Penalty Order of Complaint No. 305 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 305/2024/TGRERA (Penalty Order)
Date: 29th December, 2025
Quorum:

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

Kotha Santhosha,
W/o. Kotha Narsimham H.No.1-27,
Yellagiri Village, Choutuppal Mandal,
Nalgonda Dist.Telangana -508252.

…Complainants
Versus

1. M/s. M.M Developers Rep By its Partners
i. Mr. Gopal Yadav
(R/o Flat No.403 & 503, Plot No.26& 27, Satyasai Heights, Shivaganga Colony,
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad-500074)
ii. Mr. B Ramesh
(R/o H.No.3-11-482/1, Satyasai Heights, Shivaganga Colony, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad500074)
2. Mr. Merugumalla Kumaraswamy
(R/o H.No.3-14-116/131/103, Judges Colony, Mansoorabad, Saroor Nagar,
Hyderabad-500035)
3. Mrs. B Swathi
(R/o H.No.8-12-97/V2/87, Venkateswara
Karmanghat, Hyderabad-500079)

Colony

Phase

-2,

Hastinapuram,

4. Mr. Sunkoju Akash
(R/o H.No.6-3-2233/C/727, NGOs Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad-500070)
5. M/s. Vishwas Infra Developers Rep by its Partners
i. Mr. Boppidi Anil Kumar
(R/o Plot No. 183, Flat No.501, Aditya residency, Agriculture Colony, Vanasthalipuram,
Hyderabad-500070)
ii. Mr. Sunkoju Ramesh
(R/o H.No.6-3-2233/C/727, NGOs Colony, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad-500070)
iii. Mr. Garadi Ramanji
Page 1 of 6

---

The above-named Complaint No.305/2025 has been filed by the Complainant before
the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as “the Authority”)
against the Respondents in respect of the project titled “Sai Chaitanya Brundavanam Enclave.”
Upon adjudication of the issues arising in the present complaint, this Authority passed the
orders dated:29.10.2025 in CC No.305/2025 and found that the Respondents had advertised,
marketed and sold open plots in the said project without obtaining mandatory registration from
Page 2 of 6

---

The findings of the Authority in orders dated :29.10.2025 as follows:This Authority has carefully perused the pleadings, documents, and material
placed on record by both parties, as well as the oral submissions made
during the hearing. At the outset, it is observed that the Complainant has
alleged that the Respondents a group of individual promoters and developer
entities marketed and sold open plots in the project titled “Sai Chaitanya
Brundavanam Enclave”, while representing that the project was duly
approved by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA)
and registered with the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority
(RERA). The Complainant contends that the Respondents had assured that
the development works would be carried out strictly in accordance with
HMDA norms and that the layout would be handed over within one year.
However, as per the material available on record, no substantial
development has taken place, and it is an admitted fact that the said project
has not been registered with this Authority.
The Respondent No. 1, in its counter, has denied the allegations and
attributed the delay in development to a dispute pending before the HMDA,
which culminated in a revocation of layout permission dated 07.11.2022,
and subsequently, the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, by interim order
dated 02.12.2022 in W.P. No. 43217 of 2022, suspended the said revocation.
The Respondent has contended that since the matter remains sub judice
before the Hon’ble High Court, it cannot be held responsible for the delay
in completion of the project.
It is pertinent to note that the brochure placed on record by the Complainant
clearly contains the names of Respondent No. 1 (M/s. M.M. Developers),
Respondent No. 5 (M/s. Vishwas Infra Developers), and Respondent No. 10
(M/s. Sri Infra Developers) as the entities advertising and offering plots for
sale in the said project. The said brochure forms sufficient prima facie
Page 3 of 6

---

essential

particulars,

thereby

ensuring

transparency

and

accountability. The conjoint reading of Sections 3 and 4 establishes a clear
statutory condition precedent — that a project cannot be promoted or sold
to the public prior to obtaining registration from this Authority.
The legislative intent behind these provisions is unambiguous. The
registration mechanism is the very foundation of the consumer protection
regime under RERA. It prevents speculative or misleading promotion of
unapproved projects and ensures that only legally compliant and financially
sound developments are marketed to the public. Any deviation from this
mandate frustrates the purpose of the statute and jeopardizes the interests
of genuine homebuyers or allottees.
The HMDA proceedings relied upon by the Respondents, including the
revocation and its interim suspension by the Hon’ble High Court, may have
had a bearing on the subsequent development activity, but they do not
retrospectively validate promotional activities or sales undertaken prior to
obtaining registration. The duty to secure registration under Section 3(1) is
absolute, mandatory, and independent of parallel administrative or civil
disputes. The argument that pending HMDA litigation prevented completion
of the project cannot absolve the promoters of their statutory obligation to
have registered the project before offering plots for sale.
Further,

the

HMDA

Letter

bearing

Application

No.

026188/GHT/LT/U6/HMDA/24072019 dated 15.06.2021 placed on record
clearly indicates that the layout covered an extent of 12,589.51 square
Page 4 of 6

---

In light of the findings recorded above and in exercise of the powers conferred under

Sections 37 and 38 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, this Authority
issues the following directions:
a) For violation of the provisions of Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, on account
of advertising, marketing and selling plots in the project “Sai Chaitanya Brundavanam
Enclave” without obtaining mandatory registration, Respondent No.1 (M/s. M.M.
Developers), Respondent No.5 (M/s. Vishwas Infra Developers) and Respondent No.10
(M/s. Sri Infra Developers) are held liable for imposition of penalty under Section 59
Page 5 of 6

---

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson,
TG RERA

Page 6 of 6

---