Order Complaint No.207 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
25th Day of July 2025
Quorum:

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

Complaint No.131 of 2024
B. Suresh Goud
H.No. 26-49, Karywell Homes,
Gandhamguda, Hydershakote,
Opp. Global Discovery School,
Rangareddy-500091

…Complainant
Versus

1. M/s Suvarnabhoomi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd.
Represented through its Managing Director,
Bollineni Sridhar
Office address at:
8-2-680/3, 3rd Floor, Krishna Raj Towers,
Road No. 12, Opp. SBI Bank, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500034

2. M/s Maha Infra and Developers
Represented through its Managing Partner,
Munnangi Ravi Kumar
Office address at:
H. No. 1-110/A/64, 67, 4th floor,
RRG Heights Opp. CR Foundation,
Kondapur, Hyderabad, 500081

…Respondents
Complaint No.132 of 2024
S. Lakshmi Chowdhary
C/o C. Sarat Chandra
Flat 2110, Vasavi GP Trends Apt,
Road No.2, Nanakramguda
Hyderabad-500032

…Complainant
Versus

1. M/s Suvarnabhoomi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd.
Represented through its Managing Director,
Bollineni Sridhar
Office address at:
8-2-680/3, 3rd Floor, Krishna Raj Towers,

1

---

2. M/s Maha Infra and Developers
Represented through its Managing Partner,
Munnangi Ravi Kumar
Office address at:
H. No. 1-110/A/64, 67, 4th floor,
RRG Heights Opp. CR Foundation,
Kondapur, Hyderabad, 500081

…Respondents

Complaint No.133 of 2024
V. Dushyanth Reddy
Plot No. 117, Sardar Patel Colony,
Thirumalgiri, Secunderabad-500015

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Suvarnabhoomi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd.
Represented through its Managing Director,
Bollineni Sridhar
Office address at:
8-2-680/3, 3rd Floor, Krishna Raj Towers,
Road No. 12, Opp. SBI Bank, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500034

2. M/s Maha Infra and Developers
Represented through its Managing Partner,
Munnangi Ravi Kumar
Office address at:
H. No. 1-110/A/64, 67, 4th floor,
RRG Heights Opp. CR Foundation,
Kondapur, Hyderabad, 500081

…Respondents

Complaint No.134 of 2024
Kukunuru Somi Reddy
Flat No. 202 Challas, Janakiram Residency,
Bevelli Hills, Avenue 4, Kavuri Hills, Phase I,
Madhapur, Hyderabad-500081
(Near Audi Service Centre)

…Complainant

Versus
1. M/s Suvarnabhoomi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd.
Represented through its Managing Director,
Bollineni Sridhar
Office address at:
8-2-680/3, 3rd Floor, Krishna Raj Towers,
Road No. 12, Opp. SBI Bank, Banjara Hills,

2

---

2. M/s Maha Infra and Developers
Represented through its Managing Partner,
Munnangi Ravi Kumar
Office address at:
H. No. 1-110/A/64, 67, 4th floor,
RRG Heights Opp. CR Foundation,
Kondapur, Hyderabad, 500081

…Respondents

Complaint No.206 of 2024
Chitti Ramesh Kumar
Flat No. 304, Vishnu Priya Parimala Taj Apts,
Behind KGH Hospital, Saleem nagar,
Malakpet, Hyderabad, Telangana-500036

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Suvarnabhoomi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd.
Represented through its Managing Director,
Bollineni Sridhar
Office address at:
8-2-680/3, 3rd Floor, Krishna Raj Towers,
Road No. 12, Opp. SBI Bank, Banjara Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500034

2. M/s Maha Infra and Developers
Represented through its Managing Partner,
Munnangi Ravi Kumar
Office address at:
H. No. 1-110/A/64, 67, 4th floor,
RRG Heights Opp. CR Foundation,
Kondapur, Hyderabad, 500081

…Respondents

Complaint No.207 of 2024
Chitti Ratnakar
Flat No. 403, Skill Saphire Apartment,
H.No 3-4-461, Narayanguda,
Hyderabad, Telangana-500027

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Suvarnabhoomi Infra Developers Pvt Ltd.
Represented through its Managing Director,
Bollineni Sridhar
Office address at:
8-2-680/3, 3rd Floor, Krishna Raj Towers,
Road No. 12, Opp. SBI Bank, Banjara Hills,

3

---

2. M/s Maha Infra and Developers
Represented through its Managing Partner,
Munnangi Ravi Kumar
Office address at:
H. No. 1-110/A/64, 67, 4th floor,
RRG Heights Opp. CR Foundation,
Kondapur, Hyderabad, 500081

…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing
on 07.01.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Complainants in person
and the Counsel for Respondent No.1, Sri Venugopal Julakanti and Counsel for
Respondent No.2, Smt. Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, and after hearing the
arguments, this Authority passes the following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaints have been filed by the Complainants under

Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate reliefs against
the Respondents.
Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainants submitted that SUVARNA SAMPADA 2 (also known as

SILPA'S SUVARNA SAMPADA 2) is an open plot layout project situated at Sy.
No.49/9 50/P, at Sy.Nos. 49P, 50P, Rameshwar Banda Village, Patancheruvu
Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. That the project has RERA Registration bearing
No.P01100001036 which was valid from 16.07.2019 up to 30.06.2021. It was
further submitted that Respondent No.2 applied for HMDA permission on
30.06.2018

and

received

the

HMDA

Layout

Permit

vide

No.

000128/LO/PLG/HMDA/2018. They submitted that Respondent No.2 is the
developer of the project and Respondent No.1 is the marketer and reseller.
4.

The Complainants submitted that Respondent No.1 registered an Open

Plot in the open layout project named SUVARNA SAMPADA 2 in favour of the

4

---

Plot
No.

Document
No.

1.

149

B. Suresh
Goud
S. Lakshmi
Chowdhary
V.
Dushyanth
Reddy

2.
3.

4.

Date of the
document

Document
executed by:

35588/2019

Size
of the
Plot
(Sq.
Yds.)
167

08.08.2019

193

23005/2019

180

11.05.2019

168

264947/2019 310

01.02.2019

Respondent
No.1
Respondent
No.1
Respondent
No.2 & M/s
Axis
Constructions
Respondent
No.1
Respondent
No.1

Kukunuru
66
25532/2019
194
07.06.2019
Somi Reddy
Chitti
160 55173/2019
167
26.12.2019
Ramesh
Kumar
Chitti
146 55174/2019
167
26.12.2019
Respondent
Ratnakar
No.1
It was further submitted that as per HMDA permission, the Respondent

5.
6.

5.

No.2 was supposed to complete the project within 3 years of receiving the HMDA
LP No i.e. by 30th June 2021. But even after 6 years of commencing the project
and 3 years after the deadline provided by HMDA has lapsed, the Respondent
No.2 has not finished the project.
6.

The Complainants highlighted that the following works are pending in the

project:
i.

Black top roads as per layout

ii.

Electrical Transformer

iii.

Electrical poles and supply lines

iv.

Underground drainage system

v.

Common septic tank / STP

vi.

Internal water pipelines

vii.

Assured water supply source

viii.

Boundary demarcation

ix.

Name board with layout pattern

x.

Street lights

xi.

Rainwater harvesting pit

5

---

Avenue plantation

xiii.

Storm Water Drains

xiv.

Ornamental low height compound wall and grill for open spaces

xv.

Park development

7.

It was further submitted that black topping or developing the carriageway

with cement concrete (as per BIS Code of Practice) of some roads including the
main approach road is pending. Further, the roads in the layout haven't been
developed. The main approach road up to the nearest existing public road is
pending as it is litigation before the Junior Civil Judge Court Sangareddy OS No
959/2019, Registration No 763/2019 and CNR Number TSSN030017352019.
8.

It was contended that Respondent No.1 neither formally submitted an

application nor remitted the requisite fee for obtaining an electrical transformer
from TSSPDCL, yet proceeded to erect streetlight poles within the Project.
Subsequently, TSSPDCL identified this unauthorized erection and demolished
the poles.
9.

It was submitted that the Complainants met Sri Bollineni Sridhar,

Managing Director of Respondent No.1 and despite repeated assurances and
arbitrary deadlines, both verbal and in writing, Respondent No.1 failed to
commence the developmental work in the layout.
10.

It was submitted that Respondent No.1 engaged prominent movie stars to

market the project and entrap gullible people into paying huge sums for open
plots in the pretext and promise of good infrastructure and great layout, however,
in the recent past, there have been several cheating cases and allegations against
Respondent No.1 as mentioned in news channels, TV channels and social media
in 2023 and 2024. Complainants also provided links to such media channels.
11.

It was submitted that due to Respondent No.1’s callous nature and

negligence over the years, the neighborhood villagers are using this Project as a
dump yard and have created a passageway right through the layout on the south
side. It was submitted that as per norms, no person is permitted to sell the plots

6

---

Accordingly, the Complainants sought for the following reliefs:
i.

Requesting authorities to direct and issue notice to M/s Suvarnabhoomi
Infra Developers Pvt Ltd and M/s MAHA INFRA AND DEVELOPERS to
complete the project within 45 days or face penal action.

ii.

If it is found after 45 days that the developer has filed to develop the
layout with the infrastructure facilities as specified by HMDA, the area
so mortgaged in favour of HMDA should be forfeited in favour of HMDA.
Then RERA and HMDA are requested to take criminal action against the
developer and marketer against M/s Suvarnabhoomi Infra Developers
Pvt Ltd and M/s MAHA INFRA AND DEVELOPERS as per provisions of
the acts.

iii.

Requesting Telangana RERA to cancel the approvals accorded to their
other real estate projects till this project is completed or any other
suitable measures as per the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016.

iv.

There is a court case pending with the Junior Civil Judge Court
Sangareddy OS No 959/2019, Registration No 763/2019 and CNR
Number TSSN030017352019 on the approach road, the developer and
marketer shall be responsible for settlement of the same.

v.

Requesting RERA authorities to visit the site to check for non-conformity.

vi.

Summon the developer and marketer for a face-to-face meeting with the
plot owners as they are evading meeting.”

Counter filed by Respondent No.1:
13.

Accordingly, notices were issued to the Respondents, Respondent No.1

entered appearance and filed a reply denying all the allegations and submitted
that present complaint is neither maintainable on law nor on facts and the same
is liable to be dismissed.

7

---

Respondent No.1 submitted that Suvarna Sampada II layout is approved

by HMDA in sy.no.49/9, 50/P at Rameshwaram Banda (V), Patancheru (M),
Sangareddy district by Maha Infra Projects Ltd. It was denied that Respondent
No.1 took marketing and reselling. It was also admitted that the Respondent No.1
executed the sale deed in favour of Complainants at Sr. No.1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 as
mentioned in Para 4. It was submitted that the works alleged to be have been
incomplete is no way concerned with Respondent No.1.
15.

Respondent No.1 submitted that originally one Smt. Santa Sree Hanumara

w/o H.D.V.Raghava Rao had executed a Development Agreement-cum-GPA in
favour of M/s Axis Constructions for an extent of Ac 1.00 in Sy.No.49 vide
Document no.40381/2018 Dt.15-10-2018 and similarly Respondent No.2
represented by Sri Munnangi Ravikumar also executed Development Agreementcum-GPA for an extent of Ac 5.00 in Sy.No.50 (part) in favour of Respondent No.2,
M/s Axis Constructions and one Sri Chirumamilla Naveen vide document
no.29960/2018 dt.2-8-2018.
16.

It was further submitted that M/s Axis Constructions represented by P.

Muralikrishna also executed a Development Agreement-cum-GPA in favour of
Respondent No.2 and two others in Sy.No.49 & 50 of Rameshwaram Banda (V)
an extent of Ac 3.20 guntas vide document no.29961/2018 dt.2-8-2018. It is
further submitted that Katika Meera Bai, Chandu Ambika, Jamalapur Rani also
executed a Development Agreement-cum-GPA in favour of Respondent No.2 and
M/s Axis Constructions and one Sri Chirumamilla Naveen for an extent of Ac
4.00 in sy.no.49 (part) vide document no.29962/2018 Dt.2-8-2018.
17.

Further, Sri Salaji Ramakrishna Vasantha Prasada Rao, Shilpa Bongu also

entered into Development Agreement-cum-GPA with M/s Axis Constructions in
Sy.No.50 for an extent of Ac 0.31 guntas of Rameshwaram Banda (V) vide
document no.38210/2018 Dt.29-09-2018.
18.

It was also submitted that after the said development agreement,

Respondent No.2 made an application to HMDA and the HMDA authorities had

8

---

It

was

further

submitted

that

Respondent

No.2

and

M/s

Axis

Constructions have executed an Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA in favour of
Respondent No.1 pertaining to plot nos.24, 35, 115, 116, 118, 132, 133, 134,
135, 136, 137, 138, 168, 169, 170 for an extent of 2,814 sq.yds. Respondent No.1
had purchased the above plots from Respondent No.2 and M/s Axis
Constructions, and they registered a sale deed in favour of Respondent No.1 vide
Document No.4034/2019 dt.30-01-2019. That Respondent No.1 had purchased
Plot nos.2, 17, 43, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 65, 66,71, 90, 91, 122/P, 131, 157, 158,
163, 164, 167, 174, 175, 182, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192 & 193 an extent of 6,320
sq.yds from Respondent No.2, M/s Axis Constructions, Smt. Katika Meera Bai,
Sri Chandu Ambika, Sri Talari Ramakrishna by paying proper sale consideration
and they executed a registered sale deed vide Document No.20233/2019 dt.8-52019.
20.

It was submitted that Respondent No.1 also purchased an extent of 1558

sq.yds vide plot no. 16, 26, 108, 148, 149, 161, 188 from Respondent No.2 and
M/s Axis Constructions and other landlords and they registered a sale deed vide
document no.35537/2019 dt.14-8-2019. That Respondent No.1 also purchased
two plots i.e. 146 & 160 from M/s Axis Constructions and other landlords for an
extent of 334 sq.yds and they executed a registered sale deed vide document
no.55117/2019 dt.28-12-2019. That Respondent No.1 is the absolute owner and
possessor by way of above said sale deeds and the plots were purchased by the
Respondent No.1 from M/s Axis Constructions, Respondent No.2 and other
landlords who obtained layout permission from HMDA.
21.

It was submitted that Respondent No.1 had neither obtained any layout

permission nor applied for registration of the Project with this Authority. That as

9

---

It was also submitted that Respondent No.1 is also a victim by purchasing

plots. It was further submitted that the development work is completed and if the
development work was not completed, the HMDA will sell the mortgaged plots
and complete the development works. As on date, Respondent No.1 submitted
that the mortgaged plots were not released by HMDA authorities.
23.

It was submitted that the applicant i.e., Respondent No.2 made

conveyance deed for an extent of 7414 sq.mts in favour of HMDA. If the
development work is not done the said plots will be sold by HMDA authorities
and complete the development works.
24.

In lieu thereof, Respondent No.1 prayed to dismiss the complaint against

Respondent No.1 with exemplary costs.
Counter on behalf of Respondent No.2:
25.

Respondent No.2 also entered appearance and denied all the allegations

made by the Complainant.
26.

It was submitted that Respondent No.2 on 07.04.2018 had purchased land

admeasuring Ac. 5.00 guntas in Sy. No. 50/ΕΕ1, 50/E3, 50/E4, 50/E1 situated
at Rameshwaram Banda Village, Indresham G.P., Patancheru Mandal, Sanga
Reddy District, Telangana, through registered sale deed Doc. No. 12920/2018.
Subsequently, Respondent No.2 along with 6 other land owners have applied for
draft

layout

(open

plots)

at

HMDA,

vide

application

No.

011514/SKP/LT/U6/HMDA/09052018 Dated 09.05.2018, in Sy. No. 49P, 50P
to an extent of 57,768.83 square meters situated at Rameshwaram Banda
Village, Indresham G.P., Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, Telangana.

10

---

It was submitted that on 30.06.2018 the HMDA has approved draft layout

open plots and allotted layout permit No. 000128/LO/PLg/HMDA/2018, to an
extent of 57,768.83 square meters in which plotted area is 37,055.17 square
meters.
28.

That on 12.12.2018, Respondent No.2 along with 6 others land owners

entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Respondent No.1 wherein
Respondent No.1 agreed to sell their share of plots for a sale consideration of Rs.
4,500/- per square yard and for the same, an advance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/(Rupees One Crore Only) was paid as sale consideration through RTGS.
Subsequently, Respondent No.2 along with six other land owners entered into
registered agreement of sale and general power of attorney Doc.No.4034/2019
dated 29-01-2019 and Doc.No.20234/2019 dated 07-05-2019, wherein the
Respondent No.1 agreed to act in the name and on behalf of the vendors as agents
by entering into subcontract for the sale of schedule property either whole or in
parts for any consideration which they deem reasonable in their absolute
description and receive the earnest money and acknowledge the receipt of the
same.
29.

It was submitted that subsequent to the said Memorandum of

Understanding (herein after referred to as MOU, for brevity) and Agreement of
Sale cum GPA, the Respondent No.1 had come up with project Silpa's Suvarna
Sampada -2 with an aim to attract customers for the sale of plots. Further,
Respondent No.1 developed, advertised, marketed and sold the said plots in the
project to customers for a consideration of his discretion. It was submitted that
Respondent No.2 is not privy to the contract between the Respondent No.1 and
the Complainants and has no role in the said project as Respondent No.2 had
already executed Agreement of sale cum GPA in favour of Respondent No.1.
Hence, Respondent No.2 cannot be held responsible for acts carried on by
Respondent No.1 as once the Agreement of sale cum GPA was executed with
Respondent No.2 for a consideration, Respondent No.2 ceased to have any share
in the project.

11

---

It was submitted that the Respondent No.1 had come up with project and

further advertised the development in the layout along with plot payment options
in brochures. Further, it was submitted that in the timelines given for the Silpa's
Savarna Sampada -2, by the Respondent No.1, it shows the different development
works undertaken by Respondent No.1, their timelines, time period and current
status. That therefore, Respondent No.1 is responsible for development of Silpa's
Savarna Sampada -2.
31.

It was submitted that pending works with respect to laying approach roads

in the project are to be completed by Respondent No.1 and the Respondent No.2
is not responsible for the same. Further, in the timelines given for the Silpa's
Savarna Sampada 2, by the Respondent No.1, it shows that Respondent No.1 is
responsible for the said laying of approach roads in the project.
32.

It was submitted that the Respondent No.2 along with six other

landowners made several requests to Respondent No.1 to complete the project as
the plots mortgaged in favour of HMDA while acquiring layout permission would
only be released in favour of Respondent No.2 and six others after completion of
the Silpa's Savarna Sampada -2.
33.

Accordingly, Respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the complaints with

exemplary costs.
Rejoinder by Complainant to Counter of Respondent No.1:
34.

The Complainants filed a rejoinder to the Counter filed by Respondent No.1

and submitted that Respondent No.1 cannot deny that they did marketing as
developer of the Suvarna Sampada II launched by K Viswanath (actor) and
announcement of projects made by Sri Bollineni Sridhar, Managind Director of
on TV5 News on 24-Dec-2018' and 'Marketing Bouchers'. The Complainants also
highlighted that Respondent No.1 agreed before this Authority on 19.12.2024
hearing that they have registered as Agent with RERA for project 'Suvarna
Sampada-2' for marketing and sale of plots.

12

---

Complainants further submitted that Respondent No.1 failed to complete

the terms and conditions as developer of the project as per the Memorandum of
Understanding executed on 12.12.2018 between Respondent No.1 & Respondent
No.2 and seven other landowners. They submitted that Respondent No.1
admitted and agreed for being responsible for pending developments and
provided in written development schedule of the project. Further that,
Respondent No.1 was notified the details of pendency case with the Junior Civil
Judge Court Sangareddy OS no. 959/2019, Registration No 763/2019 and CNR
number TSS030017352019.
36.

Complainants further submitted that they regularly approached the

Respondent No.1 for the status of project development, but no attention was paid.
After many follow-ups, Respondent No.1 provided a written development
schedule on letter head but failed to respect the timelines.
37.

It was submitted that Respondent No.2 submitted an application for

approval of a Residential Draft Layout (Open Plotted) to the HMDA on
09.05.2018, bearing application No. 011514/SKP/LT/U6/HMDA/09052018.
Pursuant

thereto,

HMDA

sanctioned

the

layout

vide

File

No.

000128/LO/Plg/HMDA/2018, dated 30.06.2018, in favor of Respondent No.2.
Subsequently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed on
12.12.2018 between Respondent No.2, represented by Sri Munnagi Ravi Kumar,
along with seven other landowners holding a 60% share in specified plots, and
the Respondent No.1, who holds a 40% share in other designated plots. Under
the terms of the MoU, the landowners authorized the Respondent No.1 to enter
into Agreements of Sale with prospective purchasers, receive sale consideration,
issue receipts in the Respondent No.1’s name, and undertake to execute and
register the Sale Deeds or AGPAs in favor of Respondent No.1 or its nominees,
duly alienating and transferring the respective plots upon request. Respondent
No.1 assumed responsibility for the development of the project and, in pursuance
thereof, launched the project titled Silpas Suvarana Sampada-2 on 24.12.2018
as the developer and marketer.

13

---

It was submitted that on 14.08.2019, Respondent No.1 purchased an
of 1558 sq.yds vide

plot nos.

16,26,108,148,149,161,188 from

Respondent No.2, M/s Axis Constructions and other landlords and they
registered a sale deed vide document no. 35537/2019 dt. 14.08.2019.
39.

Accordingly, the Complainants submitted that the project is indefinitely

delayed, lost its perceived value due to misleading and false statements of the
Respondent No.1, which has caused financial loss, mental agony and harassment
to the Complainants as they cannot construct house in draft layout. Without
approach road to layout, layout development is not fulfilled as per the HDMA Act.
They

accordingly

prayed

to

direct

Respondents

to

complete

pending

developments works in time bound schedule and obtain the final layout approval
from HMDA and to impose the penalty for not fulfilling obligations provided under
the Act, 2016.

Rejoinder by Complainant to the Counter of Respondent No.2:
40.

Complainants also submitted rejoinder to the Counter filed by the

Respondent

No.2

submitting

that

Respondent

No.2

cannot

deny

the

responsibility for pending project development works and laying the approach
roads in the project as the required approvals from HMDA and RERA have been
procured and registered under the name of Respondent No.2.
41.

They submitted that Respondent No.2 applied draft layout (open plots) vide

application no. 011514/SKP/LT/U/HMDA/09052018 Dt.09 May 2018 by hiding
the facts about the 60 feet approach road to the layout which is under dispute
and pendency of the case with the Junior Civil Judge Court Sangareddy in OS
No. 959/2019, Registration No 763/2019 and CNR number TSS030017352019.
Further, that Respondent No.2 obtained the approval for draft layout open plots
and allotted layout permit no. 000128/LO/PLg/HMDA/2018 from HMDA by
misleading HMDA authorities and suppressing the facts about, disputed
approach road of 60 feet shown in layout as existing road.

14

---

Complainants submitted that Respondent No.2 is non-compliant with the

HMDA Act and Act, 2016 where Respondent No.2 failed to full fill the conditions
laid

by

HMDA

authorities

in

application

no.

011514/SKP/LT/U/HMDA/09052018. They highlighted that condition number
6, in General conditions for compliance, pertaining to exiting 60 feet road that
Respondent No.2 shall handover the area affected under existing 60 feed wide
road to an extent of 3769.80 Sq. Mts. to the local body through registered gift
deed at free of cost before release of Draft Layout plan by HMDA and the same
shall be submitted to HMDA, was not complied with by Respondent No.2.
43.

They further submitted that Respondent No.2 along with 6 other

landowners entered a Memorandum of Understanding dt. 12.12.2018 with
Respondent No.1 by mentioning the fact that shown 60 feet road in Draft layout
as existing has an issue and Respondent No.2 is responsible to form 60 feet wide
approach road to the venture as early as possible. They added that Respondent
No.1 is well aware of the issue with 60 feet approach road to the layout and
despite knowing the facts launched the project with name Silpa's Suvarna
Sampada - 2 and misled the customers by showing the HMDA approvals and sold
the plots in the project to the customers.
44.

It was further submitted that Respondent No.2 submitted Deed of

Mortgage bearing vide Document No. 21426/18 & 21425/18 and supressed the
fact of 60 feet wide approach road to layout is in dispute and obtained HMDA
sanction for layout vide file no. 000128/LO/Plg/HMDA/2018, Dt. 30 June 2018.
45.

It was submitted that a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is executed

on 12.12.2018 by Respondent No.2 and seven others as land owners (holds share
of 60%; plots no. 3 to 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18 to 24, 29 to 38, 39, 40, 52, 55 to 64,
67, 68, 73,75 to 80, 82 to 86, 92 to 104, 106, 113 to 120, 132 to 135, 136 to 139,
140 to 142, 144, 145, 147, 162, 168, 169, 170, 197, 198, 176, 178, 179, 180,
194, 195, 196) with Respondent No.1 as Developer (holds share of 40%; Plot no.
1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 25,26, 27, 28, 41 to 44, 45, 46,47 to 51, 53, 54, 65, 66,
69, 70,71,74, 81, 87, 88,89,90, 91,105, 108,109,110,111,112, 121, 122, 123,
124, 125 to 131, 143, 146, 148, 149, 150,151, 152 to 154, 155 to 158, 159, 160,

15

---

It was further submitted that Respondent No.1 agreed and responsible for

development of the project and Respondent No.2 agreed and responsible to form
60 feet wide approach road to the layout. Accordingly, the Complainants prayed
to direct Respondents to complete pending developments works in time bound
schedule and obtain the final layout approval from HMDA and to impose the
penalty for not fulfilling obligations provided under the Act, 2016
Hearing conducted:
Submissions made by the Complainants:
47.

The Complainants vehemently argued that both the Respondents are

evading their liability towards the Complainants. Respondent No.1 – by virtue of
being the landowner/plot owner & also developer as was promised to the
Complainant amidst being one who executed the sale deed in favour of the
Complainants, falls well within the definition of a promoter and is liable for
handing over of possession of the plots to the Complainants. Similarly,
Respondent No.2, by virtue of obtaining the permission from the competent
authority, thereby misleading the competent authority about the litigation
pending against the 60 feet approach road to the layout, and also obtaining
registration from this Authority, falls well within the definition of a promoter
under the provisions of the Act, 2016 and is liable to handover completed project
to the allottees.
Submissions made by Respondent No.1
48.

On the other hand, Respondent No.1 submitted that he is not concerned

with the permission obtained from the competent authority i.e., the HMDA as
Respondent No.2 along with M/s Axis Constructions & others obtained layout
permission and after obtaining layout permission they made an application and
obtained RERA registration from this Authority. He added that in view of the
same, Respondent No.2 and M/s Axis Constructions & others are liable to
complete the entire project work as per the guidelines and terms and conditions
mentioned in the layout permission.

16

---

It was further submitted that the Memorandum of Understanding dt. 12-

12-2018 is no way concerned before this Authority because the Respondent No.2
and others made an application and obtained permission. Respondent No.1
submitted that following documents were executed in his favour:
S.No. Plot Nos.
1. 24, 35, 115, 116,
132, 133, 134, 135,
136, 137, 138, 118,
168, 169, 170
(2,814 sq yds)
2. 24, 35, 115, 116,
132, 133, 134, 135,
136, 137, 138, 118,
168, 169, 170
(2,814 sq yds)
3. 2, 17, 45, 47, 49,
50, 51, 65, 66,71,
90, 91, 122/P, 131,
157, 158, 163, 167,
164, 174, 175, 182,
187, 189, 190, 191,
192 & 193 (6.320
sq yds)
4. 16, 26, 108, 148,
149, 161, 188
(1558 sq. yds)

5. 146 & 160 (334
sq.yds)

50.

Document type &
No.
agreement of salecum-GPA

Date

Executed by

-

Respondent
No.2 & M/s
Axis
Constructions

Sale deed
4034/2019

29-1-2019

Respondent
No.2 & M/s
Axis
Constructions

Sale deed
20233/2019

7-5-2019

Sale deed
35537/2019

8-8-2019

Sale deed
55117/2019

24-12-2019

Respondent
No.2, M/s
Axis
Constructions,
Katika Meera
Bai, Chandu
Ambika, Talari
Ramakrishna
Respondent
No.2 & M/s
Axis
Constructions
and other
landlords
M/s Axis
Constructions
and other
landlords

Respondent No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor by way of above said

sale deeds. He added that some of the third parties filed civil suit and writ
petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana against Respondent No.2
and others and in the said writ petitions the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana
had passed interim order against the Respondents herein to maintain statusquo, however, the Respondent did not produce a copy of the said interim order.
Submissions made by Respondent No.2

17

---

Per

contra,

Respondent

No.2

submitted

that

Memorandum

of

Understanding dated 12.12.2018 between Respondent No.1 and 2 has two facets.
Firstly, that Respondent No.2 along with 6 other landowners agreed to sell their
share of plots for sale consideration of Rs.4500/- per square yard and secondly,
that the development works will be carried out by the Respondent No.1 (Clause
6 of MOU). As per the draft layout permission and the agreements with other land
owners, Respondent No.2 owned a total of 51 plots in the layout and
subsequently, prior to registering the project under Section 3, these plots were
conveyed to Respondent No.1 by way executing sale deeds and Agreement of sale
cum GPA in favour of Respondent No.1, which are as follows:
a. The Respondent No.2 along with 6 others has executed Agreement of Sale
cum GPA in favour of Respondent No.1 vide registered Doc. No. 4034 of
2019 dated 29.01.2019 and Doc. No. 20234 of 2019 dated 07.05.2019,
Doc. No 41100/2019 dated 11.06.2019 for a total of 25 plots owned by
him, wherein the Respondent No.1 was empowered to enter into
subcontract for sale of the property or sell the schedule property to third
parties for his desired consideration (receivable by Respondent No.1).
b. The Respondent No.2 has sold his remaining share of plots i.e., 26 plots of
the layout to Respondent No.1 vide Sale deeds Doc. no. 20233/2019 dated
07.05.2019, Doc. No. 4033 of 2019 dated 29.01.2019, and Doc no. 41101
of 2019 dated 11.06.2019.
52.

Respondent

No.2

categorically

submitted

that

therefore,

prior

to

registration of the project before this Authority, Respondent No.2 conveyed all of
its plots to Respondent No.1. Subsequent to the said sale of plots, Respondent
No.1 entered into agreement of sale with Complainants even prior to registration
of the project "Silpa's Suvarna Sampada 2" with this Authority. Following this,
Respondent No.1 has executed a sale deed vide 4947 of 2019 dated 01.02.2019
for a consideration of Rs.24,80,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs Eighty
Thousand Only). That therefore, Respondent No.2 neither has share of land in
the project nor is a recipient of any revenue/ consideration from the sale of plots
executed by Respondent No.1 in favour of the allottees.

18

---

Respondent No.2 further submitted that Respondent No.1 pressurized

Respondent No.2 to register the project under Section 3 which would allow the
Respondent No.1 to develop the land as per the second facet of the MOU between
Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Further, given that Respondent No.2 along with 6
others have applied and procured draft layout permission from HMDA dated
30.06.2018, only Respondent No.2 and others could apply for registration as per
Section 3.
54.

Respondent No.2 submitted that person responsible for development of the

project is solely Respondent No.1 for the following reasons:
a. As the project was registered in Respondent No.1's name,
b. As Respondent No.1 developed the project as per Section 2(s) of the Act,
2016,
c. Respondent No.1 as per Section 11 issued prospectus, marketed and
advertised it on their website, broachers, posters, TV advertisements with
endorsements from film actors for the purpose of sale,
d. As Respondent No. 1 is the recipient of the total proceeds from the sale of
plots in the project, and the same has not been deposited into the
registered bank account created during the registering the project with this
Authority,
e. As it is Respondent No.1 who issued notices and declarations to the
complainants consisting of timelines in which incomplete work in the
project would be completed,
f. As the Respondent No.1's website advertised the project and further, the
website clearly reveals "Silpa's Suvarna Sampada 2" as one of their
completed projects.
55.

Respondent No.2 further submitted that Respondent No.2 is a victim of the

fraud, deception and mala fide of Respondent No.1. It was submitted that as per
the clause (ii) and (v) of Section 2(zk), only a person who develops land into project
or acts as a builder, colonizer, developer, or act as the holder of a power of attorney
from the owner for the purpose of sale can be termed as a promoter. It is
Respondent No.1 who developed the project for the purpose of sale and the
Respondent No.2 has neither developed the project nor was the landowner prior

19

---

20

---

Respondent No.2 also submitted that the obligation entailed under Section

15 is not applicable to the current set of facts. The Layout Permission (LP)
number was issued on 30.06.2018. The Respondent No. 2 has entered into an
agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA) and registered sale deeds
in favour of Respondent No. 1 for the totality of his share of plots in the layout.
As Respondent No.1 was unable to apply for RERA registration, compelled to fulfil
the conditions of MOU between the Respondent No.1 and 2, the Respondent No.2
and two others had applied for registration of project under Section 3. Therefore,
before applying for the registration of project, Respondent No.1 was the majority
holder of plots and as such, the question of obtaining consent of majority allottees
before transfer of a real estate project to third party does not arise in the present
case. The transfer or sale of the majority share took place prior to the registration
of project under RERA Act and prior to the existence of any allottees to the
project. As such, the obligation under Section 15 is inapplicable in the current
case. If at all Section 15 were to be applied, it would only apply to Respondent
No.1 as once they acquired the majority share, they've become the promoter of
the project.
57.

It was submitted that the Respondent No.2 has applied for RERA

registration under Section 3, along with one M/s Axis Constructions and one Mr.
Ch. Naveen Kumar. Further, M/s Axis construction has pledged properties as
securities during the registration. Irrespective of that, the Complainants has not
made M/s Axis Constructions and Mr. Ch. Naveen Kumar as a party to the
current proceedings though the said two parties along with Respondent No.2
have applied for the registration of the project.
58.

It was submitted that the relief prayed by the complainants to "put a hold

on all approvals accorded to Respondent Nos.1 & 2 and on their other real estate
projects till this project is completed or any other suitable measure as per RERA
Act" is unjust and extreme in nature as the wrongdoing of delaying the
development of the project is committed by Respondent No.1.
Points for consideration:

21

---

Upon deliberation of the contentions of the parties as well as the

documents filed therein, the following issues sprout for consideration:
I.

Whether the Respondents have violated provisions of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016? If yes, are they liable for penalty?

II.

Whether the Complainants are entitled to its reliefs as prayed for? If
so, to what extent?

Observations and directions of the Authority:
Point I
60.

This Authority has perused the material on record along with the

submissions made by the parties. Respondent No.1 submits that because
Respondent No.2 has procured the permission from the competent authority and
also the registration from this Authority, therefore, Respondent No.2 is the
promoter who is responsible for completion and handover of the project.
Respondent No.1 also submits that the MoU dated 12.12.2018 bears no relevance
to the facts of the present case and further that he is merely a plot owner who
sold the plots to the Complainants and other customers to the project. He prayed
to dismiss the case against him.
61.

Respondent No.2 on the other hand made a plethora of submissions citing

reasons as to why Respondent No.2 is not the promoter to the project and
whereas Respondent No.1 is the promoter who pressurised Respondent No.2 to
obtain the registration from this Authority in order to satisfy the conditions under
MoU dated 12.12.2018 and as plots were sold and development was being done
by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 cannot be construed to be a promoter to
the project. She also highlighted before even “pressurised” by the Respondent
No.1 to obtain registration from this Authority, Respondent No.2 had already sold
the plots to the Respondent No.1 along with other landowners who were unjustly
not made parties before this Authority.
62.

This Authority, after hearing the parties, is of the considered view that

when the Respondent No.2 has registered the project with this Authority by
submitting

relevant

documents and obtaining the competent authority

permission, he squarely falls under the definition of a promoter as defined under
Section 2(zk) of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016. Merely because it was submitted that

22

---

During registration, every promoter is required to submit a declaration in

Form B as mandated under Rule 3(4) of the Rules, 2017. Accordingly,
Respondent No.2 submitted a declaration submitting as under:
“I Mr. M. Ravi Kumar, Authorized signatory of MAHA INFRA & DEVELOPERS
Promoter of the proposed project SUVARNA SAMPDA @ namely do hereby solemnly
declare, undertake and state as under:
1. That we have a legal title to the land on which the development of the
proposed project is to be carried out. And a legally valid authentication of
the title of such land along with an authorized copy of the agreement
between such owner and promoter for development of the real estate project
is enclosed herewith.
2. That the said land is free from all encumbrances.
3. That the time period within which the project shall be completed by
me/promoter is 30/06/2021.
4. That seventy percent of the amount realized by me/promoter for the real
estate project from the allottees, from time to time, shall be deposited in a
separate account to be maintained in a scheduled bank to cover the cost of
construction and the land cost and shall be used only for the purpose.
5. …
6. ...
7. …
8. That I/promoter have/has furnished such other documents as have been
prescribed by the rules and regulations made under the act.
The contents of my above affidavit cum declaration are true and correct and nothing
material has been concealed by me there from.”
64.

A plain reading of the above-affidavit would go to show that Respondent

No.2 affirmed before this Authority, through sworn declaration that it has title to

23

---

Further, Respondent No.2 submits, in order to honor the terms of the MoU

dated 12.12.2018, Respondent No.2 was pressurized by Respondent No.1 to
obtain registration in line of the fact that Respondent No.2 obtained permission
from the competent authority. This Authority does not mandate any such
proposition that one who has obtained permission from the competent authority
has to obtain the registration. In the event the promoter who is making an
application for registration under Section 4, establishes through relevant
documents, that the promoter now has the right & title to obtain the registration
under Section 3, despite not having obtained permission from competent
authorities, this Authority, upon examining the documents keenly, registers such
real estate projects after being duly satisfied with the documents so submitted.
Therefore, the counter argument of Respondent No.2, that it was pressurized by
Respondent No.1 and that is the sole reason why it registered the project with
this Authority is not tenable. When one registers the project with this Authority,
without any doubt, thee become the promoter as defined under Section 2(zk) of
the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
66.

Respondent No.2 also submitted in Form B as mentioned above that all

relevant documents have been uploaded/submitted by it to this Authority.
However, as Respondent No.2 pleads that plots have been sold to Respondent
No.1 before obtaining the registration from this Authority, such sale deeds were
admittedly, not submitted/uploaded by Respondent No.2 thereby establishing
the liability of

Respondent No.2. It was submitted that land is free from all

encumbrances but there is no mention of the said sale deed which Respondent
No.2 asserts & admits to have been executed prior to obtaining registration. This
clearly establishes the mala fides on part of the Respondent No.2 is misleading

24

---

Respondent No.2 also highlighted that Respondent No.1 is sole person

responsible for development of the project and thereby is the promoter to the
project as, the project was registered in the name of Respondent No.1, and
further, that Respondent No.1 has undertaken the development of the project in
accordance with Section 2(s) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016; and whereas Respondent
No.1, in compliance with Section 11, has issued a prospectus, marketed, etc; and
whereas Respondent No.1 is the sole recipient of the total proceeds arising from
the sale of plots, which have not been deposited into the designated bank
account; and whereas Respondent No.1 has issued notices and declarations to
the complainants stipulating timelines for completion of the project; and the
website of Respondent No.1 prominently advertised the project, explicitly
displaying "Silpa's Suvarna Sampada 2" as one of its completed projects.
68.

Respondent No.1, in this regard, submits that no liability can accrue to

him as neither the permission from the competent authority nor the registration
from this Authority was obtained by Respondent No.1, and that Respondent No.1
is merely a plot owner who sold them to third parties. The Complainants have
submitted, per contra, that Respondent No.1 is the one, through whom, the plots
were offered for sale by way of brochures in print & electronic media and that
Respondent No.1 is the person who executed sale deed in favour of the
Complainants and received full sale consideration. Further, all points as
mentioned above by the Respondent No.2 were duly agreed by the Complainants.
69.

In this regard, this Authority is of the considered view that Respondent

No.1, though is not registered with this Authority, he has offered for sale,
admittedly received sale consideration and executed sale deeds in favour of the

25

---

Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D), 2016 defines promoter as one “who develops

land into a project, whether or not the person also constructs structures on any of
the plots, for the purpose of selling to other persons all or some of the plots in the
said project, whether with or without structures thereon” or “any other person who
acts himself as a builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate developer or by
any other name or claims to be acting as the holder of a power of attorney from the
owner of the land on which the building or apartment is constructed or plot is
developed for sale.” A plain reading of this provision makes it abundantly clear
that Respondent No.1, even though not registered with this Authority as a
“promoter” or a landowner, despite being owner of the plots as per its own
admission, squarely falls under the definition of a promoter as he developed the
land into plots and sold them to the Complainants. The RE(R&D) Act, 2016 has
envisaged a wide meaning to the term promoter by inserting the term “by
whatever name called” with a sole intent and purpose to ensure that persons who
claim to not be a promoter but perform the functions of a promoter also fall under
the purview of this said Act.
71.

Respondent No.2 also argued that provisions of Section 15 will not be

applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as Respondent No.
2 has entered into an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney (GPA)
and registered sale deeds in favour of Respondent No. 1 for the totality of his
share of plots in the layout and as Respondent No.1 was unable to apply for the
registration, Respondent No.2 was compelled to fulfil the conditions of MOU
dated 12.12.2018, and Respondent No.2 and two others applied for registration

26

---

Respondent No.1, by virtue of entering into the MoU dated 12.12.2018 has

become responsible for the development & sales of the project in accordance with
Clause 6 of the said MoU. Further, Respondent No.2 by virtue of registering before
this Authority and submitting the declaration under Form B also becomes
responsible for the development of the project. Both the Respondents are
promoters under the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 and are responsible
towards the Complainants in terms of development & completion of the project
and handover of the same in terms of Section 14(1) & 17(1) of the said Act.
73.

Failure to do complete the project in accordance with the sanctioned plan

issued by HMDA within the stipulated time frame attracts penalty under Section
14(1) which mandates the promoter to complete the project and stipulates as
under:
“The proposed project shall be developed and completed by the promoter in
accordance with the sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications as
approved by the competent authorities.”
74.

Though Respondent No.1 has ‘conveyed’ the plots in favour of the

Complainants through registered sale deeds, it becomes the responsibility of the
promoters i.e., Respondent Nos.1 & 2 both, to handover and deliver the
possession of the said plots in complete manner. Mere execution of sale deeds
does not ‘physically’ convey the plot in favour of the Complainants, more so,
because the basic and promised infrastructure such as water and electricity have
still not been provided.
75.

Complainants also brought to the notice of this Authority that litigation

with respect to the approach road is pending adjudication before Ld. Junior Civil

27

---

Respondent No.1 submitted that some of the third parties filed civil suit

and writ petitions before the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana against Respondent
No.2 and others and in the said writ petitions the Hon'ble High Court of
Telangana had passed interim order against the Respondents herein to maintain
status-quo, however, the Respondent did not produce a copy of the said interim
order. In the absence of bringing on record the fact of such interim order issued
by the Hon’ble High Court, this Authority does not seek to issue any directions
with respect to the same.
77.

Further, Respondent No.2 submitted that subsequent to the said sale of

plots, Respondent No.1 entered into agreements of sale with the Complainants
even prior to registration of the project "Silpa's Suvarna Sampada 2" with this
Authority. However, neither did complainants submit that such agreements were
entered into, nor did Respondent No.2 produce any documents to establish
beyond reasonable doubt that Respondent No.1 violated Section 3 by entering
into agreements of sale before obtaining registration to the Project. Therefore, this
Authority, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is not issuing any directions
in this regard.
78.

In light of the above discussions, it is held that Respondent No.1 &

Respondent No.2 are declared as promoters to the project and both the
Respondents are liable for the handover of the plots with promised infrastructure
to the Complainants. With respect to violation of the provisions of RE(R&D)Act,
2016 by the said Respondents, it is held that, as discussed above, for submitting
false information and not disclosing the sale deeds that were executed in favour
of the Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.2 duly selling the plots, both

28

---

Therefore, Point I is answered accordingly, and Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are

liable for penalty under Section 60 for submitting false information and under
Section 61 for violating Section 14(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 and Rule
14(1)(a)(iii) of the Rules, 2017.
Point II
80.

Main relief sought for by the Complainants is to complete the works and

handover the plots with promised infrastructure to the Complainants
immediately and impose penalty for violations committed by the Respondents.
With respect to the second half of the relief, this Authority has already answered
in Point I.
81.

With respect to completion of infrastructure such as water, electricity,

approach road, etc., both Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are liable for the same in
accordance with Section 14(1) as has been discussed above. Therefore,
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are liable for completion of the same and are also liable to
pay interest on such delay of possession.
82.

Accordingly, Point II is answered.

Directions of the Authority:
83.

In light of the above discussion, the Authority vide its powers under

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

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable and hereby
directed to pay penalty of Rs. 5,97,237/- for submitting false
information under Form B declaration to this Authority in accordance
with Section 60, payable within 30 (thirty) days in favor of TG RERA
FUND through a Demand Draft or online payment to A/c No.
50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036; and

ii.

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for penalty under
Section 61 for violation of Section 14(1) and Rule 14(1)(a)(iii) and are

29

---

Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are directed to complete development along
with the promised infrastructure in the project and handover
possession of the same within 60 (sixty) days from the date of this
order, as otherwise stringent action, including penalty in accordance
with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 shall be imposed.

84.

In light of the above directions, the present complaint is disposed of. 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

30

---