos.8 and 9 in the present Complaint No.139/2024/TG
RERA were the Respondents Nos. 3 and 1 respectively in Complaint No. 117/2024/TG RERA,
who have been held to be jointly and severally liable for penalty under Section 62 of RE (R&D)
Act, 2016 for violation of Section 9(1) & (2) of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 and have been directed
to pay penalty of Rs.3,69,600/-(Rupees Three Lakh Sixty-Nine Thousand Six Hundred Only)
payable within 30 (thirty) days. Accordingly, applying the well-established principle against
double jeopardy, this Authority deems it inappropriate to impose any further penalty upon the
said Respondents for the said violation.
71.

It is further recorded that Respondent No. 9 made appearance in the present matter on one

occasion through counsel but failed to appear on subsequent dates despite being aware of the
proceedings. Respondent No. 9 has actively collected funds from allottees and has shown a
persistent disregard for the directions of this Authority (including those issued in Case No.
117/2024) by not registering himself as a real estate agent before this Authority.
72.

Section 2(zm) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 defines a real

estate agent as a person who negotiates or acts on behalf of a person in relation to the sale or
purchase of any plot, apartment or building in a real estate project, or who facilitates such
transactions. Where a person acts in the capacity of a real estate agent without being registered
as required by the statute, such conduct undermines the protective and regulatory regime
established for the benefit of allottees and compromises the transparency the Act seeks to secure.
73.

In the facts of the present case, having regard to the admissions made, the receipts

produced and the conduct of Respondent No. 9 before this Authority, it is evident that he has
performed the functions of a real estate agent in relation to the transaction involving the
Complainant. His failure to register as a real estate agent despite specific directions and his
24 of 26

---

In view of the above, this Authority finds Respondent No. 9 in violation for acting as an

unregistered real estate agent and, in exercise of the powers vested in it under the RE(R&D) Act,
hereby restrains from engaging in, or facilitating, the sale, purchase or transfer of any plot,
apartment or building in any RERA-regulated real estate project, whether in whole or in part and
hereby declares him as a defaulter.
75.

Point III is answered accordingly.

H. Directions of the Authority:
76.

In view of the foregoing detailed discussion, findings, and observations recorded under

Points I to III hereinabove, and in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 37 and 38 of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, this Authority hereby issues the following
directions:
a. The Respondent No.1, M/s Viana Homes Pvt. Ltd., represented by Respondent No.2,
shall, within forty-five (45) days from the date of this Order, execute and register the
Sale Deed in favour of the Complainant, Smt. Vijaya Lakshmi, in respect of Unit No. 45
admeasuring 1000 sq. ft., situated on the 4th Floor of “Poojitha Tech Park”, located at
Kokapet Village and Gram Panchayat, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
Telangana, in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement of
Sale dated 10.10.2022.
b. The Respondent No.9, Shri Sikha Bala Raju, Managing Director of M/s Infy Projects
and representing M/s Bell Square Marketing Agency (Respondent No.8), having
acknowledged receipt of the excess consideration amount of Rs. 29,02,100/- (Rupees
Twenty-Nine Lakh Two Thousand One Hundred Only), is hereby directed to refund the
said amount to the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI
MCLR + 2%) as prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana RERA Rules, 2017,
calculated from the respective dates of payment till the date of actual refund. The refund
along with interest shall be made within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this
Order.
25 of 26

---

In light of the above, the present Complaint is disposed of in terms of the directions

contained herein. No order as to costs.

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

---