Countryside Realtors India Private Ltd. vs Tumpi Shome

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(RERA) 888

REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
A. Santhosh Reddy, Chairperson, P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy, Judicial Member, Chitra Ramchandran, Administrative Member
Countryside Realtors India Private Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Tumpi Shome – Respondent
T.A.No.50 of 2025

Important Points

A real estate project is considered 'ongoing' and subject to RERA registration if no completion or occupancy certificate was issued by the Act's commencement date, regardless of prior permissions, as subordinate rules cannot override the parent statute's retroactive mandate to protect consumers.

Subject

Real Estate Law - RERA Compliance

Act Referred

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016: S.11, S.14, S.61, S.18, S.4, S.3, S.12, S.59, S.60, S.44(4)
Telangana State Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017: R.2(j), R.2(1)(j)
Telangana Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act, 1995: S.5
HMDA Act, 2008
Limitation Act

Headnote

(A) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 - Sections 3, 4, 11, and 14 - Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 - Rule 2(1)(j) - Ongoing project - Registration - Determinative test for applicability of the Act is the absence of a completion certificate or occupancy certificate as on the date of commencement of the Act - Subordinate legislation cannot override the parent statute - Legislative intent is to make the Act applicable to ongoing projects to ensure transparency and protect the interests of consumers (Paras 19, 21, 23 and 25).

(B) Possession of unit - Mere act of handing over physical possession does not equate to lawful possession under the Act - Section 11(4)(b) explicitly mandates that the promoter must obtain an Occupancy Certificate before offering possession to the allottees; absence of this document renders possession illegal (Paras 9 and 35).

(C) Promoter's Obligations - Statutory duty to facilitate the formation of an association of allottees within three months of the majority of allottees booking their plots under Section 11(4)(e) - Obligation to develop and complete the project in accordance with sanctioned plans, layout plans, and specifications as approved by competent authorities under Section 14(1) (Paras 30 and 31).

Facts of the case:
Allottees invested in a villa project and paid all dues including construction costs and amenity charges. Despite the project spanning over a decade, only a small fraction of planned villas were completed. The project lacked mandatory registration with the regulatory authority, and essential amenities promised in the brochures and agreements were not provided. The developer contended the project was pre-RERA and that since physical possession had been handed over, the regulatory authority lacked jurisdiction.

Findings of Court:
The project is classified as an "ongoing project" because no occupancy or completion certificate was issued as of the date the Act came into force. The developer violated statutory mandates by failing to register the project, constructing villas without requisite building permissions, and failing to obtain a final layout approval. The court found that the developer failed to provide essential amenities and violated the law by handing over possession without an occupancy certificate.

Issues: Whether the order passed by the Regulatory Authority was sustainable in law, and whether the project qualified as an "ongoing project" subject to the jurisdiction and registration requirements of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the retroactive application of the Act covers all projects that were ongoing on the date of its commencement and had not received a completion certificate. Technical pleas based on prior approvals or subordinate rules cannot defeat the remedial object of the Act. Lawful possession under the Act requires a mandatory Occupancy Certificate, and the absence of such a certificate constitutes a clear violation of statutory provisions.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Drupad Sangwan
For the Respondents: A. Chandra Shekar

ORDER:: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Santhosh Reddy)

This appeal arises from out of the Order, dated 17.07.2025, passed by the Telangana State Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulatory Authority), in Complaint No. 16 of 2024, whereby the Complaint filed by the respondents/complainants was disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The appellant/developer was directed to pay a penalty of Rs.38,59,436/- for violating Sections 11 and 14 read with Section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for brevity 'the Act').

(ii) The appellant was further directed to approach the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) for obtaining necessary permissions required to complete the project in accordance with the representations made in the brochure. If the developer fails to obtain the approval from the competent authority, he shall be held liable, in terms of Section 18 of the Act, to refund the amounts received from the allottees along with appropriate compensation for the loss and hardship caused to them. He shall also ensure that necessary applications are made for the approval of all promised amenities, as specifically sought by the complainants under relief (iv) before the competent authority; and

(iii) The developer was directed that upon obtaining requisite approvals for the completion of the project from the competent authority, he shall within a period of 10 days from the date of such approval, submit an application for registration of the project under Section 4 of the Act. Until such registration is duly granted by the Authority, he shall be restrained from advertising, marketing, booking, selling, offering for sale or in any manner inviting persons to purchase any villas or units in the subject real estate project. Failure to comply with the above directions, it shall be viewed as a serious violation of the statutory mandate under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. In such an event, the Authority shall not hesitate to initiate proceedings for declaring the developer as a defaulter, in accordance with law, and to invoke all consequential penal provisions under the Act.

2. The factual matrix relevant for deciding the present appeal as discerned from the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants, in brief, is that they had invested in the HMDA approved layout known as "Westend Greens", located in Sy.No.100 (Part) and 107 (Part) of Mokila Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. That according to the initial plan outlined in marketing materials and the
agreement of sale, developer represented that the Westend Greens project obtained approval from HMDA in 2011 under LP No. 1140/LO/ZOSKP/HMDA/2011 with an initial plan of building 117 villas. Accordingly, Complainants paid all the dues as outlined in the Agreement of Sale, which includes the cost of construction as mentioned in the Agreement of Sale; taxes in the form of GST; amount demanded as part of developing amenities such as Club House and the monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs.7500/- per villa. That pursuant to the satisfactory receipt of payment, developer duly issued a "No Objection & No Dues" Certificate to the Complainants, signifying the settlement of all outstanding financial obligations. That despite the commencement of the Westend Greens Villa project in 2011, after 12 years, only 20 out of the initial 117 villas have been deemed fit for possession. The Complainants further submitted that the developer approached the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) for revalidation of the layout, once in 28.02.2017 and then in 20.12.2019. However, the Complainants have not been communicated if revalidation has been approved or not. But, while developer had applied for revalidation, the Westend Greens website continued to depict the HMDA approved status with LP Number LP No. 1140/LO/ZO-SKP/HMDA/2011; which is misleading and in direct contravention of Section 12 of the Act, which