Order Complaint No.343 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 343 of 2025
Dated: 29th November, 2025
Quorum:

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

Iylaiah Chegooru,
R/o. 3153, Prestige Ivy League, Hi Tech City,
Kondapur, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500084
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Godrej Properties Ltd.,
Rep by its Authorized Signatory, Ms. Sripadmini,
R/o. 6th Floor, Work Wild, Sy.No. 4,5,6/1,E,
Navayuga Vizva, Gachibowli, Hyderabad,
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana - 500032
…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing before this Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person and, and Counsel
for Respondent, Sheetal Srikanth, Viraaj Kaza, and P Praneeta Sri, and upon hearing the
submissions of both the parties, this Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

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

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “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 appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

It is submitted that the Complainant, along with his wife and daughter as co-applicants,

had booked an apartment bearing Unit No. 3908 in the project “Godrej Madison Avenue”
situated in Sy. No. 147/P of Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
Hyderabad, being developed by the Respondent. The said project is registered with the
Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority under Registration No. P02400009227.
Page 1 of 10

---

The Complainant states that he had paid 5% of the total price as booking advance and

a further 5% within 15 days of booking, amounting to ₹42,59,990/-, and an additional
₹42,59,991/- towards part sale consideration of the said unit.
5.

It is submitted that the Complainant subsequently received a communication from the

Respondent, insisting upon registration of the Agreement for Sale and requiring the
Complainant to bear the entire stamp duty and registration charges, amounting to ₹2,56,332/-.
The Complainant contends that at the time of booking, he was neither informed about the
mandatory registration of the Agreement for Sale nor apprised of the requirement to bear the
said registration charges, which were not indicated in the cost sheet shared at the time of
booking. The Complainant further submits that the said amount of ₹2,56,332/- is substantial,
and had he been made aware of this earlier, he would have not booked the said apartment.
6.

The Complainant further states that in his earlier purchase of an apartment in the project

“Prestige Ivy League” at Hitech City, Kondapur, Hyderabad, in the year 2019, the Agreement
for Sale was executed on a ₹100/- non-judicial stamp paper prepared by the promoter and was
not required to be registered. He submits that, to his understanding, this has been the prevailing
practice among several reputed builders in Telangana, including My Home, Aparna, Aditya,
and DSR.
7.

It is submitted that under Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)

Act, 2016, no promoter shall accept any deposit or advance without first entering into a written
and registered Agreement for Sale, and it is the duty of the promoter to ensure the registration
of the said agreement. Further, as per sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the said Act, every allottee
who has entered into an Agreement for Sale shall pay the share of the registration charges. The
Complainant contends that the term “share” implies that the stamp duty and registration
charges must be shared equally by both parties, since the Agreement for Sale is a bilateral
document outlining reciprocal rights and obligations of both the promoter and the allottee.
8.

Contrary to these provisions, the Respondent insisted that the Complainant bear the

entire registration and stamp duty charges amounting to ₹2,56,332/-. Having no alternative, the
Complainant paid the entire amount as demanded by the Respondent. It is further submitted
that even after the lapse of 19 days from the date of registration, the Respondent failed to deliver
the registered Agreement for Sale to the Complainant.
9.

The Complainant contends that the Agreement for Sale is bilateral and contains

reciprocal obligations, on the part of the promoter to adhere to the approved layout, plan,
Page 2 of 10

---

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following relief:
Direct the Respondent to bear 50% of the Registration charges towards Registration of
Agreement for Sale and adjust 50% of the Registration charges in future installments
to be paid by Complainant, as the Complainant has already paid full Stamp duty and
Registration fee and got the registration done.

C. Counter on behalf of the Respondents:
11.

The Respondent is the promoter and developer of the residential project titled “Godrej

Madison Avenue,” situated at Plot No. 3, Site No. III, under the Golden Mile Layout Project,
carved out of Sy. No. 147/P of Kokapet Village, Gandipet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which
is a registered real estate project bearing Registration No. P02400009227. The Respondent is
engaged in the business of real estate development and construction and is duly authorised to
develop, market and sell units in the said project.
12.

The Respondent, at the outset, submits that the present complaint is not maintainable.

A complaint before this Hon’ble Authority may be filed only in cases involving violation or
contravention of the provisions of the Act. No such violation exists in the present case. The
Respondent, in calling upon the Complainant to register the Agreement for Sale, has only
complied with applicable law and not imposed any arbitrary condition. The Respondent also
submits that the complaint is not maintainable as it has been filed by only one of the coallottees, and further that the Complainant cannot seek adjustment of 50% of the total stamp
duty.
13.

The Respondent further submits that the Complainant has approached this Hon’ble

Authority with unclean hands. The allegation of the Complainant regarding non-disclosure of
the stamp duty and registration charges is wholly misconceived and baseless. The requirement
to register the agreement for sale and the obligation to bear the applicable stamp duty and
registration charges were clearly disclosed in the booking form dated 29.01.2025 signed by the

Page 3 of 10

---

It is further submitted that the Complainant has suppressed the Booking Form executed

at the time of booking, which clearly mentions the requirement for registration of the agreement
for sale and the obligation of the allottee to bear the applicable stamp duty and registration
charges. The deliberate omission of this material document amounts to suppression of material
facts, and the Complainant has attempted to mislead this Authority by presenting an incomplete
narrative and suppressing key contractual terms that would demonstrate full and fair disclosure
by the Respondent.
15.

As regards the facts of the case, it is submitted that the Complainant, along with a co-

applicant, booked Unit No. 3908 in the Project. The Booking Form clearly states that stamp
duty and registration charges are to be borne by the applicants, and the same was duly signed
by the Complainant without raising any objection. On 03.03.2025, the Respondent wrote to the
Complainant requesting payment of the stamp duty and registration charges in order to
commence the process of execution and registration of the Agreement to Sell. As per the terms
of booking, the Agreement to Sell was required to be executed within forty-five (45) days from
the date of booking. However, the Complainant did not come forward. The Complainant
thereafter alleged that he was never informed that the Agreement to Sell was required to be
registered or that he was required to bear the costs.
16.

The Respondent submits that even after being repeatedly informed that such registration

was mandatory, the Complainant sent multiple communications refusing to come forward for
registration. On 05.06.2025, the Respondent also shared a draft Agreement to Sell for the
Complainant’s review and again requested him to cooperate and pay the stamp duty and
registration charges. It was only thereafter that the registration formalities were completed on
05.06.2025, and the delay occurred solely on account of the Complainant’s conduct. The
Respondent further submits that the Complainant grossly delayed the payments that were
otherwise due much earlier.
17.

It is further submitted that, according to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (as

applicable in Telangana), particularly under Section 29 thereof, in the absence of any agreement
to the contrary, the obligation to pay stamp duty is on the purchaser which in the present case
is the Complainant. The registration of an agreement to sell is mandatory as per Section 13 of
the Act.
Page 4 of 10

---

The Respondent denies the allegations made in the complaint. The contents of the

Complainant’s assertions regarding non-disclosure of registration charges, alleged practice of
other builders, and interpretation of Section 13 and Section 19(6) of the Act are misconceived
and denied. The Complainant’s assertion that stamp duty and registration charges must be
shared equally between the promoter and allottee is wholly baseless. Section 19(6) merely
provides that the allottee shall pay their share of registration charges; it does not imply equal
sharing of charges between promoter and allottee unless contractually agreed upon. In the
instant case, no such contract or agreement exists.
19.

It is submitted that the Complainant was informed of the registration process and

applicable charges in advance, and that the Respondent has complied with all statutory
obligations. The payment of ₹2,56,332/- by the Complainant was in accordance with applicable
legal requirements. The term “share” in Section 19(6) does not imply a 50:50 or equal sharing
of charges and there is no contractual or legal obligation on the Respondent to share the stamp
duty or registration charges.
20.

In view of the above, the Respondent submits that it has fully complied with all legal

obligations under the Act by disclosing all relevant information and ensuring timely execution
and registration of the agreement for sale. The requirement for the Complainant to pay stamp
duty and registration charges is in accordance with applicable law and was clearly
communicated in the Booking Form. The Complainant, having voluntarily executed the
Booking Form, is now estopped from disputing these obligations. The complaint is based on
selective and misleading presentation of facts, suffers from legal and procedural defects, and
is devoid of merit. The Respondent therefore prays that this Hon’ble Authority dismiss the
complaint in limine with exemplary costs and pass such other orders as may be deemed
appropriate in the interest of justice.
D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainant:
21.

The Complainant denies all objections and allegations raised in the Respondent’s

counter. The Complainant asserts that the complaint is fully maintainable, as the Respondent
has violated Section 19(6) of the RERA Act, 2016, which requires an allottee to pay only his
share of registration charges, whereas the Respondent forcibly made him pay the entire
registration fee. He submits that he is not disputing the registration as such of the Agreement
for Sale, but only the Respondent’s insistence that the Complainant must bear the entire
registration charges, which is arbitrary and contrary to the RERA Act. He also states that the
Page 5 of 10

---

The Complainant denies the Respondent’s allegation that he approached the Authority

with unclean hands. He submits that he was never informed by the Respondent, at the time of
booking, about the requirement to register the Agreement for Sale or the substantial amount of
stamp duty and registration charges. He states that the Booking Form was signed in good faith,
without going through the contents, as it ran to nearly ten pages in small font, and further asserts
that the signatures were taken on a blank Booking Form, without any unit number being
mentioned and with a sale consideration amount that was different and far less than the one
later shown in the cost sheet/allotment letter issued to him. He submits that even a copy of the
Booking Form was not provided to him on the date of booking and was shared only after
repeated requests months later, when the dispute regarding full payment of registration charges
arose. The Complainant submits that the Booking Form, being inconsistent with statutory
provisions and containing terms contrary to the RERA Act, is not valid.
23.

The Complainant also denies the allegation of suppression of material facts, submitting

that he had clearly mentioned in the complaint that he had paid nearly 20% of the sale
consideration, which happens only after the formalities like signing of booking form is
completed. He reiterates that any clause in the Booking Form imposing the entire burden of
registration charges on the purchaser is contrary to the RERA Act, and hence such a clause
cannot stand scrutiny of law.
24.

The Complainant submits that he was not informed about the requirement of execution

and registration of the Agreement for Sale or the related costs at any stage before or during
booking. He reiterates that he had requested the Respondent to bear 50% of the stamp duty and
registration charges based on the provisions of Section 19(6), but the Respondent refused and
insisted that he alone must bear the entire amount. He further states that, upon requesting
cancellation of his booking and refund of the amount paid, the Respondent refused and instead
issued threatening emails stating that his entire booking amount would be forfeited. Under
these circumstances, the Complainant paid the entire amount of ₹2,56,332/- on 02.06.2025 and
signed the papers for registration on 05.06.2025, with the intention of pursuing adjustment of
50% of the amount in future instalments.
Page 6 of 10

---

The Complainant denies the Respondent’s reliance on Section 29 of the Indian Stamp

Act, 1899, and submits that, as per the said provision, the person who makes, draws, or executes
the instrument is responsible for paying the stamp duty unless there is an agreement to the
contrary, which is not the case here. It is stated that the Respondent prepared and shared the
draft Agreement for Sale on the date of registration, arranged the registration at the SubRegistrar’s office, and collected and delivered the registered document, which clearly
establishes that the Respondent made, drew, and executed the document and is therefore
responsible for the stamp duty.
26.

The Complainant further submits that both he and his wife merely attended the Sub-

Registrar’s office on 05.06.2025 to sign the papers arranged by the Respondent, and that the
Respondent’s own statement in para 12 of the counter affidavit conclusively establishes that it
was the Respondent who made, and drew the document. He also clarifies that the delay in
payment of the subsequent instalment was solely because of the ongoing correspondence
regarding the Respondent’s refusal to share the registration charges, and that immediately upon
registration of the Agreement for Sale, he paid the next 10% of the sale consideration.
27.

The Complainant finally reiterates that Section 13(1) of the RERA Act places the duty

to execute and register the Agreement for Sale on the promoter, and that Section 29 of the
Indian Stamp Act places liability for stamp duty upon the person who executes the document,
which in this case is the Respondent. It is submitted that the so-called condition in the
application form, which is not an agreement but only a booking form, that the purchaser is
liable to pay the registration charges is contrary to Section 19(6) of the Act, and shall not have
any effect. He states that, nevertheless, since the Agreement for Sale is a bilateral document
meant to safeguard the interests of both parties, and Section 19(6) stipulates that the allottee
must pay his “share” of the registration charges, he is agreeable to bearing 50% of the charges,
while the Respondent must legally bear the remaining 50%.
28.

In light of the above, the Complainant prays that the complaint be allowed and the

Respondent be directed to bear 50% of the stamp duty and registration fee and adjust the same
in the next instalment payable by him, as he has already borne the entire registration charges.
E. Points to be determined:
29.

Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following

questions arise for adjudication:

Page 7 of 10

---

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

F. Observations of the Authority:
30.

Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings, documents, and submissions of both

parties, it is observed that the Complainant booked Unit No. 3908 in the Respondent’s project
“Godrej Madison Avenue”, paid the booking amount and further part sale consideration, and
was thereafter required by the Respondent to execute and register the Agreement for Sale by
paying the entire stamp duty and registration charges of ₹2,56,332/-. The Complainant
contends that he was never informed at the time of booking about the requirement of
registration of the Agreement for Sale or the applicable registration charges; and that under
Section 19(6) of the RE(R&D) Act he is required to pay only his “share” of the registration
charges, which according to him should mean an equal sharing between the promoter and the
allottee.
31.

The Respondent, on the other hand, submits that registration of the Agreement for Sale

is mandatory under Section 13 of the RE(R&D) Act; that the Booking Form signed by the
Complainant clearly stipulates that all stamp duty and registration charges are to be borne by
the allottee; that the Complainant had delayed execution despite repeated instructions; and that
neither the RE(R&D) Act nor the booking form imposes any obligation on the promoter to
share the registration charges.
32.

In view of the above submissions, this Authority first considers the requirement of

execution and registration of the Agreement for Sale. In this regard Section 13 of the RE(R&D)
provides that “A promoter shall not accept a sum more than ten per cent of the cost of the
apartment, plot, or building as the case may be, as an advance payment or an application fee,
from a person without first entering into a written agreement for sale with such person and
register the said agreement for sale, under any law for the time being in force.”
33.

A perusal of the said section, makes it unequivocally clear that, registration of the

Agreement for Sale is therefore a statutory obligation, and the Respondent cannot be faulted
for insisting on compliance with the said requirement. The Complainant’s plea that he was
unaware of the need for registration or that other developers may have followed a different
practice earlier cannot override the explicit mandate under Section 13 of the RE(R&D) Act.
Any other industry practice contrary to the statutory provision has no legal validity.

Page 8 of 10

---

With regard to the complainant’s reliance on Section 19(6) of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which provides that “every allottee, who has entered
into an agreement for sale to take an apartment, plot or building as the case may be, under
section 13, shall be responsible to make necessary payments in the manner and within the time
as specified in the said agreement for sale and shall pay at the proper time and place, the share
of the registration charges, municipal taxes, water and electricity charges, maintenance
charges, ground rent, and other charges, if any,” it is observed that the complainant interprets
the term “share” to mean that the promoter is obligated to bear 50% of the stamp duty and
registration charges.
35.

This interpretation made by the Complainant cannot be accepted. In the context of

Section 19(6), the term ‘share’ refers to the allottee’s proportionate and unit-specific portion of
the charges mentioned in the provision. Section 19(6) imposes an obligation on every allottee
to make payments in the manner and within the time stipulated in the Agreement for Sale, and
further requires the allottee to pay, at the proper time and place, the registration charges,
municipal taxes, water and electricity charges, maintenance charges, ground rent and any other
charges relating to the unit. The use of the word ‘share’ makes it clear that the allottee is liable
only for the portion of such charges that pertains to his individual unit or his proportionate
contribution towards common expenses, and not for amounts attributable to other allottees or
units. The expression does not indicate that the promoter must bear the remaining part of these
charges, unless such liability is expressly placed on the promoter under the RE(R&D) Act, the
Rules, or the contractual terms binding the parties. The RE(R&D) Act does not impose a
requirement for equal sharing of stamp duty or registration charges, nor does it provide any
basis for shifting any part of this liability to the promoter.
36.

As regards the complainant’s reliance on Section 29 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the

said provision operates only “in the absence of an agreement to the contrary.” In the present
case, there exists a contractual allocation of liability, as the booking form executed by the
Complainant constitutes a binding contractual document. The contention of the Complainant
that the Booking Form is not an agreement or that it was blank or not read by him cannot be
accepted. It is a settled principle of law that a person who signs a document is deemed to have
read and understood its contents. A party who voluntarily signs a document cannot later avoid
its terms by stating that he did not read it or that it was incomplete. If the Complainant believed
that the Booking Form lacked material particulars such as unit number or sale consideration, it
was incumbent upon him to raise an objection at that time. Having proceeded with the
Page 9 of 10

---

The Clause 6(c) of the Booking Form, signed by the parties, clearly states that “All

costs, charges and expenses including but not limited to stamp duty, registration charges and/or
incidental charges in connection with any of the documents to be executed for the sale of the
Apartment including on this Application Form and/or the Allotment Letter and/or the
Agreement for Sale shall be borne and paid by the Applicant(s) as and when demanded by the
Promoter.” This clause expressly places the liability of stamp duty and registration charges on
the allottee.
38.

Further, the proforma allotment letter issued by this Authority, which is required to be

adopted by promoters in the State, specifically provides that the allottee shall bear stamp duty
and registration charges for both the Agreement for Sale and the Sale/Conveyance Deed. The
Respondent has adopted this standard format, and the same is displayed on the project webpage
in the TGRERA portal.
39.

A combined reading of Section 19(6) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, Clause 6(c) of the

Booking Form, the proforma allotment letter of TGRERA, makes it evident that the contractual
and statutory scheme places the liability of stamp duty and registration charges upon the
allottee. The Respondent’s actions are in accordance with the RE(R&D) Act, the applicable
rules, and the contractual documents. The Complainant’s contention that the promoter is
obliged to bear 50% of the registration charges is therefore without merit.
40.

Accordingly, this Authority finds that the Complainant is not entitled to the relief

sought. The Respondent has not violated the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, and its insistence
on payment of full registration charges and stamp duty by the Complainant is in accordance
with law and the contractual obligations between the parties.
41.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be 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

Page 10 of 10

---