Order Complaint No.224 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
14th of August, 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. 218 of 2024
Sumalatha Kamireddy
H. No. B-1208, Vazhra Nirman Pratheek,
Nizampet, Hyderabad.

… Complainant
Versus

1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

Complaint No. 219 of 2024
Vanisree Loath
Flat No C-1409, C-Block,
Vzhra Prathik Apts,
Bloomingdale Road,
Nizampet, Hyderabad-500090

… Complainant
Versus

1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

1

---

… Complainant
Versus

1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

Complaint No. 221 of 2024
Gangisetty Gopi
H.No 64, Ikyatha Homes,
Beeramguda, Ameenpur Mandal,
Sangareddy Dist, Telangana-502032

…Complainant
Versus

1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

Complaint No. 222 of 2024
Kiran Dundi
H. No 10-4-771/57, Nehru Nagar,
Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500028

… Complainant
Versus

1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,

2

---

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

Complaint No. 223 of 2024
Yedukondalu Ravana (Retd Army Soldier)
Plot No-17, New Gandhi Nagar,
RK Puram, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad-500056

… Complainant

Versus
1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

Complaint No. 224 of 2024
Sanipalli Venkata Krishna Reddy
Plot-44, Mallikarjuna Nagar Colony,
Chitalkunta Checkpost, Hanuman Temple Backside Lane,
LB Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana-500074

… Complainant

Versus
1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

3

---

… Complainant
Versus

1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

Complaint No. 226 of 2024
Yedukondalu Ravana (Retd Army Soldier)
Plot No-17, New Gandhi Nagar,
RK Puram, Tirumalagiri, Secunderabad-500056

… Complainant

Versus
1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

Complaint No. 302 of 2024
B Raghava Prasad
C/o A Subramanyam, H.No.8-7-170/77
Shankar Enclave, Old HAL Colony, Old Bowenpally,
Secunderabad-500011

… Complainant

Versus
1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

4

---

… Respondents

Complaint No. 309 of 2024
Riya Joshi
C/o Dr Shaji Panikkar, 8-7-170/61,62,63/2,
Shankar Enclave, Old Bowenpally,
Secunderabad-500011

… Complainant
Versus

1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

Complaint No. 79 of 2025
VR Preetha
Mamatha Punjavi, Old MIG 719, Phase 1,
BHEL, Lingampally, RC Puram,
Hyderabad-502032

… Complainant
Versus

1. Googee Properties Managing Director,
Mr. Shaikh Akbar,
Googee Properties Pvt Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza, 2nd Floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

2. Mr. K. Narasimha Reddy,
Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd,
JMR Jagini Plaza,2nd floor,
Green Hills Colony, Hyderabad-500035

… Respondents

The present batch of complaints came up for final hearing on 11.06.2025 in the presence
of the Complainants in person and the counsel for the Respondents. Upon hearing the
submissions of both the parties, this Authority proceeds to issue the following COMMON
ORDER:
5

---

The Complaints at hand have been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 34 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017, seeking redressal against M/s Googee Properties Pvt. Ltd.,
represented by its Managing Director, Mr. Shaik Akbar.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

It is the case of the complainants that the Respondent Developer induced them to invest

in residential plots in a venture marketed as a "Satellite Township" located in Nomula Village,
Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. Under what was termed a “prelaunch offer,” each complainant booked a residential plot measuring approximately 200 square
yards and entered into either a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or an Agreement of sale
(AoS) upon payment of substantial advance consideration.
4.

Despite the lapse of more than two years from the dates of booking and execution of

the agreements, the Developer has failed to initiate or undertake any meaningful development
work at the project site. The plots remain undemarcated, and there is no visible progress on the
ground. This inaction has resulted in significant financial hardship and mental distress to the
complainants, who have been deprived of the promised residential plots.
5.

The complainants further allege that the Developer made a series of misleading and

exaggerated claims in promotional brochures, marketing videos, and verbal assurances. The
project was advertised as a grand 1,000-acre integrated Satellite Township, with promises of
modern infrastructure and expansive amenities. However, upon scrutiny, the layout plan
provided by the Developer reflected only 334 acres and 29 guntas. Subsequent inquiries
revealed that the Developer does not possess legal ownership or title to most of the land forming
the residential portion of the project. Notably, in "Phase II – Business Class," it has come to
light that the Developer owns only about 30 acres, despite having sold a disproportionately
large number of plots, thereby raising serious concerns about the authenticity of the offerings.
6.

Moreover, it is specifically contended that the Developer has not obtained the mandatory

registration of the project under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, nor secured layout approvals from the competent planning authority. These
omissions are in direct contravention of the statutory framework governing real estate projects.
Although the Developer repeatedly assured buyers that such approvals would be obtained
within a three-month period, no such compliance has been effected to date. Nor have the

6

---

In light of the above, the complainants submit that the conduct of the Developer

constitutes a clear and continuing violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 and
seek appropriate action.
B. Relief Sought:
8.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the complainants respectfully

pray that this Authority may be pleased to pass the following reliefs in the interest of justice:
i.

Direct the Respondent Developer to refund the total amount paid by each complainant
towards booking of residential plots in the Satellite Township venture, situated at
Nomula Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, along with interest at
the rate of 20% per annum from the respective dates of payment till the date of actual
refund;

ii.

Declare that the actions of the Respondent Developer in selling plots under a “prelaunch offer” without obtaining requisite registration under Section 3 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and without securing an approved layout plan
from the competent authority, are in clear violation of the provisions of the Act and
attract regulatory penalties;

iii.

Issue an appropriate direction restraining the Respondent Developer from further
advertising, marketing, or selling of any plots in the said project or any part thereof,
without obtaining necessary statutory approvals and registration under the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016;

iv.

Award compensation to the complainants, as may be deemed fit by this Hon’ble
Authority, for the financial hardship, mental agony, and loss caused due to the
fraudulent and misleading conduct of the Respondent;

v.

Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Authority may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
C. Points to be determined:

9.

In the light of the facts stated and the reliefs sought by the complainants, the following

questions arise for consideration before this Authority:
7

---

Whether the Respondent Developer has violated Sections 3 & 4 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by advertising, marketing, and selling plots
without registering the project with this Authority?

II.

Whether the Complainants are entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?
D. Observations of the Authority:

Point I
10.

Upon a prima facie examination of the material placed on record and after considering

the rival submissions, this Authority finds that the Respondent No.1 has engaged in the
advertisement, marketing, and sale of plots in the real estate project “Satellite Township,”
located at Nomula Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, without obtaining
the requisite registration from this Authority. The Respondent has admitted to launching the
project under a "pre-launch" scheme and has entered into Memoranda of Understanding and
Agreements of sale with multiple prospective allottees, receiving substantial consideration
amounts in the process. These actions were undertaken in the absence of any registration and
also, the said project spans a massive layout area of 1,620,098 square yards (equivalent to 334
Acres, 29 Guntas, and 29 square yards), as evidenced from the brochures and layout plan
submitted by the Complainants. Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 unequivocally
stipulates that:
“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.”
11.

Additionally, under Section 3(2)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 the requirement of

registration is applicable to all real estate projects where the area of land proposed to be
developed exceeds 500 square metres or the number of units proposed to be developed exceeds
eight. Given that the present project is proposed over 334 acres, far exceeding the limit of 500
square metres, the project squarely falls within the mandatory registration requirement under
Section 3(1). Accordingly, the Respondent’s actions are in clear and continuing violation of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
12.

Furthermore, there is no evidence on record to show that the Respondent ever applied

for registration of the project mandated under Section 4 before this Authority. Nor has the
8

---

Taking due cognizance of the afore-mentioned violations, a Show Cause Notice dated

22.10.2024 was issued by this Authority to the Respondent Developer, calling upon them to
explain as to why action should not be initiated against them for non-registration under the
provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Although ample opportunities were extended to the
Respondent, in multiple hearings, there has been a consistent failure on their part to either
respond to the Show Cause Notice or provide any legally tenable explanation indicating
compliance with the mandatory requirements under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
14.

Having taken into account the Respondent's conduct and all the other documents placed

on record indicating the violation of Section 3&4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, this Authority is
of the considered view that the Respondent -developer is liable for imposition of penalty under
Section 59 & 60 of the said Act, for non-registration of the impugned project with the Authority.
15.

Point I is answered accordingly.

Point II
16

The Complainants herein, have sought relief for refund of the amounts paid by each of

them towards the booking of residential plots in the “Satellite Township” project, along with
interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the respective dates of payment until the date of
actual refund.
17.

In order to properly assess the reliefs claimed and to facilitate a comprehensive

understanding of the factual details of each case, particulars of the relevant payments have been
provided in the table below:

Amount Amount
Total Sale
Sr.
Case No. Complainant Consideration Paid (₹)
refunded as
No.
(₹)
(Principal) on date

1

CC.No.
218/2024

Mrs.
Sumalatha
Kamireddy

31,80,000/-

Date of
Booking

5,00,000/- paid
5,00,000/- on Jan 28,
09.08.2023
2025.
9

---

Date of
Booking

Interest
remaining.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

CC.No.

Mrs. Vani Sree

219/2024 Loath
CC.No.
220/2024
CC.No.

223/2024

CC.No.
224/2024
CC.No.

Pending

31.03.2023

13.02.2022

Mohammed

25,80,000/-

13,20,000/-

Pending

28,80,000/-

5,00,000/-

Pending

25,80,000/-

13,20,000/-

Pending

25,80,000/-

5,00,000/5,00,000/- paid. Interest
remaining

Rafi
Mr.

Gangi

Mr.

Kiran

222/2024 Dundi
CC.No.

14,90,000/-

Mr.

221/2024 Shetty Gopi
CC.No.

29,80,000/-

Mr.
Yedukondalu
Ravana
Mr. Sanipalli
Venkata

30.12.2022

19.02.2022

23.11.2021

11.05.2022
28,40,000/-

14,20,000/-

Pending

28,40,000/-

14,20,000/-

Pending

Krishna Reddy
Mr. Veeramalla

225/2024 Pavan Kalyan

10.06.2022

8,00,000/- paid 12.09.2021
9

CC.No.
226/2024

Mr.
Yedukondala
Ravana

on Jan
19,20,000/-

5,00,000/- 28,2025.
Interest
remaining

10

---

CC No

Raghava

302/2024 Prasad

47,70,000/-

10,00,000/-

Pending
10,00,000/-

11

CC No
309/2024

Date of
Booking

30.04.2023

27.03.2023

paid, balance
Riya Joshi

29,80,000/-

15,00,000/- 5,00,000/- plus
total interest
pending

12

18.

CC No
79/2025

VR Preetha

29,80,000/-

15,00,000/-

Pending

31.03.2023

Based on the information from the table above, it is clear that Respondent No.1 herein

has received substantial payments from each of the Complainants for the purchase of residential
plots in the impugned project titled “Satellite Township”. However, despite such payments, the
Respondents have failed to initiate any developmental activity or commence construction at
the project site. As per the complaint and supporting documents, the plots remain
undemarcated, and there is no visible progress on the ground. This factual situation squarely
attracts the provisions of Section 18(1)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, which provides as follows:
“If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or
building, — (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be,
duly completed by the date specified therein; … he shall be liable on demand to the allottees,
in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project … to return the amount received by
him … with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf…”
19.

The legislative intent of this provision is to ensure that allottees are protected from

indefinite delays and have a statutory right to seek refund along with prescribed interest when
a promoter fails to fulfil their contractual obligations. In the present case, the failure of the
Respondents is compounded by the fact that not only has the Respondent failed to obtain
requisite statutory approvals, or sanctioned plans, but the Respondents have also failed to
11

---

However, during the course of proceedings before this Authority, the Respondent has

appeared and, on his part, had agreed to honour the request for refund. Despite such assurance,
the Respondent continuously sought extensions under various pretexts. Multiple hearings were
conducted, and several opportunities were granted to facilitate compliance. Nevertheless, the
Respondent persisted in the same pattern of conduct by repeatedly seeking further time, without
demonstrating any concrete steps towards refund or compliance with the relief sought.
21.

The Respondent’s continued failure to honour his commitments, despite being granted

ample opportunities, leaves no justification for any further indulgence. In light of the above,
this Authority is of the considered opinion that the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs
claimed i.e., refund of the amounts paid towards the booking of their respective plots, in
accordance with Section 18(1)(a) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
along with interest as prescribed under Rule 15 of the RE(R&D) Rules, 2017, to be calculated
from the respective dates of booking until the date of actual refund paid by the Respondent.
22.

While the Complainants have sought interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the

amounts paid, this Authority notes that Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Rules, 2017 specifically prescribes the applicable rate of interest in cases of
default under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. As per the said rule, the rate of interest payable by the
promoter to the allottee (or vice versa) shall be the State Bank of India’s Marginal Cost of
Funds based Lending Rate (MCLR) plus two percent, which is read as follows:
“The rate of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee or by the allottee to the promoter,
as the case may be, shall be the State Bank of India highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate
plus two percent.”
23.

Accordingly, interest shall be granted strictly in terms of Rule 15 and not at the higher

rate of 20% per annum as prayed for by the Complainants. The Respondent is therefore directed
to refund the amounts received from each Complainant along with interest calculated at SBI’s
MCLR + 2%, from the respective dates of booking until the date of actual refund. The
Complainants may approach the Adjudicating Officer under Form ‘N’ for seeking
Compensation. Point II is answered accordingly.
12

---

Vide its powers under Sections 37 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016, this Authority issues

the following directions:
a. Respondent No.1 is liable to pay penalty of Rs.27,16,106/- (Twenty seven lakhs sixteen
thousand one hundred and six rupees) towards violation of Sections 3 & 4 for nonregistration of the Project “Satellite Township” payable within 30 (thirty) days in favour
of TG RERA FUND through a Demand Draft or online payment to A/c No.
50100595798191, HDFC Bank, IFSC Code: HDFC0007036; and
b. Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to refund the amounts paid by all 12 Complainants,
as per the amounts specified in their respective payment receipts as detailed in the table
under Para 17. The refund shall be made along with interest at the rate of 10.80% per
annum (comprising SBI MCLR of 8.80% + 2%), calculated from the date of each
Complainant's respective date of booking, until the date of actual refund. The said
refund shall be done in accordance with Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, within a period of 30 (thirty) days from
the date of this Order.; and
c. The Respondent No.1 is hereby directed to take steps to file an application for
registration of the Project – “Satellite Township” before this Authority in accordance
with Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 and the Rules thereunder with immediate
effect and till the registration is granted by this Authority, the Respondent shall, strictly,
not advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite person/s to purchase in any
manner any units of the said Project.
d. Failing to comply with the above-said directions by Respondent No.1 shall attract
penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
25.

The Complaints are disposed of in lieu of the above directions. No order as to costs.

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

13

---

---