Order Complaint No.71 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
23rd Day August 2025
Quorum:
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO.71 OF 2025
M/s SAS I Tower Investors Association
(rep by B.Chakradhari, SAS 1 Tower Investors
Association5-9-22/1/16/2, Milano Residency1st floor,
Adarshnargar,Near Birla TempleHyderabad)
…..Complainant

Versus
M/s SAS 1Tower Pvt Ltd
(504, 5th floor, Modern Profound tech park,
Whitefeild Road, Kondapur, Telangana, Hyderabad500084)
Sri Gude Venkateshwara Rao
(Managing Director, SAS ITower Pvt Ltd. R/o
Villa 36, Jayabheri Temple Tree, Narsingi, Nanakramguda,
Rangareddy – 500075)
Sri Rajkumar Kurra
(Director- SAS1 Tower Pvt Ltd,
R/o Villa 58, Fortune Esmeralda Villa,
Kondapur, Hyderabad 500058)
Smt. Harvinder Kaur
(R/o Palm view, Krishna Chouwk,
Old Delhi-Gurgaon Road, Sector -19,
Dundahera, Gurugram- 122 016, Haryana)
Smt. Mohinin Chawla
(Flat no.104, 1st floor, B-Block
My home Bhooja, Bio diversity circle,
RaidurgamPanmak, Serlingampally Mandal
Rangareddy District- 500081)
…..Respondent(s)
SUO MOTU COMPLAINT 208/2025/TG RERA

M/s SAS 1 Tower Pvt Ltd
(504, 5th floor, Modern Profound tech park, Whitefeild
Road, Kondapur, Telangana, Hyderabad- 500084)
SAS 1 Tower

…..Promoter/Respondent
……Project Name

1 of 42

---

The present Form ‘M’ Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate

(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the RE(R&D) Act”), read
with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), seeking appropriate directions against the Respondents.
3.

Simultaneously, Suo Motu proceedings have been initiated by this Authority under

Section 35(1) of the Act, in view of the larger public interest involved and to ensure timely and
lawful completion of the real estate project in question, namely, the "SAS I Tower Project".
4.

In view of the commonality of parties, and issues involved in both the Complaint and

Suo Motu proceedings, this Authority deemed it appropriate to hear and decide both matters

together. The objective in both proceedings is aligned to ensure the timely and lawful
completion of the project while protecting the legitimate interests of the allottees.
A. Facts as Represented by the Complainant – SAS I Tower Investors Association
(Complaint No. 71/2025):
6.

The Complainant, a registered association under the name "SAS I Tower Investors

Association", represents the allottees of the SAS I Tower Project, situated at Sy. No. 19,
Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana (TS RERA
Registration No. 20 dated 12.06.2019).Smt. HarvinderKaur and Smt. MohiniChawla (
Resp.No.4 and 5) are the landowners of Sy.No.19, Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Village,
Ranga Reddy District
7.

The landowners of the said parcel, namely Smt. Harvinder Kaur and Smt. Mohini

Chawla (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5), have entered into a development agreement with the
developer M/s SAS I Tower Private Limited, represented by Respondent No. 1 as Managing
Director and Respondent No. 2 as Director overseeing day-to-day affairs.

2 of 42

---

As per the statutory definition under the Act, both the landowners and the developer are

to be treated as “Promoters” and are jointly liable for the development and timely completion of
the project. Recently, we noted that the work at SAS I Tower Project has slowed down and the
same was enquired with the Developers.
9.

The Complainant Association has submitted that the pace of construction at the SAS I

Tower Project had significantly slowed in recent months. Upon inquiry, it was brought to light
that disputes and miscommunications between the developers and landowners led to a halt in
development activity, which has adversely impacted the interests of the investors and allottees.
10.

In response to this situation, the allottees formed the Association with the express

purpose of mediating and resolving the dispute. Several meetings were convened with the
stakeholders on 05.12.2024, 09.12.2024, 19.12.2024, 22.12.2024, and 29.12.2024. The
Association undertook the role of facilitator to enable reconciliation between the parties.
11.

The Developer is stated to have agreed to resume construction forthwith and assured the

Association that all project-related funds would be routed through an escrow mechanism. It was
further agreed that the landlord, Smt. Mohini Chawla, shall monitor the escrow transactions and
that payments shall be made only with her approval. Additionally, the Developer agreed to
furnish monthly reports detailing expenditure and progress to the landowners and investors.
12.

In furtherance of transparency and accountability, the Developers R1 to R3 have offered

to grant access to the project accounts to an expert committee constituted by the Association. It
was further agreed that future sale proceeds shall be deposited into an escrow account jointly
operated by the Developers, Landowners, and the Association.
13.

The Association has also submitted that a meeting was held with father of Respondent 5

to apprise him of the aforementioned assurances. Despite such efforts, the landowners are
alleged to have filed frivolous complaints against the Developers, resulting in unnecessary
delays and reputational damage, thereby impeding the ability of the Developers to raise funds.
14.

The Developers have alleged that onerous conditions imposed by the Landowners such

as (i) a bar on sale of 18,04,825 sq. ft. of developer's share, (ii) requirement of written consent
for sale of the 26th to 29th floor areas, and (iii) imposition of investor retention clauses have
critically affected their ability to monetise their share and complete the project.
15.

The Association claims to have examined various legal proceedings, including COP No.

85/2023 filed by the Developer and COP No. 96/2023 filed by the Landowners before the
3 of 42

---

It is submitted that following mediation a Settlement Agreement dated 20.02.2024 and

an Addendum-cum-Revised Area Allocation Agreement dated 10.04.2024 were executed.
From 10.04.2024 until 30.11.2024, the Landowners raised no grievance. The revival of
previous allegations post 30.11.2024 is viewed by the Association as mala fide.
17.

As per Clause xii, xiii and xiv of the Revised Area Allocation Agreement, the

Developer is restricted from selling a substantial portion of its share, must obtain prior consent
for sale of certain floors, and can only induct limited investors with similar sale restrictions.
These restrictions are alleged to be unreasonable and obstructive to the financial viability of the
project.
18.

The Association contends that despite repeated communications, the Landowners have

failed to cooperate. The Association believes that such actions are designed to sabotage the
Developer’s ability to complete the project, possibly to take over the project themselves in the
event of delay beyond the GHMC-mandated occupancy deadline of 20.08.2025.
19.

The SAS I Tower Project, a 37-storey commercial tower, is already 75% complete. The

Association submits that further legal disputes or destabilisation of the current Developer,
especially Respondent No. 2 (who holds 80% shareholding in SAS I Tower Pvt. Ltd.), would
irreversibly jeopardize the project and the investments of over 400 allottees.
20.

It is the Association’s considered submission that unless the Landowners agree to relax

the said onerous clauses and jointly operate the escrow mechanism for all future sale proceeds
along with the Developer and Association, the project will not be capable of completion in a
timely manner.
21.

In view of the above, the Complainant Association prays for the following directions

from this Authority:
a. Direct the Landowners (Respondent Nos. 4 and 5) to cooperate with the Developer by
relaxing the conditions imposed under Clauses xii, xiii, and xiv of the Addendum dated
10.04.2024.

4 of 42

---

The Respondent No. 1 was originally constituted as a partnership firm under the name

and style of M/s. SAS Infra. With a view to expanding its business activities and operations, the
said firm was duly converted into a private limited company on 06.04.2022, and pursuant to
such conversion, all rights, obligations, and liabilities of the erstwhile partnership firm were
lawfully vested in the Respondent No. 1 Company.
23.

In the year 2017, one Smt. Mohini Chawla, along with her father Mr. R.P. Singh and

her mother Smt. Harvinder Kaur, approached the Respondent offering their land admeasuring
Ac. 10-32.5 gts. situated in Survey No. 19 at Khajaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Subject Property’) for the purpose of real
estate development and sale. Based on the proposal and representations of the said individuals,
the Respondent agreed to undertake the development of the Subject Property by entering into a
Development Agreement in respect of a portion of the land admeasuring Ac. 5-16 gts., and
further agreed to purchase the remaining portion admeasuring Ac. 5-16 gts.
24.

As per the mutual understanding, the Respondent entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding dated 01.11.2017 with Smt. Mohini Chawla and her mother, Smt. Harvinder
Kaur, as the purported landowners, outlining the agreed terms for sale and development. It is
pertinent to state that this bifurcated arrangement whereby one-half of the land was to be sold
and the other half developed under an agreement was at the specific suggestion of the
landowners. This arrangement enabled the landowners to secure a substantial monetary
consideration for a portion of the land while simultaneously receiving 50% of the built-up area
from the development of the other portion, effectively entitling them to 25% of the total builtup area.
25.

Initially, the landowners represented that Smt. Harvinder Kaur was the absolute owner

and possessor of Ac. 7-08 gts., and Smt. Mohini Chawla was the absolute owner of Ac. 3-24
gts. Relying on these representations, the Respondent paid an amount of ₹24,65,00,000/towards sale consideration. However, upon detailed scrutiny of the link documents pertaining
5 of 42

---

. Upon confronting the landowners with the title issue, they stated that although a Gift

Deed had been executed in favour of Ms. Chetna Kaur sister of Smt. Mohini Chawla giving rise
to the title ambiguity, the issue had been resolved. Notwithstanding these assurances, given the
scale and significance of the proposed development project involving over 60 lakh sq. ft. of
built-up area, the Respondent, exercising commercial prudence, chose not to proceed with the
purchase of the entire Subject Property and, instead, restricted its action to executing a
Development Agreement. This culminated in the execution of a Development Agreement Cum
General Power of Attorney dated 16.08.2018 bearing Doc. No. 13916/2018 for an extent of Ac.
5-16 gts. out of the Subject Property. The parties further entered into an Allocation Agreement
dated 29.12.2018 bearing Doc. No. 13542/2019 to record the built-up area allocation arising
from the aforementioned Development Agreement.
27.

Subsequent to the above, and considering that a substantial amount totalling

₹43,65,00,000/- had already been paid by the Respondent towards sale consideration, the
Respondent proceeded to execute sale transactions in proportion to the area commensurate with
such payment. Accordingly, Sale Deeds dated 23.02.2019 bearing Doc. Nos. 3264/2019 and
3265/2019 were executed in respect of two parcels of land measuring Ac. 0-23 gts. each,
aggregating to Ac. 1-06 gts., belonging to Smt. Mohini Chawla.
28.

Thereafter, owing to a change in circumstances and upon mutual discussions, the

parties, in deviation from the original terms of the Development Agreement Cum General
Power of Attorney dated 16.08.2018, executed a Deed of Amendment. Through this
Amendment, the parties agreed that the portion of land which was not sold would be
amalgamated with the land covered under the Development Agreement, and the built-up area
share of the landowners would be revised accordingly across all categories. It was further
agreed that in the event the Respondent was financially in a position to do so, it could purchase
additional land from the landowners up to a maximum of Ac. 5-16 gts. at a mutually agreed
price, and in such a case, the proportionate built-up area entitlement of the landowners would
be reduced. Pursuant to this understanding, Smt. Harvinder Kaur, acting through her GPA
holder Smt. Mohini Chawla, executed a Sale Deed dated 23.03.2019 bearing Doc. No.
5043/2019 conveying an additional extent of Ac. 0-30.4 gts.

6 of 42

---

Over time, a series of additional instruments were executed between the Respondent

and the landowners including the Supplemental Allocation Agreement dated 25.06.2019, an
Additional Supplementary Deed and Allocation of Area bearing Doc. No. 2219 of 2022, and an
Amendment Deed dated 20.01.2023 bearing Doc. No. 1242 of 2023, all of which revised and
reiterated the terms of understanding from time to time.
30.

As of date, the Respondent has received Ac. 5-16 gts. of land under the Development

Agreement Cum General Power of Attorney dated 16.08.2018 and has purchased Ac. 1-36.4
gts. vide Sale Deeds dated 23.02.2019 and 23.03.2019. The Respondent was and remains
entitled to purchase the remaining portion of land admeasuring Ac. 2-37.6 gts. (after excluding
Ac. 0-22 gts. acquired by the Government for road widening) subject to the landowners
resolving the pending title issues. Despite repeated communications dated 19.08.2022 and
07.07.2023, calling upon the landowners to clear the said deficiencies, no resolution has been
forthcoming.
31.

Feeling aggrieved by the dishonest and misleading conduct of the landowners, who

induced the Respondent to part with substantial sums of money despite the existence of
unresolved title issues and further enriched themselves through the development of the project,
the Respondent was constrained to lodge a criminal complaint dated 12.10.2023 before the
Station House Officer, Raidurgam Police Station. Pursuant to directions of the Hon’ble II
Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Rajendranagar under Section 200 Cr.P.C., an FIR bearing No. 887/2023 came to be registered
for offences under Sections 406, 415, 417, 420, 120B IPC read with Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
against the landowners.
32.

Parallelly, the Respondent No. 1 filed COP No. 85 of 2023 under Section 9 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking an injunction against alienation of the balance
Ac. 2-37.6 gts., followed by invocation of arbitration under Section 21 of the Act vide notice
dated 02.11.2023. The landowners responded on 29.11.2023, contending that arbitration was
premature in the absence of conciliation. Thereafter, the landowners themselves initiated COP
No. 96 of 2023, securing an ex parte ad-interim order restraining alienation of built-up area.
Subsequently, the parties opted for mediation and entered into an agreement dated 20.02.2023,
agreeing to resolve all further disputes amicably. In pursuance of this settlement, an Addendum
and Revised Area Allocation Agreement was executed on 10.04.2024 (Doc. No. 8260 of 2024),
and arbitration proceedings were accordingly withdrawn. Despite the Respondent No. 1’s
7 of 42

---

In a shocking development, the landowners lodged a complaint resulting in registration

of FIR No. 7 of 2025 before the EOW PS, Cyberabad under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
for alleged violations of the settlement agreement. Such criminal proceedings are wholly
unwarranted and malafide, especially given the history of mutual negotiations, amendments,
and settlement.
34.

The present complaint filed before this Hon’ble Authority, which has been registered as

Case No. D/208/25, is yet another instance of the landowners’ harassment with the intention of
arm-twisting and coercing the Respondents. It is submitted that the Respondents have always
acted in good faith and have continuously made efforts to complete the project, despite repeated
non-cooperation from the landowners.
35.

With reference to para 2 of the Complaint, the Respondents submit that the sole cause

of delay is the persistent interference and malicious conduct of the landowners. The
Respondents reiterate their willingness to complete the project expeditiously, subject to the
landowners ceasing their obstructive conduct and cooperating in good faith. The Respondents

are actively engaged in fulfilling all obligations and are committed to protecting the interests of
all stakeholders including investors and allottees.
36.

It is clear from the sequence of events that the landowners, despite having received

significant monetary and constructed area benefits, are acting purely out of mala fides to stall
the project and gain further undue advantage. The pendency of earlier withdrawn complaints,
subsequent settlement agreements, and the continued filing of new complaints in violation
thereof, establishes the lack of bona fides on their part.
37.

The Respondents therefore respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Authority may be pleased

to take into consideration the aforementioned facts and circumstances, and pass such orders as
may be necessary to protect the interest of the project and its completion, while ensuring that no
further frivolous actions are entertained to obstruct the ongoing development. The Respondents
are ready and willing to comply with all lawful directions of this Hon’ble Authority and pray
that appropriate orders may be passed to facilitate the timely completion of the project and in
the larger interest of justice.

8 of 42

---

It is submitted by the Respondents R4 and R5 that the Complainant, Shri B.

Chakradhari, is a self-styled president of an unregistered body purportedly titled “SAS I Tower
Investor Association”. It is contended that no details have been furnished regarding the
formation of this alleged association or the basis of the Complainant’s election or nomination
as president. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Authority that Shri B. Chakradhari had
no valid agreement of sale or registered sale deed in his favour until 19.02.2025, which is a date
subsequent to the filing of the present complaint on 18.02.2025.
39.

Attention is drawn to the registered Settlement Agreement dated 20.02.2025 executed

between Respondents R1 and R4-R5, wherein Clause 2(xv) stipulates that “the owner's
representative will have a right to verify the price before registration of any agreement.” It is
submitted that the said sale deed in favour of Shri Chakradhari was not brought to the notice of
Respondents R4 and R5 and is, therefore, in contravention of the settlement terms. Moreover,
this sale deed discloses advance payments of ₹11 lakhs in March 2018, prior to execution of
any Development Agreement or GPA with Respondents R1 to R3, thereby raising serious
questions on its validity and bonafides.
40.

Respondents R4 and R5 aver that the Complainant is a proxy for Respondent R2,

having assisted him earlier in soliciting investors and executing unauthorized pre-sales before
the execution of the DA-GPA. A WhatsApp message dated 24.01.2024, purportedly sent by
Shri Chakradhari to the father of Respondent R4, contains an admission regarding large-scale
siphoning of funds by the Directors of the Developer entity. The subsequent volte-face of the
Complainant, who now appears to support R2, merits scrutiny.
41.

It is further submitted that the Complainant created a WhatsApp group at the behest of

R2 and actively controls its communications as administrator. Allegedly, views not aligned
with R2 are suppressed, and genuine allottees opposing R2’s position are barred from the
group. A printed letterhead was circulated listing members of this WhatsApp group, creating a
misleading impression that they support this petition, whereas most may be unaware of their
inclusion or of the complaint itself.
A letter from Shri Anand Moorthy of Props AMC, representing 345 allottees, has been
submitted to demonstrate that this so-called Association was formed without inviting or
admitting allottees who disagreed with the agenda of R2. The said letter specifically alleges

9 of 42

---

It is submitted that besides Shri Chakradhari, the complaint bears the names of six other

individuals listed as executive or expert committee members, whose locus standi remains
unestablished. They have not disclosed unit details, payment history, or documentary proof of
their status as allottees. Upon verification through the IGRS portal and internal sales data, only
four namesShri Badrinath, Smt. Rama Devi, Shri Ajay Babu, and Shri Prakash Rao are found to
be allottees. Shri G. Vara Prasad Rao appears to have introduced multiple purchasers but has
not shown any bonafide interest.
43.

It is stated that several of these persons acquired units at extremely low rates (e.g.,

₹2500/sq.ft.) before the DA-GPA was even executed, allegedly as a quid pro quo for customer
procurement. These transactions cast serious doubt on their status as genuine allottees. It is the
specific case of the Respondents that such individuals were used by R2 to offload unsanctioned
inventory and launder unaccounted cash.
44.

Reference is made to the registered Settlement Agreement dated 20.02.2024 and

document no. 8260/2024, wherein it was agreed that Respondents R1 to R3 shall hand over the
landowners' share by August 2025. Failure to do so would trigger foreclosure rights for R4 and

R5 over the mortgaged area. However, despite this agreement, no substantial progress has been
made by R1–R3, and violations of the terms are rampant.
45.

In anticipation of the August 2025 deadline, it is alleged that Respondent R2 has

launched a targeted campaign using Shri Chakradhari and the WhatsApp group to malign R4
and R5, mislead investors, and create psychological pressure to force dilution of the terms of
the Settlement Agreement.
46.

It is submitted that some of the individuals active in the said WhatsApp group are the

very persons who facilitated illegal sales by R2 before execution of DA-GPA, resulting in
unauthorized pre-sales of approximately 6.5 lakh sq.ft. These activities, it is contended, warrant
criminal investigation by agencies such as the Economic Offences Wing or CBI.
47.

The Complaint, according to the Respondents, is a one-sided narrative that entirely

avoids attributing any liability to the Developer, despite overwhelming evidence of siphoning,
project delay, and financial mismanagement. It is submitted that the complaint has been filed to
shield R2 and create an illusion of legitimacy for his actions.

10 of 42

---

The Respondents assert that the Complainants have no privity of contract with them and

cannot interfere with contractual terms between the landowners and the Developer, particularly
when R4 and R5 have never sold or developed any portion of their share independently, nor
interfered in construction activities.
49.

It is further stated that the Developer, after failing to obtain relief from the commercial

court in COP 85/2023 and facing an adverse order in COP 96/2023 (dated 23.11.2023),
approached Respondents R4 and R5 for a settlement. A Settlement Agreement was thereafter
signed on 20.02.2024, followed by registration.
50.

Due to continued violations post-settlement, including registration of sale deeds without

landowner consent, Respondents R4 and R5that the mediator resigned reportedly due to a
conflict of interest arising from his son’s alleged association with R2’s company.
51.

It is pointed out that multiple sale deeds indicate fraudulent sales in favour of related

parties and at undervalued rates. For instance, sale deeds nos. 14905/2024 and 14906/2024 are
executed in favour of Citywest Developers, a firm linked to R2. Another deed, no. 130/2025,
shows a transaction with SRIAS Constructions LLP (also associated with R2 and R3) using
cheques dated 2019 and no clear payment trail.
52.

Respondents state that several of these sales involve mortgaged areas and were

conducted in breach of both the original DA-GPA and the Settlement Agreement. Sale data
obtained from intermediaries and Props AMC shows that sales occurred even before DA-GPA
execution and that power of attorney was misused by Respondent 1.
53.

In light of these ongoing violations, a complaint was filed with the Economic Offences

Wing, which after preliminary inquiry, registered an FIR against R1 under Sections 316(2),
318(4), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
54.

An analysis of the sale data by financial experts reveals widespread price manipulation,

resulting in estimated siphoning of ₹585–₹685 crores. These figures are based on abnormal
price differentials recorded even within the same quarter and between similarly situated units.
55.

Instances of back-dated and accommodation sales, some promising high rental yields

and buyback optionsare cited as examples of financial engineering intended to launder cash.
56.

Additionally, on the expense side, it is submitted that R2 has misappropriated

substantial funds. Even R3 (a 20% stakeholder) has demanded a forensic audit and has accused

11 of 42

---

Respondents submit that the complexity of operating such a large commercial

development, with a proposed density of 6 lakh sq.ft./acre, requires significant oversight and
retained stake by the Developer. However, the Developer has sold over 23 lakh sq.ft., much of
it without any access or service area, and now intends to exit the project, thereby endangering
the long-term viability.
58.

The current floor design allows for only 6 tenants per floor, but sale data indicates over

50 allottees per floor in Tower A1. The result will be operational chaos, inability to lease to
MNCs, and inevitable distress sales by small investors. A typical floor plan reveals lack of
amenities like access corridors or toilets for independently sold units.
It is submitted that the Developer’s attempt is now to obtain an OC by compromising

59.

specifications, after which he will exit, abandoning obligations under RERA. The Respondents
cite recent events including:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
60.

Removal of the construction head,
Removal of the chief architect,
Outsourcing of HVAC systems
Change in façade vendor for Tower A2, and
Inferior finishing materials vis-à-vis original estimates.
Further Respondents No. 4 and 5 submit that any agreement under which a property is

delivered without a valid and feasible access must be treated as an act of fraud, amounting to a
Ponzi scheme. Investors who were misled into purchasing such inaccessible units are not only
entitled to a full refund along with interest but must also be adequately compensated by the
Developer. It is further submitted that to protect the interests of these investors, immediate
steps must be taken to attach the assets constructed by the Developer using the funds siphoned
from the subject project, including surplus proceeds from other projects promoted by Shri G.V.
Rao.
61.

Respondents further submit that all conditions set out in the Settlement Agreement

dated 20.02.2024 and Document No. 8260/2024 are intended solely for the timely completion
of the project and to ensure its post-completion sustainability, thereby protecting the interest of
allottees at large. In particular, covenant (vi) of Doc No. 8260/2024, requiring the Developer to
submit revised building plans by May 2024, was critical in view of continued alterations being
made to the project layout without approval from the allottees or consent of the landowners.

12 of 42

---

Further, in light of credible information regarding the siphoning of funds and receipt of

substantial cash payments by R1, Clause 2(xv) of the Settlement Agreement and covenant (xii)
of Doc No. 8260/2024 were introduced to ensure that all sale proceeds would be accepted
solely through banking channels and deposited in the dedicated project account. Additionally,
Respondents 4 and 5 agreed to relax the retention clause (covenant xiii) to permit R1 to
introduce 3–4 institutional investors who would retain the 18 lakh sq ft covered under the
retention obligation jointly with R1. Despite this relaxation, R1 proceeded to sell the area at
abysmally low prices, without notifying or obtaining clearance from Respondents 4 and 5, thus
depriving the project of critical funding.
63.

Respondents submit that since June 2024, they have consistently sought updates from

R1 to ensure that the project as a whole, not just their share, is constructed as per the agreed
specifications. It is contended that unless the 23 lakh sq ft already sold in Tower A1 is
completed in a lease-worthy condition, tenants would be unwilling to occupy the 7.5 lakh sq ft
owned by Respondents 4 and 5. It is therefore in Respondents’ own interest, and aligned with
the interest of other allottees, to ensure the holistic completion of the project. However, the
continued deviation by the Developer from the original sanctioned plan, coupled with failure to
file revised plans within the agreed timeline, reflects a deliberate lack of commitment. The
Respondents also apprehend a severe shortfall in parking facilities, which, if true, will
adversely impact permissible built-up area in Tower Ban area entirely within the landowners’
retention share. This could explain the reluctance of the Developer to seek revised approvals,
effectively jeopardizing the entire project.
64.

Respondents deny the credibility of the cost estimate of ₹411 crore being flaunted by

R2, which is based on a report by CBRE submitted in February 2025. It is submitted that this
figure covers only MEP costs and excludes critical specifications, with HVAC and BMS
components alone being undervalued by nearly ₹70 crore. This manipulated figure is being
propagated with the assistance of Complainant Shri Chakardhari to mislead other investors via
curated WhatsApp messages, while dissenting voices are summarily deleted.
65.

On the contrary, a realistic cost estimate of ₹817 crore was obtained from the then

Construction Head on 26.12.2024. This figure, which excludes cost of funds, assured returns,
13 of 42

---

In view of the above, Respondents submit that R1 and R2 must repatriate a substantial

portion of the siphoned funds to make the project viable and fulfil their contractual obligations.
It is submitted that R2 has accumulated a profit exceeding ₹1,000 crore in his personal capacity
through Srias Developers LLP. A 55-storey ultra-luxury project, “SAS Crown,” promoted by
R2 through this LLP, has received substantial funding diverted from the present project. Yet,
despite commanding prices of ₹13,000–15,000 per sq ft (and upward of ₹20,000 per sq ft for
higher floors), registrations are being conducted at artificially deflated values (₹4,000 per sq ft)
evidence of systemic cash siphoning. A press release dated 20.03.2025 by Infomeric Ratings
corroborates this. These funds, Respondents allege, are being misused for the purchase of 28
acres of land in Kukatpally.
67.

Respondents further refer to an analysis of 23 registered sale agreements of SAS Crown

showing artificially suppressed registration values, while actual market rates are far higher. The
rating report also confirms that 92% of the project’s financial needs are covered by receivables
from already sold units. Conservative estimates indicate that the 107 unsold flats could generate
at least ₹1,153 crore, further strengthening the claim that funds can easily be restored.
68.

It is respectfully reiterated that Respondents No. 4 and 5 are landowners and not

promoters. Clauses 5(b) and 13(c) of Document No. 13916/2018 and covenant (xxx) of Doc
No. 8260/2024clarify that Respondents have no involvement in project execution, revenue
sharing, or decision-making. They are simply entitled to built-up area in lieu of land and have
not sold any part of their share. They are therefore allottees, entitled to statutory protection
under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
69.

Respondents rely on the following judgments and orders to support their position:
a. Kerala High Court, MSA 16/2024 (Pooja Constructions v. Kerala UranmaDevaswom
Board) where it was held that landowners accepting consideration in kind remain
allottees, not promoters.

14 of 42

---

These precedents clearly establish that Respondents 4 and 5 are allottees and cannot be

classified as promoters. The prayer of the Complainant to treat them otherwise, or to interfere
with their contractual terms, is both misconceived and legally untenable.
71.

Respondents respectfully submit that the Developer (R1 to R3) has committed a litany

of RERA violations including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
72.

Sale of over 6.5 lakh sq ft prior to any valid DA or GPA;
Sale of 10.5 lakh sq ft prior to RERA registration;
Failure to open RERA account until October 2023;
Misrepresenting title ownership in Form B;
Withholding mandatory disclosures under Section 11;
Making plan deviations without requisite allotee consent or revised approvals;
Mismanagement of maintenance and corpus funds.
Respondents also submit a detailed para-wise reply to the averments made in the

complaint (M-Form, pages 5–9), strongly denying all allegations made against them. It is
reiterated that they have not obstructed the project at any stage and have acted solely in the
interest of project completion. On the contrary, they allege that R2 has orchestrated a
systematic diversion of funds and manipulated investor sentiments via misleading campaigns

and WhatsApp groups, while registering undervalued sale deeds and executing cash-based
transactions.
Respondents pray that the Hon’ble Authority may:

73.
1.

Direct a forensic audit of accounts and transactions;

2.

Mandate R1 to R3 to deposit the full viability gap funding;

3.

Restrain the Developer from undertaking further sales without due verification;

4.

Direct appointment of a reputed third-party Developer, in consultation with allottees;

5.

Confirm the status of Respondents 4 and 5 as Allottees and protect their entitlements
under the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

D. Rejoinder filed by the Complainants against Respondent Nos. 4 and5:
74.

The Complainants, through their rejoinder, have submitted that the deponent is the

President of the SAS I Tower Investors Association and is well acquainted with the facts of the
present case and is competent to depose on behalf of the Association. At the outset, the
Complainants have denied all averments made in the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent

15 of 42

---

With respect to the unnumbered paragraph 3 in the Counter Affidavit, the Complainants

deny the allegation that the present complaint has been filed at the behest of Respondent No.2
with an intent to delay or defeat the ongoing Suo Motu action initiated by this Authority. The
Complainants state that the SAS I Tower Investors Association, consisting of around 120
members, was formed solely with the purpose of resolving disputes and monitoring
development activities. The Complainants assert that the allegations of mala fides are baseless.
76.

The Complainants deny the contents of paragraph 1 of the Counter Affidavit and submit

that the allegations regarding Mr. B. Chakradhari being a self-styled President of the
Association are false. It is submitted that proper procedure was followed in constituting the
Association and electing its President. It is denied that Mr. Chakradhari lacked a valid sale
agreement or sale deed until 19.02.2025, or that the said deed violates the settlement agreement
between the landowners and the developer. The Complainants further deny that he was made to
acquire the status of an allottee merely to advance the agenda of Respondent No.2.
77.

The Complainants assert that the execution of the sale deed in favour of Mr.

Chakradhari is legal and binding. The Complainants submit that the subject property was

offered for development by one Ms. Mohini Chawla and her parents through an MOU dated
01.11.2017. Based on the representations and assurances of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 regarding
title, the Developer entered into sale agreements and executed MOUs and sale deeds with bona
fide purchasers, including the Complainants. A registered Development Agreement-cumGeneral Power of Attorney was executed in 2018, formalizing the arrangement. The initial
MOUs and Agreements of Sale executed by the Developer with purchasers were lawful and
valid, subsisting through and after the execution of the said Development Agreement.
78.

Following disputes, the parties executed a settlement agreement dated 20.02.2024 and

an addendum agreement dated 10.04.2024. Clause (xi) of the addendum states that the
Developer has sold units only in specific floors (7 to 14, and 17 to 25), and Clause (xii)
provides that any further sale in floors 26 to 29 requires written consent from the landowners.
The Complainants submit that the purchase by Mr. Chakradhari falls under Clause (xi), and
thus, the allegation that his sale deed was executed without landowner consent is unfounded.
79.

The Complainants allege that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have deliberately suppressed

Clause (xi) while misrepresenting Clause (xii), indicating mala fide intent to delay construction
16 of 42

---

The Complainants further submit that the Association was formed due to the illegal and

obstructive actions of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In December 2024, several purchasers visited
the project site and found no developmental activity, prompting inquiries. Upon confrontation,
it was revealed that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were repeatedly objecting to development under
various pretexts, thereby causing financial distress. As a result, meetings were convened, and
the Association was formally constituted in good faith on 29.12.2024 with Mr. Chakradhari
elected as President, following meetings on 05.12.2024, 09.12.2024, 19.12.2024, and
22.12.2024.
81.

The Complainants deny the allegations in paragraph 2 of the Counter that Mr.

Chakradhari is acting as a proxy for Respondent No.2 or had any role in siphoning of funds. It
is submitted that in March 2018, Respondent No.2 approached Mr. Chakradhari with an offer to
sell commercial plots, resulting in a legitimate MOU and subsequent sale deed. Therefore,
allegations of collusion or proxy behavior are denied.

82.

In reply to paragraph 3 of the Counter, the Complainants deny that the WhatsApp group

administered by Mr. Chakradhari was created at the behest of Respondent No.2 or that it
censors opposing views. The Complainants clarify that there was no association until December
2024, and the group was created in response to the unlawful obstruction by Respondent Nos. 4
and 5. The meetings included participation from allottees, including Mr. Anand Moorthy, and
no exclusion or bias was practiced.
83.

The Complainants submit that over ₹100 Crores have been collectively paid by the

purchasers, enabling 75% of the construction to be completed. Due to delays caused by the
Respondents, the Association was compelled to be formed to safeguard purchasers’ interests.
Hence, the contention that the Association was formed without transparency is denied.
84.

The Complainants deny the contents of paragraph 4 and affirm that the President has

submitted his registered sale deed, establishing his status as an allottee. Allegations regarding
non-disclosure of allotment details by other members are denied.

17 of 42

---

In response to paragraph 5, the Complainants deny that the purchasers acquired

properties at unfairly low rates or paid in cash to Respondent No.2. The purchasers are bona
fide allottees who relied on valid documentation, and there is no merit in classifying them as
mere investors.
86.

In reply to paragraph 6, it is denied that Respondent No.2 used Mr. Chakradhari to

manipulate investors via WhatsApp groups or sought to dilute contractual terms. It is submitted
that the Developer has completed 85% of the project, and the remaining 15% could not be
completed due to the refusal of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to provide consent for sale of the
Developer’s share. Such refusal, in violation of the Addendum Agreement, has delayed the
project and prejudiced the purchasers.
87.

The Counter are denied as false and baseless, lacking any supporting documentation.

The Complainants assert that the complaint is not one-sided or lacking privity, as the
landowners have been actively involved and are thus jointly liable. The purchasers have a right
to raise concerns under the RERA framework.
88.

They are not privy to the contents and put Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to strict proof.

the Complainants deny the allegation that the WhatsApp group is being used to mislead
investors or manipulate opinions. These are vague accusations without evidence
89.

The Complainants submit that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, being co-promoters, have a

share in the project and profit, and are therefore jointly responsible under the Act. As per the
Addendum Agreement, their written consent is required for any sale by the Developer, thus
making them active participants and not passive landowner.
90.

The Complainants deny that their Association lacks locus standi. The members are

genuine allottees with valid sale deeds and a financial stake in the project. The denial of their
legal right to raise grievances is baseless.
91.

The Complainants reiterate their locus standi and deny any improper motive. The

formation of the Association was legitimate, and its members are entitled to intervene in project
matters affecting their interests.
92.

The Complainants deny that the petition is intended to interfere with the contractual

rights of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The complaint seeks to enforce the rights of allottees as
recognized under the Act.

18 of 42

---

The Complainants affirm that they are genuine allottees who have lawfully invested in

the project based on representations made by both the Developers and landowners. Due to the
refusal of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to permit sale of the Developer’s share, delays and financial
losses have occurred, prejudicing the Complainants.
94.

In conclusion, the Complainants submit that the high-handed conduct of Respondent

Nos. 4 and 5, particularly in refusing to grant consent for sale of the Developer’s share, is in
breach of the Addendum Agreement and is driven by an ulterior motive to unjustly enrich
themselves. Their obstructionist conduct has disrupted progress and harmed the rights of the
purchasers.
95.

The Complainants assert their right, as protected allottees under the Act, to raise

grievances and seek redressal. Accordingly, they pray that this Hon’ble Authority be pleased to
reject the contents of the Counter filed by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and allow the complaint in
terms of the reliefs sought.
E. Facts of Suo Motu Complaint No. 208/2025:
96.

The Authority notes that a detailed representation was received from2 landowners who

identified themselves as the lawful owners of land bearing Sy. No. 19 situated at Khajaguda. It
has been submitted that these landowners had entered into a Development Agreement with M/s
SAS Infra, now known as SAS I Tower Private Limited, for the development of a commercial
project comprising retail and office spaces. Despite the passage of over seven years since the
execution of the said agreement, the project remains grossly incomplete. The Complainants
have alleged that the Developer has diverted funds received from investors in the subject
project to initiate several other real estate ventures, thereby delaying the completion of the
instant project.
97.

The landowners have further alleged that even though nearly 23 lakh sq. ft. of proposed

built-up area has been sold by the Developer, only around Rs. 900 crore has been brought in as
the recorded sale consideration. The consideration reportedly ranged between Rs. 2,550 per sq.
ft. to Rs. 12,500 per sq. ft., indicating, as per the Complainants, that substantial parts of the sale
consideration may have been received in unaccounted cash. This, according to the landowners,
was allegedly diverted by the Developer towards acquisition of land and commencement of
other projects through various companies/LLPs owned or controlled by one Mr. G.V. Rao. It
has been averred that Mr. G.V. Rao, who was only operating a partnership firm at the time the

19 of 42

---

It has been brought to the Authority's notice that despite providing several concessions

to the Developer vis-à-vis the original MoU executed in 2017 ostensibly to facilitate smooth
execution of the project the Developer has, since June 2023, started harassing the landowners
on frivolous and fabricated grounds. The primary objective of such conduct, as alleged, appears
to be to coerce the landowners into reducing their agreed share of area in the ongoing project.
99.

The Complainants have also stated that the Developer has initiated both civil and

criminal proceedings against them. In particular, they allege that a malicious criminal case was
filed in connivance with certain police officials. Despite obtaining a favourable court order in
the civil matter, the Complainants claim that they were persistently harassed by the then
Inspector of Police, Raidurg Police Station. All requisite documents were submitted to the
Commissioner of Police and the concerned Inspector to establish that the complaint filed by the
Developer was false and vexatious. However, coercive actions allegedly continued until the
transfer of these officers and a change in regime. The landowners have therefore requested that
an enquiry be ordered into the alleged misconduct of the then police officials.
100. Following the change in regime, the Developer purportedly lost the administrative

influence it previously exercised. The Complainants state that in light of a civil court interim
order favouring them, the Developer initiated a dialogue through mediator who offered to
mediate the dispute. Keeping in view the interest of the large number of small investors already
involved in the project, the landowners agreed to a settlement, and a formal agreement was
entered into on 20.02.2024.
101.

However, the Complainants submit that even after a lapse of more than 11 months since

the execution of the settlement agreement, there has been no significant progress at the project
site. Despite the project being at a standstill, the Developer has allegedly continued to book
new sales in violation of the settlement terms. The agreement stipulated that any future sales
could only be undertaken with the prior written consent of the landowners an obligation which
the Developer has allegedly failed to honour. Upon examination of data from the IGRS portal,
the landowners discovered that the Developer had executed multiple fraudulent sale
transactions, several of which were reportedly accommodation entries involving business
associates and partners, aimed at further misappropriation of project funds. Alarmingly,
portions of the project which were mortgaged in favour of the landowners as security were also
20 of 42

---

It is contended that owing to the alleged large-scale diversion and misappropriation of

project funds, the project has become commercially unviable. The landowner’s express serious
apprehension that the Developer may soon abandon the project, thereby forcing creditors to
initiate insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and pushing the
Developer company towards liquidation. This, in turn, would cause immense financial hardship
to the landowners and potentially affect thousands of small investors.
103.

Further, prior to entering into the settlement, the Complainants had approached this

Authority and filed various documents demonstrating that considerable amounts were being
collected in cash as part of sale consideration, alongside other serious violations. However, due
to the Developer’s engagement of a large legal team and the eventual execution of the
settlement agreement, no immediate regulatory action was taken, and the matter was not
pursued at that time.
104. An internal cost estimate prepared by the then Head of Construction for the project has

also been submitted by the landowners as Annexure 5, wherein the projected construction cost
alone is shown to be approximately Rs. 817 Crores. This figure excludes the cost of funds,
assured returns to investors, and the replenishment of common area maintenance (CAM) or
corpus fund, leading to a total requirement in excess of Rs. 1,000 Crores. The landowners
submit that, in their view, it is no longer viable to complete the project with the limited unsold
area remaining.
105.

Requesting Authority to safeguard the interest of a large number of small investors who

have been lured by promise of huge returns, we pray for immediate Suomoto action by RERA
to

investigate

the

diversion

misappropriation

of

funds

collected

from

investors/purchasers/allottees and various other violations of RERA guidelines in all the
projects floated by Sh. GV Rao.
F. Reply filed by the Respondent IN Suo motu complaint 208/2025:
106.

The Respondent Company, M/s SAS I Tower Private Limited (formerly SAS Infra), has

submitted a detailed written response denying all allegations raised by the landowners. At the

21 of 42

---

The Respondent narrates the background of the transaction, including its conversion

from SAS Infra to SAS Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., and the development arrangement with the
landowners comprising both Development Agreements and partial land sale. It is stated that
despite paying approximately ₹43.65 Crores as sale consideration, title defects were discovered
over a portion of the land, due to which only clear title land parcels were purchased, and the
development proceeded cautiously. Disputes arose on this count, leading to multiple
agreements and communications over time.
108.

The Respondent further states that various agreements were entered into and modified

from time to time, including Development Agreements, Allocation Agreements, and Sale
Deeds. The landowners, according to the Respondent, failed to cure title defects, necessitating
initiation of criminal proceedings under FIR No. 887/2023 for cheating and criminal
conspiracy. Parallelly, arbitration proceedings were also initiated. The matter culminated in a
mediated settlement dated 20.02.2023 and later in an Addendum cum Revised Allocation
Agreement dated 10.04.2024. Despite this, the landowners allegedly continued to act in bad
faith and obstruct the project.
109.

The Respondent asserts that it remains committed to completion of the project and had

even proposed to place future sale proceeds in an escrow mechanism for transparency.
However, in the midst of this, the landowners allegedly lodged a fresh complaint (FIR No.
7/2025 under BNS provisions), which the Respondent characterizes as malicious and a gross
abuse of criminal process.
110.

It is further submitted that the landowners’ allegations in their email dated 27.01.2025

and other representations to this Authority are false and defamatory. The Respondent claims it
was not served with the document titled “Synopsis of Case Facts to RERA,” and denies every
claim made therein for want of knowledge and merit.
111.

The allegation of sale deeds being executed in favour of business associates post

settlement is emphatically denied. It is stated that no such sale deeds were executed post the
22 of 42

---

As regards the allegation of unauthorized sale of retained areas, the Respondent

submits that a portion of the 37th Floor was transferred to Mr. Raj Kumar based on mutual
understanding among stakeholders, and upon later objections by the landowners, the same was
cancelled through a registered cancellation deed dated 28.03.2025 (Doc. No. 4495/2025), thus
resolving the issue.
113.

The apprehensions expressed by landowners regarding replacement of the Respondent

as Developer are termed as indicative of ulterior motives to remove the Respondent and
unjustly benefit financially. The Respondent denies all allegations regarding siphoning of ₹600
Crores or any other misappropriation, asserting that no forensic audit is warranted, and any
such direction would severely harm stakeholder interests.
114.

The Respondent reiterates that all transactions and unit sales were at arm’s length and

aligned with commercial practices. Differences in pricing (e.g., ₹10,350/sq. ft. vs. ₹2,850/sq.
ft.) are stated to be due to standard business reasons such as bulk deals, early investor
incentives, and marketing strategies.
115.

The representation of Ms. Mohini Chawla is denied in toto. The Respondent states there

is no threat to investor interests and that landowners are obstructing the project through
baseless allegations of cash consideration, which are speculative and unsupported by evidence.
116.

The allegations regarding malicious criminal cases and police harassment are denied.

The Respondent contends that such matters lie outside the jurisdiction of this Authority.
117.

With respect to the emails of Mr. Raja Kumar Kurra, the Respondent states that no

prima facie case is made out for forensic audit and that these communications are being used
selectively to harass and defame. The unilateral cost estimate of ₹1,000 Cr. provided by the
landowners is also disputed.
118.

The cancellation of a registered Gift Deed in favour of Ms. Chetna Kaur is cited as a

reason for banks' reluctance to fund the project, which the Respondent claims is attributable to
landowners’ actions rather than any fault of its own.

23 of 42

---

The Respondent categorically denies that any unit was sold without price verification or

in contravention of the Settlement Agreement. Transactions that were objected to were
cancelled, demonstrating transparency and good faith.
120.

Allegations in the representation dated 02.04.2025, and reference to the Props AMC

report, are also denied. The Respondent states that no siphoning has occurred and the
landowners have failed to demonstrate how any pricing differences have resulted in personal
financial loss.
121.

The Respondent prays that the Authority should not be swayed by assumptions or

conjectures, and submits that all sales were accounted, with no evidence of undeclared cash
consideration. The specific figures of ₹686 Cr. or ₹585 Cr. alleged to be misappropriated are
denied as speculative and defamatory.
122.

The demand for forensic audit into personal finances of Mr. G.V. Rao and his relatives

is strongly opposed as lacking legal basis and jurisdiction. Allegations of fund diversion to
unrelated projects like “SAS Crown” are denied as motivated attempts to pressure the
Respondent.
123.

The Respondent argues that the landowners' conduct is causing delay, harming investor

confidence and disrupting all stakeholders. Despite this, the Respondent remains committed to
the completion of the project.
124.

Finally, it is submitted that the present proceedings, though titled as a suo motu case,

are being excessively influenced and pursued by the landowners as a proxy mechanism to reagitate settled issues. The conduct of the landowners amounts to a deliberate obstruction of the
project and an abuse of process.
125.

Accordingly, the Respondent prays for:

a. Dismissal of the present proceedings bearing Complaint No. D/208/2025 as being
devoid of merit;
b. Imposition of exemplary costs on the landowners for advancing defamatory and
vexatious claims;
c. And for such other reliefs as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Authority

24 of 42

---

On 05.03.2025, this Authority heard Complaint No. 71/2025 and Suo Motu Proceedings

No. 208/2025, concerning the SAS I Tower Project, and issued the following interim directions
to safeguard allottees' interests and ensure timely project completion:
A. The complainant association in Complaint No. 71/2025, which claims to
represent more than 60% of the allottees, and the Promoter are hereby
directed to submit a joint or separate affidavit within seven (07) days from the
date of this Order, stating:
a) Whether the association has been formed in accordance with Section
11(4)(e) of the RE(R&D) Act and if it has been duly registered as per
applicable laws;
b) If already registered, a copy of the registration certificate and governing
documents shall be filed;
c) If not registered, the Promoter is directed to immediately initiate steps for
the formation and registration of the association of allottees as mandated
under the RE(R&D) Act.
B. Upon constitution and registration of the association, the said association
shall be impleaded as a necessary party to complaint no.71/2025 proceedings
to ensure complete and effective adjudication.
C. The Respondent Promoter, M/s SAS 1 Infratech Ventures Pvt Ltd is further
directed to file a memo disclosing the following particulars:
a) A comprehensive list of all allottees in the project, along with details of
whether they are members of the existing or proposed association;
b) Copies of executed agreements (such as Agreement for Sale, Allotment
Letters, etc.);
c) Details of consideration amounts received from each allottee till date.
D. The above disclosures shall be submitted on affidavit by the next adjournment
date that is 11.07.2025, failing which the Authority shall be constrained to
proceed under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act

H. Observations of the Authority:
127.

Upon a comprehensive review of the material on record, including the submissions

made by the Complainant Association in Complaint No. 71 of 2025, the replies and counteraffidavits filed by the Respondents, the rejoinder by the Complainants, the representations
leading to the initiation of Suo Motu Complaint No. 208/2025, and the reply thereto by the
Promoter/Respondent, this Authority has framed the following points for consideration. These
points are addressed in light of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016, the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, and the
overarching objective of the RE(R&D) Act to protect the interests of allottees while ensuring
transparency, accountability, and timely completion of real estate projects. The Authority has
also taken note of the commonality of issues in both proceedings, which revolve around

25 of 42

---

The Complainant before us is M/s SAS I Tower Investors Association, which has

invoked Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule
34(1) of the Telangana Rules, claiming to represent a body of allottees aggrieved by delays and
disputes concerning the SAS I Tower Project.
129.

Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, the landowners, have seriously questioned the

maintainability of the complaint on the ground of lack of locus standi. Their objections are

twofold: firstly, that the Association is an unregistered, self-styled body which, according to
them, operates as a proxy of Respondent No. 2 (a Director of the Developer); and secondly, that
its President, Shri B. Chakradhari, had no subsisting sale deed on the date of filing (executed
only on 19.02.2025, subsequent to the filing on 18.02.2025). It is further alleged that the
Association has excluded dissenting allottees, manipulated WhatsApp groups and letterheads to
project inflated support, and that certain members have acquired units at undervalued rates as
quid pro quo arrangements.
130.

In rejoinder, the Complainant has produced material to show that the Association was

constituted on 29.12.2024 after a series of meetings held on 05.12.2024, 09.12.2024,
19.12.2024 and 22.12.2024, in the backdrop of project stagnation allegedly caused by the
landowners’ obstruction. It is asserted that the Association comprises genuine allottees holding
valid agreements, MOUs, and registered sale deeds, with cumulative investments exceeding
₹100 Crores. The President’s sale deed, though executed post-filing, is justified with reference
to Clause (xi) of the Addendum-cum-Revised Area Allocation Agreement dated 10.04.2024,
which permitted sales of specified floors without further consent. The Complainants deny
26 of 42

---

This Authority has considered the rival contentions and the material placed on record.

Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have alleged that certain members are not bona fide allottees, having
acquired units at undervalued rates or through pre-launch arrangements prior to execution of
the DGPA. However, it is not disputed that units were indeed allotted to them by Respondents
Nos. 1 and 2, who have neither denied the allotments nor the execution of agreements/MOUs.
132.

It is true that the Complainants have not placed on record the agreements or sale deeds

of every single member of the Association. Only a few agreements, MOUs and deeds have
been produced to establish allottee status. However, in the considered view of this Authority,
this does not ipso facto discredit the Association’s standing. The statutory test under Section
2(d) of the Act is whether the persons before us have been allotted, sold, or transferred units by
the promoter. That test is satisfied in respect of the members whose documents are placed on
record.
133.

The absence of every member’s agreement is not fatal at this stage, for two reasons:

first, because Respondents Nos. 1 and 2the promoters who executed such allotmentshave not
disputed the complainants’ allottee status; and second, because Section 31 permits “any

aggrieved person,” including a collective of allottees, to approach this Authority. Once some
members have established themselves as allottees, the Association’s standing as their
representative cannot be denied merely because not every member has filed his/her document.
134.

That said, this Authority clarifies that locus standi is being recognized on the basis of

the material placed, coupled with the statutory consumer-protection intent of the Act. Should
Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 wish to contest the allottee status of any specific member, the burden
lies on them to produce cogent evidence to that effect. Mere assertions of undervaluation or
pre-launch arrangements, without proof, cannot dislodge the complainants’ prima facie case.
135.

Section 2(d) of the Act defines an “allottee” as follows:
“allottee in relation to a real estate project, means the person to whom a
plot, apartment or building, as the case may be, has been allotted, sold
(whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transferred by the promoter,
and includes the person who subsequently acquires the said allotment
through sale, transfer or otherwise but does not include a person to whom

27 of 42

---

From a plain reading of the above provision, it is evident that the crucial determinant is

whether the unit has been allotted, sold or transferred by the promoter. The question of
valuation or mode of acquisition is immaterial so long as the allotment emanates from the
promoter. In the present case, since Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have not disputed the allotments
made to the Complainants, the objection of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on the ground of
undervaluation or pre-launch loses force. The Complainants thus fall within the statutory
definition of “allottees.”
137.

The next objection relates to the legitimacy of the Association itself. Rule 2(b) of the

Telangana RERA Rules, 2017, defines an “association of allottees” to mean a collective of
allottees of a project, registered under any law in force, acting as a group to serve the cause of
its members, and including authorized representatives. It is a matter of record that the present
Association is unregistered. However, the Authority notes that the complaint herein does not
concern matters such as handover of common areas, maintenance, or issues where a registered
association is mandatory. Instead, the grievance pertains to project delays and potential
prejudice to individual investments. For such limited reliefs, the absence of registration cannot,
by itself, be fatal to the complaint, particularly when the members are demonstrably allottees.
138.

This Authority is mindful that the Act is a beneficial legislation, designed to secure the

interests of consumers in real estate projects. Denying locus standi on hyper-technical grounds
would frustrate the consumer-protection in Real Estate Sector mandate of the statute. While the
objections of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 regarding exclusion of dissenters and the authenticity
of support letters are noted, these remain assertions unsupported by cogent material. Even the
letter by Shri Anand Moorthy, claiming to represent 345 allottees, is contested and cannot
override the documentary evidence produced by the Complainants. Discord within the allottee
body or internal disagreements do not, per se, disqualify a group of allottees from seeking
redressal before this Authority.
139.

In light of the material placed on record comprising agreements, MOUs, registered

deeds, and meeting minutes it is established that the members of the Complainant Association
are allottees within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the RE(R&D) Act. The subsequent
execution of the President’s sale deed does not nullify locus standi, as his earlier MOU and
payments already conferred upon him the status of an allottee.

28 of 42

---

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Complainant Association, though

unregistered, represents a genuine collective of allottees who have come forward with
grievances concerning the project. In the spirit of the RE(R&D) Act, their standing cannot be
denied. This Point is, therefore, answered in the affirmative.
Point No. 2: Whether Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 fall under the definition of a “Promoter”
under Section 2(zk) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016?
141.

The foremost issue for determination is whether Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, namely

Smt. Harvinder Kaur and Smt. Mohini Chawla, who are the landowners, fall within the ambit
of the definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act.
142.

The Complainant Association has vehemently contended that Respondents Nos. 4 and 5

are “promoters” within the meaning of Section 2(zk), inasmuch as they have entered into a
Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 16.08.2018 with the
Developer, under which they are entitled to 50% of the built-up area in lieu of land. The
Complainants submit that such entitlement is not a passive receipt of consideration but part of a
structured development arrangement which vests them with joint control, mutual obligations,
and substantial say in project execution. This position is further fortified by the Addendum
dated 10.04.2024, wherein Clauses (xii), (xiii), (xiv), and others categorically require the

express consent of the landowners for sales, allocation of space, and leasing arrangements,
thereby rendering them active participants in the project’s execution. According to the
Complainants, the breadth of involvement is such that Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 cannot escape
the status of “co-promoters” and are jointly responsible for delays and non-completion.
143.

On the contrary, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have denied this classification, asserting that

they are mere landowners who parted with land in exchange for built-up area, without sharing
in the sales, revenue, or decision-making. They rely on Clauses 5(b) and 13(c) of the 2018
Development Agreement and covenant (xxx) of the 2024 Addendum to claim that the
Developer alone bears obligations towards allottees, while they themselves are in the position
of “allottees” under Section 2(d). They further place reliance on judicial pronouncements, inter
alia, Kerala High Court in MSA 16/2024 (Pooja Constructions v. Kerala UranmaDevaswom
Board) and Patna High Court in WP 15444/2021, to contend that landowners receiving
consideration in kind (i.e., built-up area) are consumers entitled to protection rather than
promoters saddled with obligations.

29 of 42

---

It is pertinent, at this stage, to advert to the statutory definition. Section 2(zk) of the

RE(R&D) Act defines “promoter” in the widest possible terms:
(zk) “promoter” means,— (i) a person who constructs or causes to be
constructed an independent building or a building consisting of apartments, or
converts an existing building or a part thereof into apartments, for the purpose
of selling all or some of the apartments to other persons and includes his
assignees; or (ii) a person 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
(iii) any development authority or any other public body in respect of allottees
of— (a) buildings or apartments, as the case may be, constructed by such
authority or body on lands owned by them or placed at their disposal by the
Government; or (b) plots owned by such authority or body or placed at their
disposal by the Government, for the purpose of selling all or some of the
apartments or plots; or (iv) an apex State level co-operative housing finance
society and a primary co-operative housing society which constructs apartments
or buildings for its Members or in respect of the allottees of such apartments or
buildings; or (v) 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; or (vi)
such other person who constructs any building or apartment for sale to the
general public. Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, where the person
who constructs or converts a building into apartments or develops a plot for sale
and the person who sells apartments or plots are different person, both of them
shall be deemed to be the promoters and shall be jointly liable as such for the
functions and responsibilities specified under this Act or the rules and
regulations made thereunder;

145.

The emphasis in the Explanation leaves no ambiguity: where landowners and

developers jointly structure a project and share control and sale entitlements, both shall be
treated as promoters, jointly liable for obligations.
146.

In the present case, the 2018 Development Agreement and subsequent instruments,

including allocation agreements of 2018, 2019, 2022, 2023, and the 2024 Addendum, do not
depict Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 as passive landowners. Rather, they clearly vest significant
powers in them, such as:
xii. Any further sale on floors 26,27,28,29 of Tower Al will require price
verification and clearance by the Land Owners or their representative, explicitly
in writing. The same is listed in column titled "Area Available for sale by SAS I
Tower Pvt Ltd after Landowners price verification and clearance"
30 of 42

---

147.

Such clauses unmistakably establish that Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have retained

substantial control in the development, allocation, and sale of project components.
148.

The contention of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 that a boilerplate clausestating that the

Developer alone is responsible towards purchasers and regulatory authoritiesabsolves them of
responsibility, cannot be accepted. This Authority is constrained to observe that contractual
clauses contrary to the statutory mandate of the Act cannot override the express and inclusive
definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk). A self-serving recital cannot efface statutory
obligations where the factual matrix reveals joint control and entitlement to commercial sale of
a substantial portion of the project.
149.

Further, documentary record on the Telangana RERA project registration portal itself

discloses the names of Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 under the category “Landowners/Promoters”,
which negates their plea of being mere allottees. Moreover, the very area statement (Annexure
4, A-3) shows that substantial retail and mall space i.e The entire ground floor to 6th floor of
Tower A along with with 7 th floor of Tower A2 is held jointly and cannot be alienated without
their explicit consent of both the parties.

31 of 42

---

The reliance placed by Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on Pooja Constructions and other

cases is wholly misplaced and distinguishable. In those cases, the landowners had no ongoing
role in development or sale, and their consideration was limited to passive receipt of built-up
area. Here, by contrast, the landowners’ contractual veto powers over pricing, sales, leasing,
mortgage, and investor substitution constitute active participation in project execution. This is
squarely covered by the wide ambit of Section 2(zk) and its Explanation.
151.

In this regard, reliance may be profitably placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Bombay High Court in Wadhwa Group Housing Pvt. Ltd. v. Vijay Choksi &Anr., Second
Appeal (Stamp) No. 21842 of 2023, decided on 26.02.2024, wherein it was held:
18. Thus, definition of the term “Promoter” under Section 2(zk) of RERA is
wide enough to include every person who is associated with construction of
the building such as builder, coloniser, contractor, developer, estate
developer or by any other name or even the one who claims to be acting as
the holder of a power of attorney from the owner of the land. One of the
principal objectives of RERA is to bring transparency in real estate sector
and to protect the interests of the consumers in the real estate project. The
term ‘Promoter’ has been so widely defined that it virtually includes every
person associated with construction of the building. Thus, even a person
who is merely an investor in the project alongwith the Promoter and who is
entitled to benefit in the real estate project is also covered by definition of
the term ‘Promoter’. In the present case, I need not delve deeper into the
enquiry as to whether Appellant is covered by the expression ‘Promoter’ or
not. While registering the project as ongoing project under Section 3 of the
RERA, Appellant's name has been included in the list of Promoters.
Therefore, Appellant cannot run away from the fact that it is the promoter
in respect of the project ‘The Nest’. Explanation to Section 2(zk) makes all
persons who construct or convert building into apartments or develop a plot
for sale, as well as a person who sells apartments or plots to be promoters
making them jointly liable as such for the functions and responsibilities
specified under the Act, or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.
Thus, a person who does not actually construct or causes to be constructed
a building but merely takes part in the joint venture and sells flats, becomes
a Promoter. Appellant admits that it is entitled to a share in the joint
venture in the constructed area, which it is entitled to sell. Thus, the
Appellant is entitled to sell flats in the project and accept consideration for
such sale. There is therefore no doubt to the position that, both Appellant as
well as the second Respondent are Promoters and are jointly liable in
respect of the responsibilities under the RERA and Rules and Regulations
made thereunder. 19. In my view therefore, mere falling of flat in the share
of the second Respondent under the Joint Development Agreement, would
not excuse the Appellant from the responsibilities and liabilities under the
RERA, Rules and Regulations made thereunder qua that flat. RERA does
not demarcate or restrict liabilities of different promoters in different areas.
The liability is joint for all purposes under the Act, Rules and Regulations.

152.

Applying the above ratio, it is evident that Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, being vested with

significant rights and control, and entitled to 50% of the developed area, which is undeniably

32 of 42

---

Accordingly, this Authority finds that Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 do indeed fall within

the definition of “promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act and are jointly liable
along with the Developer for the obligations of the project. This point is answered in the
affirmative.
Point Nos. 3 & 4 (Considered Together): Whether (3) the Complainants are entitled to the
reliefs sought; and (4) a forensic audit, as prayed by Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and adverted
to in the suo motu proceedings, is warranted at this stage:
154.

This Authority, upon careful consideration of the pleadings, submissions, and record,

finds that the issues arising under Points 3 and 4 are inextricably linked. The Complainants
seek directions primarily aimed at neutralising certain restrictive clauses in order to facilitate
completion of the project. On the other hand, Respondents Nos. 4 and 5, being landowners,
seek the ordering of a forensic audit under Section 35(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, alleging
diversion and misuse, and thereby, in effect, pressing for a reconfiguration of control. Both sets
of prayers ultimately concern the same statutory objective ensuring timely completion of the
project and protection of interests of allottees at large in the said project. It is, therefore,
appropriate to consider these two points together to mould a remedy that is principled,
proportionate, and consistent with the mandate of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016
155.

The Complainants’ prayers are for directions to: (a) relax/neutralise the operation of

Clauses xii–xiv of the Addendum dated 10.04.2024, to the extent they impede sales and
funding; (b) mandate an escrow mechanism to be jointly operated by nominees of the
Developer, Landowners, and the Association of Allottees; (c) fix a time-bound completion
programme; and (d) grant such other orders as are necessary to secure completion. They submit
that non-cooperation by the landowners, particularly their withholding of sale consents under
the said clauses, has paralysed progress despite the project being 75–85% physically complete,
thereby jeopardising the statutory occupancy deadline and the investments of more than 400
allottees.

33 of 42

---

The Landowners (Respondents Nos. 4 and 5), while resisting the reliefs sought, have

urged that a forensic audit be undertaken under Section 35(1) of the RE(R&D) Act. In the
course of their submissions, they have also advanced allegations which formed the basis of the
present Suo Motu cognizance taken by this Authority, namely, siphoning and diversion of
funds, undervalued sales, pre-RERA transactions, and the overall unviability of the project.
They have further prayed for the imposition of stringent regulatory controls, even to the extent
of seeking substitution of the developer. It is their categorical stand that they share no privity of
contract with the allottees, and they justify Clauses xii–xiv as being necessary safeguards
against diversion and misuse.
157.

The Developer (Respondents Nos. 1–2) supports the relaxation of Clauses xii–xiv and

the creation of an dedicated account mechanism. They deny allegations of siphoning or
diversion and attribute the delays substantially to the conduct of the landowners, including
multiple complaints, FIRs, and withholding of sale consents. They express readiness to
complete the project within a defined timeline under the oversight of this Authority.
158.

As has already been determined by this Authority under Point No. 2 of this order, both

the Developer and the Landowners fall within the definition of “promoter” under the RE(R&D)
Act. Accordingly, their obligations are joint and several, and disputes inter se cannot be
permitted to eclipse their paramount statutory duty owed to the allottees.
159.

The project (TG RERA No. P02400000878) presently stands at approximately 75–85%

physical completion as submitted by the complainants. Progress has slowed and eventually
stalled since late 2024, largely on account of escalating inter-se disputes between the copromoters, including disagreements regarding sales, pricing, investor retention, and control of
retail/mall areas.
160.

Clauses xii–xiv of the Addendum dated 10.04.2024, on their face and in practical

operation, confer veto or consent powers to the landowners over (i) pricing and sales of
specified floors; (ii) introduction of investors to meet retention requirements; and (iii) dealing
with retail/mall areas by way of mortgage, lease, or sale. The rigid insistence on these controls,
without objective timelines or transparent criteria, effectively freezes monetisation and
constrains the cash flow required for completing the balance works.
161.

The allegations of siphoning and diversion pressed by the landowners are undoubtedly

serious; however, they presently rest substantially on inferential material such as price
differentials, selected sale instances, and internal correspondence. No contemporaneous
34 of 42

---

Conversely, the collective interest of over 400 allottees, who have invested substantial

sums and seek timely possession, demands immediate resumption and completion. Any
measure that further stalls construction, unless compelled by overwhelming necessity, would
run counter to the very object of the RE(R&D) Act.
163.

It is settled law that while this Authority does not ordinarily rewrite private bargains, it

is nevertheless empowered indeed duty-bound to mould reliefs where necessary to secure
statutory compliance and to safeguard the overriding public interest embodied in the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Where a contractual clause, though valid inter
se between private parties, frustrates the statutory objective of timely completion, or unduly
impedes the statutory scheme of ring-fenced funding and transparency, this Authority must
intervene.
164. The preamble of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 records its
legislative aim to protect the interests of consumers in the real estate sector, to promote

transparency and efficiency, and to ensure timely completion. The RE(R&D) Act is a
beneficial, consumer-centric legislation. Its provisions must therefore be construed purposively,
and its protective canopy must always prevail over private arrangements that dilute or
undermine its essence. This Authority reiterates that promoters’ contracts cannot be allowed to
override or supersede the statutory rights of allottees; rather, such contracts must yield to the
mandate of the RE(R&D) Act.
165.

In the present case, Clauses xii–xiv of the Addendum dated 10.04.2024, while

ostensibly framed as protective safeguards in favour of the landowners, have in effect become
restrictive bottlenecks. At a stage where the project stands at 75–85% physical completion, cash
flow assumes paramount importance. A rigid insistence on prior discretionary consents,
unaccompanied by timelines or deemed-consent mechanisms, has paralysed monetisation and
imperilled completion. The statutory objectives under Sections 11, 18 and 19 of the RE(R&D)
Act cannot be subordinated to such inflexible vetoes.
166.

The Complainants’ prayer for a dedicated account mechanism is consistent with Section

4(2)(l)(D) of the RE(R&D) Act. A jointly-operated, disclosure-intensive Project Dedicated
35 of 42

---

Time-bound completion is the central remedy contemplated under the RE(R&D) Act.

Given the substantial physical progress, a strict milestone-based completion schedule, under
independent monitoring, will best secure the allottees’ statutory rights under Sections 18 and
19.
168.

Section 35(1) of the RE(R&D) Act undoubtedly empowers this Authority to call for

information and conduct such inquiries as may be deemed necessary in the public interest.
However, it is a settled principle that the exercise of such power must be guided by
circumstances warranting intervention, and not in a reflexive or mechanical manner.
169.

In the present case, directing a full-scale forensic audit at this juncture would have the

inevitable consequence of stalling ongoing construction activity, compelling sequestration of
records, and depressing the marketability of the project. Such a course would, paradoxically,
aggravate the very prejudice which this Authority is mandated to prevent, namely delay in
completion and delivery of units to the allottees.
170. This Authority cannot lose sight of the fact that the number of allottees involved in this
project is significantly high. The statutory intent underlying the RE(R&D) Act framework, as
recognised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v.
State of UP (2021), is the protection of allottees and the safeguarding of their legitimate
expectations. Accordingly, this Authority cannot permit inter se disputes between promoters, or
an overbroad exercise of regulatory power, to override the paramount interest and rights of the
allottees.
171.

Thus, while the power under Section 35(1) remains intact and may be invoked if

circumstances disclose grave financial impropriety, at this stage, ordering a forensic audit
would run contrary to the preamble objective of the Act, which is to ensure completion of the
project in a time-bound manner and to secure the interest of consumers.
172.

In view of:
(i)

the absence of any primary, independent audit material establishing diversion;

36 of 42

---

the near-completion status of the project;

(iii)

the availability of less intrusive yet equally efficacious safeguards (dedication,
certifications, disclosures, independent monitoring); and

(iv)

the fact that allegations of diversion are already seized of by other fora

(v)

It emerges that the suo motu proceedings in the present case are founded
primarily upon the grievance of the landowner, and not on any allottee-centric
interest

173.

This Authority is of the considered view that a forensic audit is not warranted at this

stage. The public interest balance strongly favours controlled completion under a tightly
monitored regime. Liberty, however, is reserved to revisit this issue and order a limited forensic
review if credible, objective evidence of non-compliance emerges.
174.

Accordingly, invoking its powers under Sections 34 and 37, read with Sections

4(2)(l)(D), 11, and 18 of the RE(R&D) Act, this Authority hereby directs as follows:
1) Formation of Association of Allottees
a. Pursuant to Section 11(4)(e) of the RE(R&D) Act, the promoters (including
Respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) shall forthwith take all necessary steps to facilitate

the formation and registration of an Association of Allottees (AoA) comprising the
allottees of the project. Respondent No. 1 (the Developer) shall ensure compliance with
this direction by convening a meeting of allottees within 30 days from the date of this
order, providing necessary documentation, and assisting in the registration process
under the applicable laws. Non compliance of section 11(4)(e) of RE(R&D) Act, this
Authority shall take action under section 63 of the said Act.
2) Existing Project Separate Account (PSA) — Ring-fencing of Receipts
a. The Respondents shall ensure that all future receipts from sales, leases, or other
monetisation of the project inventory shall mandatorily be credited into the RERA
Existing Separate Account (70%) to be operated exclusively for this project as per
Section 4(2)(l)(D) of RE (R& D) Act,2016.
b. The Respondents should adhere as stipulated in the Rules that Withdrawals from the
RERA Separate Account (70%) shall be permitted only against a three-tier certification
by an Project Engineer, Project Architect, and Chartered Accountant, strictly in
proportion to the percentage of completion, in the manner contemplated by Section
4(2)(l)(D) and the applicable Rules.
37 of 42

---

Relaxation

of

Clauses

xii–xiv

of

Addendum

dated

10.04.2024

The requirement of prior consent/veto for sales of specified floors and for investor
retention shall be substituted with the following objective and time-bound protocol:
a) The Developer may proceed with sales at or above the said floor price upon issuing
seven (7) working days’ notice to the Landowners and the AoA;
b) Deemed consent shall operate if no written objection, supported by reasons, is
received within the said seven (7) working days;
c) Any objection shall be confined to demonstrable instances of sub-floor pricing or
encumbrance; generic objections shall not arrest sales.
d) The embargo on dealing with retail/mall areas shall stand modified to permit lease
or sale, subject to all proceeds being routed through the PSA.
e) Any security or mortgage created in favour of the Landowners shall stand
subordinated to the completion of the project and to the rights of the allottees. All
proceeds shall mandatorily be routed through the PSA.

4) Completion Programme:
a. The Developer shall, within twenty-one (21) days, submit before this Authority a Detailed
Completion Plan (DCP) delineating pragmatic milestones, specific works, and projected
cash-flow requirements necessary for completion of the project.
b. The Developer shall, within the same period of twenty-one (21) days, also submit before
this Authority a comprehensive Financial Flow Statement, setting out in unequivocal
terms the sources of proposed funds and the timeline within which such financial
resources are to be brought in, so as to ensure time-bound completion of the project.
c. The Developer shall further ensure that the Association of Allottees is duly informed of
the same within twenty-one (21) days.
5) Disclosures and Transparency
a. The Promoter(s) shall mandatorily upload on the RERA portal quarterly progress
reports, and in addition thereto, monthly update reports duly supported with
photographs and requisite certifications. Such monthly reports are directed to be
furnished for the purpose of monitoring the timely completion of the project, both to
this Authority as well as to the registered Association of Allottees.
38 of 42

---

Direct a limited-scope forensic review. and/or

ii.

Issue notice under Section 7 of the Act for revocation of registration, with
consequential recourse to measures under Section 8 in consultation with the
registered Association of Allottees.

7) Inter-se Disputes Outside the Present Adjudication
a. Purely inter-se disputes between promoters (including issues of title, settlements,
indemnities, or internal allocations) are not adjudicated herein. The parties are at liberty
to pursue appropriate remedies before competent fora, but such disputes shall not
impede compliance with the present directions or progress at the site.
b. Any pending criminal investigation shall proceed strictly in accordance with law, and

nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression on criminal culpability.

8) Prayer for Change of Developer
a) The Landowners have sought substitution of the Developer. However, in the absence of a
duly constituted and registered Association of Allottees invoking the statutory process,
and further in the absence of any factual foundation to warrant recourse to Sections 7, 8,
or 15 of the RE(R&D) Act, the prayer for change of Developer is held to be premature and
is accordingly declined.
b) Liberty is, however, preserved to the AoA to invoke such remedies in future, should the
contingencies envisaged or under the RE(R&D) Act otherwise arise.
175.

In conclusion, this Authority holds that while the allegations of diversion warrant

vigilance, the same are at a premature stage. The paramount statutory obligation remains
the timely and transparent completion of the project. It is further noted that allegations of
pre-sales have been made; however, in the absence of any agreement of sale, allotment
letter, or memorandum of understanding for sale placed on record, this Authority is unable
to arrive at a finding of violation on that count. Accordingly, Clauses xii–xiv of the
Addendum dated 10.04.2024 stand calibrated as directed herein; a Project Dedicated
Account and monitoring regime are instituted; and both the Developer and the Landowners,
39 of 42

---

Directions of the Authority:

176.

In view of the findings on the points for determination, as detailed in the observations

above, and pursuant to the interim order dated 05.03.2025 in Complaint No. 71/2025 and Suo
Motu Proceedings No. 208/2025, this Authority, invoking its powers under Sections 34 and 37,
read with Sections 4(2)(l)(D), 11, and 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016, hereby issues the following final directions to ensure timely completion of the SAS I
Tower Project (TG RERA No. P02400000878) and to safeguard the interests of allottees:
a) This Authority affirms that the Complainant Association does have locus standi to
maintain and prosecute the present complaint under Section 31 of the RE(R&D) Act
read with Rule 34 of the Telangana Rules. Therefore, answered in the affirmative.
b) This Authority holds that Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 do fall within the definition of
“promoter” under Section 2(zk) of the RE(R&D) Act. Their liability is joint and
inseverable with that of the Developer for the functions, duties, and obligations
mandated by the statute. Therefore, answered in the affirmative
c) Pursuant to Section 11(4)(e) of the Act, the Promoters (including Respondents Nos. 1 to
5) shall forthwith take all necessary steps to facilitate the formation and registration of

an Association of Allottees (AoA) comprising the allottees of the project. Respondent
No. 1 (the Developer) shall ensure compliance by convening a meeting of allottees
within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, providing requisite documentation,
and assisting in the registration process under applicable laws.
d) Project Existing Separate Account (PSA) — Ring-fencing of Receipts
(i) All future receipts from sales, leases, or other monetisation of project inventory
shall be mandatorily deposited into the RERA Project Separate Account (70%),
to be operated exclusively for this project, in terms of Section 4(2)(l)(D) of the
Act.
(ii) Withdrawals from the said account shall be permitted only against a three-tier
certification by the Project Engineer, Project Architect, and Chartered
Accountant, strictly in proportion to the percentage of completion, as
contemplated under the Act and Rules.
(iii) The Respondents shall furnish to this Authority quarterly bank statements
together with QPRs and a statement of receipts and payments for the relevant
quarter.
(iv) Utilisation certificates and a statement of sources and uses shall be circulated to
the registered AoA.
40 of 42

---

41 of 42

---

Direct a limited-scope forensic review.

II.

Issue notice under Section 7 of the RE(R&D) Act for revocation of
registration, with consequential recourse to Section 8 measures, in
consultation with the registered AoA.

176.

This Authority records with concern that the recurring disputes between the landowners

and the developer are obstructing the progress of the project. Such discord, if permitted to
persist, defeats the very object of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
which is to secure the interests of allottees. The RE(R&D) Act does not countenance a
situation where innocent allottees, who have invested their lifetime savings & hard earned

monies, are made to bear the brunt of internal conflicts. The overriding statutory obligation
is the timely and transparent completion of the project, and neither landowners nor the
developer can be allowed to frustrate this mandate. Both parties are, therefore, cautioned to
resolve their disputes through lawful means without impeding the progress of the project,
failing which this Authority shall not hesitate to invoke its powers under the RE(R&D) Act.
177.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

178.

It is further made clear that failure to comply with the directions contained in this Order

shall attract the consequences stipulated under Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act.
179.

In view of the above findings and directions, the present complaint stands disposed of.

SdSri. K. Srinivas Rao,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdSri. Laxmi NaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

SdDr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson
TG RERA

42 of 42

---