The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has restrained Sri Laxmi Estates and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., its director Abburi Johnny and two other respondents from selling, transferring, mortgaging or creating third-party rights over two plots measuring 242 square yards in Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district.
The interim order was passed after a woman, Meghana Shinde, alleged that she had paid a total of ₹6 lakh towards the purchase of plots, but the respondents failed to execute the sale deed and register the alternative plots in her name.
Invoking Section 36 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, TG RERA directed the respondents not to alienate, transfer, encumber or create any third-party interest in Plot Nos. 41 and 42 situated at Aragudem village. The restraint will remain in force until further orders from the authority.
Woman Alleges Payment of ₹5 Lakh for Plots in Jangaon
According to the complaint filed by Meghana Shinde, she entered into an agreement of sale dated January 8, 2024, for purchasing Plot Nos. 55 and 72 in the Kalpatharuvu-3 project at Bachannapeta village in Jangaon district.
The complainant stated that she paid ₹5 lakh towards the sale consideration under the agreement.
However, she subsequently allegedly discovered that the respondents did not have lawful right, title or interest over the original plots.
When she questioned the respondents about the issue, they allegedly compelled her to purchase alternative plots instead.
Additional ₹1 Lakh Allegedly Collected for Alternative Plots
Following the dispute concerning the original plots, Shinde entered into another agreement of sale dated September 27, 2024, for purchasing Plot Nos. 41 and 42 in Survey No. 729/A/2/2 at Aragudem village.
According to the complaint, the respondents demanded an additional ₹1 lakh, claiming that the registration process would not proceed without the payment.
Fearing that she might lose the amount already invested, the complainant allegedly paid the additional amount in cash.
However, despite receiving the total amount of ₹6 lakh, the respondents allegedly failed to execute the sale deed and register the alternative plots in her name.
Complainant Alleges Threat of Third-Party Transactions
The complainant further alleged that the respondents demanded an enhanced sale consideration over and above the amount agreed upon.
She also claimed that the respondents threatened to create third-party interests in the disputed plots if she failed to pay the additional amount demanded.
Apprehending that the properties could be sold or transferred to other persons, Shinde approached TG RERA seeking appropriate relief and protection of her interests in the disputed plots.
TG RERA Notes Absence of Respondents During Hearings
While considering the application for interim relief, TG RERA noted that the respondents had remained absent during the previous three hearings and had not filed their counter to the complaint.
The authority examined the agreements of sale, payment receipts and other documents submitted by the complainant.
On examining the available material, TG RERA observed that the circumstances raised concerns about the possibility of further transactions involving the disputed properties.
The authority noted that permitting the respondents to deal with the plots during the pendency of the proceedings could result in the creation of third-party rights and potentially undermine the effectiveness of any final relief granted to the complainant.
However, TG RERA clarified that the respondents’ absence from the hearings and their failure to file a counter would not, by themselves, amount to an admission of the allegations made by the complainant.
The authority further clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the application for interim relief and did not constitute a final determination of the dispute.
TG RERA Invokes Section 36 of RERA Act, 2016
Invoking Section 36 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, TG RERA restrained all four respondents from dealing with the disputed properties.
The interim restraint applies to:
- Plot No. 41 and Plot No. 42 situated at Aragudem village.
- Properties falling under Survey No. 729/A/2/2.
- Total land area measuring 242 square yards.
The respondents have been restrained from:
- Selling or alienating the disputed plots.
- Transferring or otherwise dealing with the properties.
- Creating any encumbrance or mortgage over the plots.
- Creating third-party rights or interests in the disputed properties.
The restraint will continue until further directions from TG RERA.
Violation of Order May Invite Action Under Section 63
TG RERA has also warned that any violation of its interim directions could invite action under Section 63 of the RERA Act, 2016.
Section 63 provides for a penalty against a promoter who fails to comply with an order or direction of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The penalty may extend to five per cent of the estimated cost of the real estate project, as determined by the authority.
The provision is intended to ensure compliance with regulatory orders and directions issued under the RERA framework.
Matter Posted for Further Hearing on December 10
TG RERA has posted the matter for further hearing on December 10 and directed the respondents to file their counter.
The interim restraint is intended to preserve the disputed properties and prevent the creation of third-party interests while the complaint remains pending.
The authority has not yet delivered a final decision on the allegations concerning the original agreements, the payments made by the complainant or the respondents’ alleged failure to register the alternative plots.
Conclusion
The interim order highlights the power of RERA authorities under Section 36 to grant appropriate interim protection during pending proceedings where dealing with the disputed property could affect the effectiveness of the final relief.
By restraining the respondents from selling, transferring, mortgaging or creating third-party rights over the 242-square-yard property, TG RERA has sought to preserve the subject matter of the dispute until further adjudication.
The allegations made by the complainant remain subject to final determination by the authority.
