Suo Motu Order on M/s Bharathi Builders Pvt. Ltd.

BEFORE THE TELANGANA ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the (Real Estate Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]

SUO – MOTU CASE NO. D/205/2025
Quorum:

of 4th September 2025
Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon'ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon'ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon'ble Member

M/s Bharathi Builders Pvt Ltd
(rep by its Managing Partner, Sri Drupati Nagaraju and Sri Mulpary Siva Rama Krishna, R/oG-1, YVR
Sai Brundavanam, Madhavi Nagar Society, Near Bhagya Nagar Colony, Kukatpally)
…PROMOTER/ RESPONDENT

Bharathi’s Lake View Apartments

…PROJECT NAME
ORDER

In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 35 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (“the RE(R&D) Act, 2016”), this Authority proceeds to pass the
following order upon consideration of multiple complaints filed by allottees against the
Respondent-Promoter, M/s Bharathi Builders Pvt. Ltd., in relation to the project styled as
“Bharathi’s Lake View Apartments”, situated at Kompally Village, Medchal-Malkajgiri
District, Telangana.
2.

These representations unanimously allege that the Respondent has collected significant

sums from over 400 allottees aggregating to approximately ₹70 Crores, without registering the
project under Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 and without obtaining requisite statutory
approvals such as land title clearance, HMDA layout sanction, building permit, or registration
under RERA. Funds were collected between 2019 and 2023 on the pretext of “pre-launch”
offers.
3.

It is alleged that no physical development has commenced on the site, and that even

foundational works remain pending. Despite collection of substantial advances ranging from
₹5 lakhs to over ₹20 lakhs from each allottee, no construction has taken place, no possession
has been offered, and no Sale deeds has been executed or registered with any buyer.
4.

The particulars of the 18 allottees who have made their representations before this

Authority, are detailed in the record of proceedings:

1 of 6

---

S.no

Name of the petitioner

1.

NannuriBapaiah

2.

Omkar Beera

3.

Kurmi Kavitha

4.

Krushna Kishore

5.

VenkateshwarluYellala

6.

G.Umamaheshwara Rao

7.

A Upender

8.

Avyaktha E

9.

Nagaraja Kumar Raja

10.

Rakesh

11.

Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Naidu

12.

NaveenrajuAmuda

13.

Srishanthi

14.

Subhash Kumar

15.

Shailender Rao Joshi

16.

TPV Seetha Rama Rao

17.

K. Umamaheshwar

18.

Nasrathlla Shaikh

Notice was issued to the Respondent. The Respondent failed to appear on the initial

date of hearing (29.04.2025) but appeared on 11.06.2025 to file its reply.
6.

In its reply, the Respondent has submitted that the project was initially conceptualized

in collaboration with certain landowners. However, at a later stage, the ownership of the project
land was directly acquired by the Company, thereby enabling the Respondent to independently
pursue development permissions and initiate construction activities.
7.

The Respondent has further submitted that an application for development permission

was filed with the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) under
Application No. 47172/MED/R1/U6/HMDA/2021 in the year 2021. According to the
Respondent, due to additional compliance requirements imposed by HMDA, particularly the
need to obtain various No Objection Certificates (NOCs), the process experienced certain
delays. Consequently, a draft clearance letter was issued by HMDA in 2022, which directed the
Respondent to remit an amount of ₹4,72,26,752/- towards development charges. The
Respondent states that the first instalment towards this payment was duly paid in compliance
with HMDA's directions.
2 of 6

---

It has also been submitted that during the course of the project, certain investors

voluntarily chose to withdraw from their commitments. The Respondent claims that refunds
were issued to these investors in good faith and without coercion, indicating the Respondent’s
willingness to resolve such issues amicably and without dispute.
9.

The Respondent has additionally disclosed that, in order to raise necessary funds for

the continuation of the project, the subject land was mortgaged to one Mr. Sunil Ahuja.
However, it is alleged that the said mortgagee, without proper consent or legal authorization,
unilaterally registered the project land in his name. This development, the Respondent
contends, severely hampered its ability to carry forward project-related activities.
10.

It is also brought to the notice of the Authority that an FIR bearing No. 10/2024 was

registered by certain aggrieved investors before the Economic Offences Wing (EOW),
Cyberabad. Pursuant to this complaint, the project land and associated bank accounts of the
Respondent were seized by the investigating authorities, thereby further impeding any
possibility of immediate development or refund to the remaining allottees.
11.

In view of the above circumstances, the Respondent has pleaded that he be granted a

reasonable opportunity to overcome his financial constraints, either to revive the stalled project
or, in the alternative, to liquidate the subject land parcel and utilize the sale proceeds for
repayment to the affected investors.
Observations of the Authority:
Issue: Whether the Respondent has violated section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016?
12.

The Authority, after a careful and detailed scrutiny of the pleadings, documents, and

submissions placed on record, notes with grave concern that the Respondent-Promoter, in his
reply, has set out in detail how the project did not take off as envisaged. However, nowhere in
his submissions has the Respondent justified his conduct of advertising, marketing, booking,
selling, offering for sale, or inviting persons to purchase units in a project which was never
registered with this Authority under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016. The Respondent has not denied the collection of monies but has candidly admitted
to having received substantial sums from numerous prospective allottees under a so-called
“pre-launch” scheme, all without registration of the project under Section 3 of the RE(R&D)
Act and without obtaining the requisite statutory approvals.
13.

The Authority further observes that the Respondent entered into MOUs/Agreements of

Sale stipulating that the project would be completed within 24 months from the date of HMDA

3 of 6

---

The Authority notes that the Respondent has failed to establish even a clear and

marketable title to the project land, as the same stood encumbered to a third party; further, he
was unable to secure HMDA approval due to unspecified reasons. These very circumstances
underscore why the legislature prohibited “pre-launch” schemes. Such practices expose
allottees to precisely the type of risks now materialized in the present case. The monies of
innocent allottees cannot be left at the mercy of such unforeseen contingencies.
15.

The very object behind the enactment of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, was to curb precisely

such unregulated, speculative, and opaque “pre-launch” activities which endanger the hardearned monies of homebuyers and erode their confidence in the real estate sector. The present
case illustrates the mischief sought to be remedied by the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
16.

The Respondent now pleads that this Authority show indulgence on “humanitarian

grounds” and grant him time. However, such a plea cannot be entertained when the Respondent
himself has acted in utter disregard of statutory provisions, collected monies without approvals
and registration, and duped hundreds of unsuspecting homebuyers. The absence of a clear land
title and mandatory approvals/registration only reaffirms the instability of the project.
17.

Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act categorically stipulates as follows:
No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite
persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the
case may be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area,
without registering the real estate project with the Real Estate Regulatory
Authority established under this Act:Provided that projects that are ongoing
on the date of commencement of this Act and for which the completion
certificate has not been issued, the promoter shall make an application to the
Authority for registration of the said project within a period of three months
from the date of commencement of this Act:Provided further that if the
Authority thinks necessary, in the interest of allottees, for projects which are
developed beyond the planning area but with the requisite permission of the
local authority, it may, by order, direct the promoter of such project to
register with the Authority, and the provisions of this Act or the rules and
regulations made thereunder, shall apply to such projects from that stage of
registration.

4 of 6

---

The mandate of Section 3 of RE(R&D) Act, 2016 is unambiguous and absolute. No

promoter can advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, invite persons to purchase in any
real estate project without prior registration. It is undisputed that the Respondent collected
monies, executed Agreements of Sale/MoUs, and induced allottees to invest even before
obtaining HMDA development permission or securing a clear and marketable title. The
Respondent, in blatant contravention of this provision, indulged in widespread and aggressive
“pre-launch” marketing and sales since 2020, thereby defeating the very purpose of Section 3
of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
19.

In light of the above, this Authority unequivocally holds that the Respondent has

committed deliberate and repeated violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
The Respondent’s conduct is condemned in the strongest terms, as it not only contravenes
statutory provisions but also undermines public confidence in the real estate sector.
20.

Further, the allottee(s) who have submitted representations before this Authority are

hereby directed to file a formal complaint in Form ‘M’ under Section 31 of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 34 of the Telangana Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. Such complaints shall be accompanied by all
supporting documents.
21.

This Authority notes that, subsequent to initiation of the present Suo-motu proceedings,

multiple Form ‘M’ complaints have already been received against the Respondent in relation
to the subject project. Any further violations of the provisions of the Act and Rules, including
claims for refund, interest, compensation, or such other reliefs as are admissible under the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016 shall be adjudicated in those respective proceedings.
22.

The Authority once again strongly cautions the public and all homebuyers against

investing in any “pre-launch” schemes or unregistered projects. The general public is advised
to verify the RERA registration status of a project prior to making any booking or financial
commitment. The Respondent herein is expressly prohibited from carrying out any further
marketing, sale, booking, or advertisement in respect of the subject project or any related
projects, till further orders.
Directions of the Authority:
23.

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 35 read with Sections

37 and 38 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, this Authority hereby
issues the following directions:
5 of 6

---

Sd/Sri. K. Srinivas 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

6 of 6

---