Order Complaint No.1675 Of 2023

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY
AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO.1675 OF 2023
18th day of April, 2024
Corum:

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

Sri Sriteja Yamparala

…Complainant

Versus
M/s Kavuri Hills Developers (P) Ltd.

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for final
hearing on 15.02.2024 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant
present in person and Counsel Pratap Kumar on behalf of the Respondent
and upon hearing the arguments of the party, this Authority passes the
following ORDER:
2.

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

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the
“RE(R&D) Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking
directions from this Authority to take action against the Respondent.
A. Brief Facts on behalf of the complainant:
3.

Kavuri Hills Developers Private Ltd advertised an upcoming gated

community villa project near Tukkuguda to our father. It was names Kavuri’s
Forest Nest on the brochures and their webpage. They claimed the project was
RERA and HMDA approved with clear title. Complainant wanted to have a
significant chunk of extra land and asked for an adjacent extra villa with no
building constructed to keep the land. The Sales team mentioned this is a
RERA and HMDA approved project and no deviations are allowed. They
1 of 21

offered us the biggest available plot #422. Hence, my father made an natal
deposit on my behalf for Villa #422 on 26.06.2018.
5.

Respondent demanded for more payments without giving us an

agreement f Sale. Up on repeated requests, they gave us an Agreement of Sale
on 02.06.2020.
6.

Complainant requested multiple representative of Respondent to inform

the status of the project so that they can make some enhancements to their
liking at relevant stages. For example, they wanted to include a long term
solution for termites in the flooring before the tiles were laid. However the
Respondent never communicated with the complainants about the overall
project or their individual villa.
7.

Complainant father raised many concerns about quality during the

construction phase but they were never acknowledged by the developer.
8.

Complainant tried reaching out to Respondent many times about the

status of his Villa’s construction and quality concerns. The Respondent
representatives showed no intent and kept giving vague responses to the
Complainant.
9.

Complainant expressed his intent to Respondent about the property

being registered in his name, Respondent mention that the complainant will
have to pay full price of the villa to get the property registered in his name.
Prior paying the entire amount, the complainant raised few clarifications
related to quality of constructions, plot area and timelines as documented in
the Agreement of Sale. Respondent never clarified on these concerns.
10.

In November 2021, the complainant approached the Respondent to get

the property registered but Respondent did not respond for the same. After
consistently following up, the property was registered undervalued, in June
2022, though paid the full price as per the Agreement of Sale. However, the
complainant was given the land promised as per the Agreement of Sale.
11. After months of registration, no work was progressing ever since and
property was being vandalised by workers in the venture, human and animal
2 of 21

faeces on the floor, and a leaking house during the rainy season. On being
inquired with the Respondent about the status of the handover, no response
received from the Respondent.
12.

Respondent has mentally agonized the complainant by hustling his

money and not responding.
13.

Further no safety or security to the Villa has been provided. On the visit

of the villa, it was observed that it remained in a dilapidated state. On asking
the respondent representatives to clean the house but to no avail.
14.

Further in May of 2023, the Respondent attempted to even from an

Owner’s Cooperative Society without informing the owners of the Villas. The
Respondent has stopped the owners from registering the society as the Society
Registration office was asking for Occupancy Certificate (OCs), which
Respondent has been possessing illegally and blackmailing owners.
15.

As there were no changes of the status of the construction, the

complainant tried to reach out the Respondent time and again, and the
Respondent continued to disregard the emails until asked for arbitration as
stated in the said Agreement of Sale.
16.

On meeting the Respondent, they dismissed the concerns raised. While

asking for a timeline for completion, the Respondent claimed that they cannot
commit to one as many vendors are involved.
17.
of

System of Mygate app is used by Respondent to manage the issues
the

villas,

pay

water

and

electricity,

among

other

important

communications. As the complainant completed the payment of the Villa, he
asked for acess to join the App. Respondent made up rules that the
Complainant need pay the amenities amount and get a NOC from the head
office to get admitted into the Mygate app. Complainant objected to this
unilateral claim and discussed the same with the representatives from the
head office. To which no productive responses were given by the Respondent
management.

3 of 21

18.

After persisting with the staff for more than a month, the staff replied

that they will start work on the cracks that existed in my villa from the next
day. On the first day of this work, an unsupervised labour worker showed us
there was no brick behind the plastered wall as the hammer caved in easily.
After experiencing this discovery, the Respondent argued and heckling the
complainant that they cannot place another solid masonry brick below the
beam and so they have to do this. Also, seepage quality issues existed in the
part of Villa for all.
19.

The entry of the Complainant to the Villa is restricted by the

Respondent and was chased to leave the property.
20.

On September 3rd, 2023, the Respondent conducted a meeting with the

owners of the villa, wherein the Respondent stated that the villa owners will
have to pay additional charges for the maintenance and infrastructures
charges. Respondent threatened the owners in the meeting that they will cut
the basic necessities such as water and electricity if all charges are not paid
by the owners.
21.

The Respondent restricted the entrance of the complainant to his Villa

and threatened him that they will sell the Villa to a third party. Such threats
and suggestions were routinely made to the complainant. On 26th October
2023, the Respondent sent final handover demand note for amenities. On
enquiring for all the issues raised with respect to the construction were
rectified, the Respondent did not respond. The complainant paid the balance
amount. On visiting the Villa, it was observed that all the issues raised by the
complainant were not fixed. However, the Respondent was compelling the
Complainant to sign no concerns notice document to which the complainant
denied. The complainant asked for penalty for the late handover an extra land
committed during sale. For which no reply was given to the Complainant.
23.

Mygate app is used by the property to report issues in the villa, get

community announcements and pay for utilities. Without access to it, the
property owners cannot get access to power and water. Irrespective of the

4 of 21

entire payment the complainant was not given the access of this app till he
signs the no concerns document.
24.

The Respondent have not provided all the amenities such as soft water,

supermarket, salon and others listed on their webpage, yet they have deceived
the complainant to get the full payment including all the amenities.

B. Relief(s) sought
25.

Relief Prayer Sought by the Complainant:

1. Direct the developers to rectify the construction deficiencies to ensure the
quality of the villa, as per the Agreement of Sale (AoS), ensuring peaceful
enjoyment of the property in the future. Additionally, award compensation
for the poor quality of the villa, amounting to 2.88 crore.
2. Order the Kavuri Hills Developers to fulfill their commitment to provide
112 sq yds of extra land, as specified in the AoS. Direct compensation for
the failure to provide the extra land, amounting to 44.80 lakhs.
3. Adjudicate that the Kavuri Hills Developers benefitted from converting
adjacent villas into bigger plots, resulting in premium value for the
complainant's property. Award compensation for the premium value of the
property, estimated at 4.48 lakhs.
4. Determine the delay in possession beyond the agreed-upon date of March
31, 2021, and calculate the delay fees owed to the complainant.
Additionally, order the developers to pay interest on the delay fees at a rate
of 4% per month, totaling 10.66 lakhs.
5. Penalize the Kavuri Hills Developers for deceptive advertising practices,
leading to false expectations and financial loss for the complainant. Award
compensation for the deception, amounting to 40 lakhs.
6. Direct the developers to provide the amenities as promised in the
marketing materials and AoS. Award compensation for the amenities not
provided, totaling 13 lakhs.

5 of 21

7. Order compensation for the inconvenience and expenses incurred due to
shuttle commuting for seven months, amounting to 1.24 lakhs.
8. Adjudge the loss of wages suffered by the complainant in the USA due to
the delayed possession of the property, totaling 1.26 crore.
9. Award compensation for the continued disturbance caused by construction
equipment and unauthorized individuals in the community, totaling 1 lakh
per month.
10.

Calculate and order the payment of interest on the amount hustled

from

the

complainant

before

the

commencement

of

construction,

amounting to 1.2 crore.
11.

Impose a penalty and interest for the denial of access to amenities

despite payment, totaling Rs 100,000 and Rs. 42,464 per month,
respectively.
12.

Award compensation for mental harassment and disruption of peace,

totaling 30 lakhs.
13.

Intervene, admonish, and penalize the developers for blocking basic

amenities after payment, as well as failure to respond to requests for
Service Level Agreements (SLAs), as outlined in the AoS.
14.

Order the developers to honor their commitment regarding maintenance

charges and provide clarity on the options presented to the complainant.
15.

Address the dispute regarding the borewell placement and resolve any

agreements conflicting with community interests.
16.

Require an apology from individuals involved in defamatory statements

against the complainant.
17.

Avoid the declaration of project completion until all amenities are fully

functional and construction materials are removed from the site.
18.

Reprimand the developers for interference in the formation of the

Owner's Co-operative Society.
19.

Rectify the renaming of the community and clubhouse to align with the

agreed-upon terms.
20.

Investigate

and

rectify

any

structural

violations

or

preferential

treatment within the community, ensuring compliance with established
regulations.
6 of 21

21.

Provide compensation for property tax despite lack of access to the

property, pending generation of a tax bill.
22.

Determine

overall

compensation,

including

monthly

allowances,

interest, and costs incurred, amounting to 7.1068 crores, along with filing
and lawyer costs.

C. Reply by the Respondent:
26.

The Company has been in the business of real estate, construction, and

development since the year 1999. The Company has completed several
projects in Telangana, including Kavuri Supreme Enclave, Kavuri Crosswinds,
Kavuri Ridge, KKR Square, Kavuri Incor 9, NCL Kavuri Icon, and Kavuri's
Lemon Leaf, which are fully occupied and enjoyed by the residents thereof.
The Company has a long-standing favorable reputation in the market as a
developer of quality projects.
27.

At the outset, the Company submits that the averments raised by Mr.

Sriteja Yamparala ("Complainant") in the Complaint are false, baseless, and
an attempt by the Complainant to prejudice the rights of the Company. The
Company submits the following specific responses and true facts regarding
the allegations in the Complaint below:
28.

The Company has obtained relevant permissions for the construction

and development of “Kavuri's Forest Nest." The Company wholly denies the
allegations within the Complaint regarding improper permits and misleading
advertisements as false, baseless, and a misrepresentation of facts in an
attempt to mislead this Honorable forum.
29.

The Company has obtained layout permissions for open plots on the

land measuring Acres 49 - 26 Guntas situated at Survey No. 55/1, 55/2,
55/3, 55/4 situated at Imamguda village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, Telangana, for the construction of “Kavuri's Forest Nest"
(“Project") vide draft L.P. No. 01/LO/plg/HMDA/2018 dated 27.03.2018, the
Municipal

Commissioner

Tukkuguda's

Draft

Layout

vide

Procs.

No.

GI/384/21/2019 dated 14.03.2019. The final layout was obtained on
7 of 21

05.02.2019. The Project has received Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory
Authority ("TSRERA") permit No. P02400000545, approved on 20.03.2019.
30.

Thereafter, the Company, to meet the demands and requirements of the

purchasers, constructed villas in the said Project by obtaining individual
permissions for each plot where the construction was being made. The
permissions were obtained from the local authority. All the aforementioned
facts are within the knowledge of the Complainant and the other purchasers
and are mentioned in the Agreements of Sale.
31.

The Company and the Complainant executed an Agreement of Sale

dated 02.06.2020 (“AOS") for the purchase of Plot No. 459 (Part) and 460
(Part) and Villa No. 422 in the Project (Villa"). As far as the Complainant is
concerned, Building Permit No. 3133/WI/2019/0467 from the Office of the
Tukkuguda Municipality was obtained on 12.03.2021. Subsequently, the
Complainant and the Company executed a registered Sale Deed bearing
Document No. 11476/2022 dated 01.06.2022 registered at the office of the
Sub-Registrar at Maheshwaram ("Sale Deed').
32.

The Company has obtained final occupancy certificate (OC") for the Villa

vide OC Proceedings No. 243769/TUKUO192/2022/0CC dated 19.07.2022.
33.

The Company submits that the Project consists of plots with villas and

has a perimeter wall with security and common amenities and has advertised
itself accordingly on its website and billboards. The Company has developed
the layout Project with houses to meet the requirements of the purchasers.
Furthermore, the Complainant was aware of this and executed the AoS, the
recitals of which clearly state that the Company would develop the Project
"...into a group housing project comprising of individual villas with internal
roads, parks, open spaces, water bodies, and a clubhouse with all other allied
internal and external services such as the water supply system, sewerage,
etc... ".
34.

It is also pertinent to note that both the AoS and Sale Deed executed by

the Complainant clearly mention that the initial permissions for the Project
were received from the HMDA and that the Villa would be constructed as per
8 of 21

the plan sanctioned by the Municipal Commissioner of Tukkaguda. Details of
the Project's RERA registration were also provided to the Complainant therein,
and therefore, the Complainant had knowledge of the permits obtained by the
Company for the Project and Villa. The Complainant is now raising unfounded
and vexatious claims after having purchased the Villa with full knowledge and
awareness.
35.

The Company wholly denies all allegations raised in the Complaint

regarding the Company's alleged demands for undue monies from the
Complainant as they are incorrect, baseless, and the Complainant is put to
strict proof of the same. The Company has only raised demand notices for
amounts due from the Complainant for the development of the Villa as per the
payment milestones provided in Schedule G of the AoS. The first payment
made by the Complainant to the Company for the Villa was made on
26.06.2018, which was after the Company had obtained the requisite permits
for the Project from TSRERA.
36.

The Company has constructed the Villa according to industry standards

and as per mutually agreed terms. The Company wholly denies all allegations
raised in the Complaint regarding inferior quality of construction, breaking
plaster, seepages, loose bricks, leaks, etc., as they are false, and a
misrepresentation of facts in an attempt to mislead this Honorable forum, and
the Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
37.

The Company submits that Clause 5 and Schedule-D of the AoS state

the specifications, materials, and fixtures that would be provided by the
Company to the Complainant in the Villa. The Company also communicated
to the Complainant that any additional provisions in the Villa would be at an
additional cost to the Complainant, and the Complainant agreed to the same.
The Company further submits that the Complainant had provided delayed
requests to the Company's inquiries, and hence, the Company was
constrained to move forward with the construction and development of the
Villa as per the timelines and specifications that were explicitly agreed upon
between the Company and the Complainant in the AoS.

9 of 21

38.

In an attempt to resolve any disputes and/or concerns amicably, on

01.09.2023, the Complainant forcefully entered the Villa prior to its hand-over
from the Company and vandalized the Villa, causing significant damage to the
interior and surroundings of the Villa. As of the date, the Complainant has
unrestricted access to his Villa, and the Company is apprehensive that the
Complainant may cause further damage to the interiors thereof with the
assistance of unauthorized persons. The Company submits that, as of the
date, the Company has completed repairs of prior damage in the Villa caused
by the Complainant, including but not limited to replastering chipped walls
and cleaning cement and other debris on the tiles, at its sole cost. The
Complainant has attempted to create a false narrative regarding the quality of
the Villa and the amounts allegedly owed to the Complainant as a result
thereof.
39.

The Company and Complainant mutually agreed to revise the extent of

the Villa to 398.49 square yards.
40.

The Company submits that the pandemic COVID-19 had significantly

impacted its business operations starting from the year 2020 up till late 2021,
thereby affecting the timelines for the delivery of the villas in the Project. The
Company submits that the development of the Villa resumed as soon as labor
was permitted on-site by the relevant statutory authorities, and the Villa was
completed as soon as possible upon the payment of dues from the
Complainant. The Complainant has willfully omitted the exception of Force
Majeure in an attempt to mislead this Honorable forum and unlawfully gain
from the Company.
41.

It is further submitted that all developers/projects were granted an

extension for the completion of the real estate project(s) as a result of the
occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic. In any event, the OC was obtained in
July 2022. The Sale Deed was executed in June 2022, and no dispute was
raised by the Complainant in relation to any alleged delay - therefore, the
contention taken now is a pure afterthought.

10 of 21

42.

The Company has effectively communicated with the Complainant

regarding the status of the Villa.
43.

The Company wholly denies all allegations within the Complaint

regarding evading calls/emails/messages of the Complainant, as they are
incorrect and baseless. The Company submits that they have, at all times,
been forthcoming, transparent, and cordial with the Complainant regarding
the status of construction of his Villa and any concerns about the quality of
construction of the Villa. The Company has provided clarifications to the
Complainant repeatedly and upon request, in person, over telephone calls, as
well as through emails from members of the management of the Company as
well as through its employees and agents. It is also pertinent to note that the
demand notices for payments towards the Villa are raised upon the
completion of certain construction milestones, as provided under Schedule-G
of the AoS, and hence, the Complainant was, at all times, aware of the status
of construction and development of the Villa.
44.

The Company has provided the Complainant with the Final Approved

Drawing Layout of the Villa, OC for the Villa, Final Approval Letter for the
Villa, and the process for registration to and use of the clubhouse amenities
in the Project vide email dated 02.11.2023. The Company submits that even
the Exhibits to the Complaint filed by the Complainant highlight several email
updates from the Company, which are listed and summarized below for your
reference:
45.

Thereafter, on 03.11.2023, the Complainant obtained the keys to his

Villa through force and threats to the employees of the Company and has
brought his own laborers into the Villa without the Company's authorization.
The Company submits that Clause 4(a) of the AoS states that the purpose of
sale was "To develop an integrated township under the aforesaid scheme
through the Developer [Company]. The Purchaser [Complainant] shall not
have any option to get constructed the Schedule C' Villa [Villa] through any
other person...". The Company submits that its subcontractors and laborers
are industry professionals and have been engaged for the construction and
development of the Project in line with the specifications agreed with the villa
11 of 21

owners. The Complainant, by himself as well as through his unauthorized
laborers, had unlawfully gained access to the Villa and began chipping the
walls, leaving cement on the tiles, pulling out brickwork, and had created a
hostile atmosphere therein by restricting any inspection by the Company,
which is in direct violation of his obligations under Schedule - F of the AoS.
The Company further submits that the Complainant has willfully refused to
sign the checklist in an attempt to carry out changes within the Villa at the
cost of the Company by claiming that these changes were done prior to 'handover' of the Villa. The Company submits that, as of the date, the Complainant
is currently in possession of both keys to the Villa, and the Company does not
have any access thereto. The Company has repeatedly, through emails (dated
04.11.2023) as well as in-person, requested that the Complainant return his
keys to the Villa so that the Company may restrict unauthorized persons into
the Villa prior to handover but to no avail. The Company had placed security
personnel around the Villa in order to protect the structure and avoid any
further vandalism.
46.

The Company has requested due and payable Maintenance Charges.

The Company wholly denies all allegations within the Complaint regarding
any additional charges for maintenance and gym usage, contrary to the terms
of the AoS, as false, baseless, and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the
same. The Company further wholly denies all allegations within the Complaint
regarding the alleged failure to provide amenities such as soft water,
supermarket, salon, etc., as false, and the Complainant is put to strict proof
of the same.
47.

The Company submits that soft water treatment facilities are present

within the Project. The Company further submits that they have already
constructed and allotted provisions for the supermarket and salon, and the
villa owners in the Project are deliberating on financially viable and quality
vendors to occupy such premises and provide services.
48.

The Company submits that the Project was envisioned in 2017, and

various agreements of sale were executed with villa owners stating the
erstwhile estimated maintenance charges. The Company submits that they
12 of 21

had informed the villa owners in the Project regarding an increase in the
estimate of maintenance costs during a meeting dated 03.09.2023, wherein
the villa owners were not comfortable with separate usage charges for the
clubhouse and consented to an increase in the maintenance charges for the
Project. Thereafter, the Company had informed the villa owners and residents
in the Project of the increased maintenance charges vide email dated
12.09.2023. The Company has only sought Maintenance Charges from the
Complainant in line with the aforementioned understanding.
49.

The

Company

is

registering

a

Cooperative

Housing

Society

in

compliance with the applicable laws. The Company wholly denies all the
allegations raised in the Complaint regarding the registration of a housing
society for the Project without the knowledge and/or consent of the
Complainant as false, baseless, and the Complainant is put to strict proof of
the same.
50.

The Company submits that it has been maintaining the Project in a

bona fide manner and has carried out the process for the registration of a
cooperative housing society in compliance with the provisions of the law. The
Company has conducted a meeting on 23.12.2023, at 11:00 am, inviting all
the villa owners/residents in the Project, for discussions regarding the
registration of a cooperative housing society in line with the Project's by-laws
and thereafter, the Company has filed its application for the same with the
relevant authority in compliance with applicable laws.
51.

The Company submits that the Complainant has repeatedly attempted

to instigate other homeowners in the Project to make false claims against the
Company. The Company further submits that the Complainant had
approached the Municipal Office with false claims against the Company but
was informed that the OC for the Villa was provided to the applicant, i.e., the
Company. Thereafter, the Complainant had approached the Municipal
Commissioner as well as various police officers in the locality with false
information, and when the Complainant was informed that their claims were
unfounded and that the construction of the Project is in compliance with the

13 of 21

law, they began issuing threats to such governmental officers and approached
this Honorable forum with false and vexatious claims.
52.

The Company further submits that Clause 17 of the AoS clearly

stipulates that the Complainant would be a member of the society for the
Project.
53.

The Company has, at all times, acted in a professional and courteous

manner towards all residents/owners in the Project. The Company wholly
denies all allegations of defamation, threats, force, fraud, extortion, or
blackmail within the Complaint as they are incorrect, baseless, and the
Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
54.

The Company has, at all times, interacted with the Complainant in a

professional manner and has only requested for the amounts due as per the
terms mutually agreed in the AoS. The Company further denies all allegations
raised within the Complaint regarding any preferential treatment of
homeowners as false, baseless, and the Complainant is put to strict proof of
the same.
55.

It is also pertinent to submit that the TSRERA is an adjudicatory body

specifically established and empowered to regulate and promote real estate in
Telangana, in compliance with the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 (“Act"). The Company submits that the Complaint has been filed
merely to harass the Company and does not have any basis either in facts or
in law and has been instituted in an unlawful attempt to bring these issues
within the scope of TSRERA's adjudication.
56.

The Company submits that the OC was issued by the relevant authority

to the applicant thereof, which was the Company and thereafter, the
Company handed over the OC for the Villa to the Complainant vide email
dated 02.11.2023.
57.

The Company submits that they have provided biometric lock and

access to the residents in the Project for the clubhouse amenities and all such
sensitive biometric information is stored in compliance with applicable data
protection legislation.
14 of 21

58.

The Company submits that the allegations raised in the Complaint

regarding the TSRERA, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, and
Office of the Municipality of Thukkaguda are not relevant to the adjudication
of the present dispute, do not concern the Company, and therefore, do not
warrant a response herein. The Company further submits that all allegations
within the Complaint regarding the Complainant's travel to and from the
U.S.A. as well as his alleged loss of income in the U.S.A. are irrelevant to the
adjudication of the present Complaint and do not warrant a response.
59.

Finally submit that the Complainant has issued the complaint with

false and misleading facts, and the Complainant is not in any manner
aggrieved under the provisions of the RERA Act or entitled to any of the
remedies or reliefs claimed under the Complaint. The Complainant has no
cause for action, and the present Complaint has been issued with a mala fide
intention to prejudice the rights of the Company. Therefore, in light of the
above-mentioned, request this authority to reject the Complaint filed by the
Complainant as being misconceived.
D. Rejoinder
60.

In response to the developer's submission, it is imperative to highlight

the glaring inaccuracies, misleading claims, and deliberate attempts to
obfuscate the truth. The developer's rejoinder is replete with falsehoods,
devoid of credibility, and attempts to deflect responsibility.
1. The Respondent claims a long reputation of quality projects, yet fails to
acknowledge the absence of RERA regulations during that time. The
comparison between a single building and a 50-acre project is
fallacious. Furthermore, the developer's failure to declare previous
projects in the RERA application for the current project raises serious
questions about transparency and compliance with regulations.
2. a. The evidence provided clearly demonstrates the company's deceptive
advertising practices, misleading customers about the nature of the
project and approvals obtained. The failure to obtain necessary

15 of 21

permissions for the villa project is a violation of the Real Estate Act of
2016.
b. The developer's negligence in updating RERA quarterly further
underscores their lack of accountability.
c. The discrepancy between the date of the development agreement and
the RERA application highlights a clear violation of regulations. The
developer's failure to distinguish between open plots and villa projects is
misleading and unacceptable.
d. The developer's actions regarding plot sales and construction
agreements raise serious doubts about their intentions and integrity.
e. The issues raised regarding occupancy certificates and incomplete
villas point to gross negligence and potential corruption within the
company.
f. The discrepancy between the project's advertised amenities and the
reality further exposes the developer's deceptive practices.
g. The lack of clarity in agreements and the developer's dismissive
attitude towards purchasers' concerns is deeply concerning.
h. The developer's demands for undue monies and blackmail tactics
demonstrate a blatant disregard for ethical business practices.
i. The developer's excuses regarding the functionality of RERA's
webpage and HMDA's requirements are unfounded and indicative of
their attempts to evade accountability.
3. The ESCI report and additional evidence highlight serious deficiencies
in the construction quality and adherence to industry standards. The
developer's lack of evidence to refute these claims further strengthens
the complainant's case.
4. The developer's failure to provide evidence of agreements and changes
in plot sizes raises doubts about their credibility and integrity.

16 of 21

5. The lack of communication from the developer regarding project
completion dates and delays are unacceptable, and their attempts to
evade responsibility are transparent.
6. The developer's claims of communication with the complainant are
refuted by documented evidence, and their continued possession of
crucial documents undermines the complainant's rights.
7. The developer's repetition of demands for undue monies further
highlights their unethical business practices.
8. The

evidence

presented

regarding

restrictions

on

access

and

harassment by the developer is deeply concerning and warrants further
investigation.
9. The developer's extortion of maintenance charges without completing
amenities or forming a cooperative society is a clear violation of
consumer rights and must be addressed.
10.

The developer's arguments lack substance and fail to refute the

complainant's claims.
11.

The developer's hostile treatment of owners and delays in project

completion are unacceptable and demonstrate a pattern of disregard for
consumer welfare.
Findings:
61.

During the conducted hearing, the Respondent requested the Authority

to direct a third-party investigation, to which the complainant also consented.
Consequently, the Engineering Staff College of India was directed to inspect
the subject Villa via letter dated 11.01.2024. Subsequently, the Inspection
report, vide ESCI/PD/TPQC/TSRERA/13/2023-24 dated 06.02.2024, was
submitted to this Authority. The Inspection report has provided a detailed
inspection, conducted in the presence of both parties, listing concerns raised
by the complainant. As per the Report, there are few concerns to be rectified
by the Respondent Builder regarding the subject Villa.
62.

Section 14(3) stipulates as follows:
17 of 21

"In case any structural defect or any other defect in workmanship, quality, or
provision of services, or any other obligations of the promoter as per the
agreement for sale relating to such development is brought to the notice of the
promoter within a period of five years by the allottee from the date of handing
over possession, it shall be the duty of the promoter to rectify such defects
without further charge, within thirty days, and in the event of the promoter's
failure to rectify such defects within such time, the aggrieved allottees shall
be entitled to receive appropriate compensation in the manner as provided
under this Act."

63.

After perusal of the complaint petition, the aforementioned section,

written reply of the Respondent and ESCI Inspection report, the Authority
comes to the following conclusions:
1. As the complainant has paid the total consideration amount as agreed
upon by both parties during the hearing, the complainant is entitled for
all necessary facilities in the concerned villa. Hence, the respondent
shall provide power supply and water supply immediately.
2. If any defective floor tiles or water dadoing tiles are noticed on the
ground floor, they shall be rectified as observed by the inspection team.
3. The wrought and put of the bedroom & toilet doors of the ground and
first floors, which are loosely fitted, shall be rectified.
4. The damaged UPVC window mosquito mesh shall be replaced.
5. The impervious coat on the roof slab, duly providing with KHURRAS at
the junction of water spouts, shall be rectified.
6. Junction treatment at slab and masonry wall of the South-West wall
needs

to

be

rectified

with

corrective

measures

to

arrest

the

moisture/Dampness into the bedroom.
64.

The complainant alleges that M/s Kavuri Hills Developers allowed the

collection of money from purchasers prior to obtaining the building permit.
According to the sales agreement, it is evident that the Respondent builder
collected advance payments for the purchase of the subject villa from October
2018 before entering into the agreement of sale. The Respondent applied for
18 of 21

TS RERA registration on 15.12.2018 and obtained registration on 27.03.2019.
Hence, it is evident that the Respondent offered to sell or market the villa in
the concerned project before even obtaining or applying for RERA registration.
Section 3 read as under:
Prior registration of real estate project with Real Estate Regulatory
Authority.—(1) No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer
for sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot,
apartment or building, as the case may be, in any real estate project or
part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate
project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under
this Act.
65.

The plain reading of the aforementioned section makes it clear that no

promoter shall promote real estate project before RERA registration. As the
Respondent without RERA registration collected the sum of advance for the
concerned Villa it is a violation of section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act 2016.
66. The complainant has alleged that there has been a delay in completion of
the construction of the Villa as per the timelines agreed by the parties in the
Agreement of Sale. The Authority observes that, that as per clause 6(a) of the
said agreement, the possession of the Villa shall be handed over by 31.03.021
with a grace period of 3 months. However, respondent denying to the
allegations stated that due to Covid-19 pandemic it had significantly impacted
their business operations. On consideration of submissions made by both the
parties regarding contravention of the provision of the Act, the authority is
satisfied that due to the force majeure, that is due to Covid-19, there were
unforceable circumstance and their consequences in which the Respondent
had no control over and hence the delay undertook.
67. After duly verifying the project approvals, the HMDA has issued approvals

for open plot developments and not gated communities. Further, the
Respondent has advertised the said project as a Gated Community in
brochures circulated/advertised. However, in its Agreement of Sale or Sale
Deed, the Respondent has mentioned the project as a group housing project
19 of 21

and not gated community. The Authority views that as it is a group housing
project, and practically at the site, all these houses were secured with a
compound wall with gates hence, benefits of a gated community are already
enjoyed by the complainant.
68.

The Authority observes that the complainant is seeking compensation

in the present complaint. It is essential to understand that the Act clearly
distinguishes between interest and compensation, providing them as distinct
entitlements available to allottees. This Authority does not possess the
jurisdiction or authority to grant compensation as specifically sought by the
complainant.
Directions of the Authority:

69.

Therefore, vide this Order, this Authority deems it fit to direct the

Respondent Builder to make necessary changes and rectify the defects as
follows within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this Order and submit
proof of such rectification after the completion of the stipulated time period:
1. The Power supply and Water supply shall be immediately provided.
2. Rectify Defective floor tiles and water dadoing tiles shall be rectified as
observed by the inspection team.
3. The wrought and put of the bedroom & toilet doors of the ground and
first floors, which are loosely fitted, shall be rectified.
4. The damaged UPVC window mosquito mesh shall be replaced.
5. The impervious coat on the roof slab, duly providing with KHURRAS at
the junction of water spouts, shall be rectified.
70. For contravening section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, this Authority, exercising
its powers under section 59 of RE(R&D) Act, imposes a penalty of Rs.
4,94,469 /- This penalty is imposed for marketing/selling villas of the Project
prior to RERA registration of the project before this Authority. The amount is
payable in favour of TSRERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online

20 of 21

payment

to

A/c

No.50100595798191,

HDFC

Bank,

IFSC

Code:

HDFC0007036, within 30 days of the receipt of this Order by the
Respondent/Promoter.
71.

In lieu of the above-mentioned directions, the present complaint stands

disposed of. Upon the failure of the Respondent Builder to comply with the
present Order, appropriate action, including imposition of a penalty, will be
taken as per provisions under Section 63 of the Act, 2016.
72.

If aggrieved by this Order, the parties may approach the TS Real Estate

Appellate Tribunal (vide G.O.Ms.No.8, Dt.11-01-2018, the Telangana State
Value Added Tax Appellate Tribunal has been designated as TS Real Estate
Appellate Tribunal to manage the affairs under the Act till the regular
Tribunal is established) as per Section 44 of the Act, 2016.

Sd/-

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

Sd/-

Sri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TS RERA

Sd/-

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TS RERA

21 of 21