Hyderabad: The Telangana Real Estate Appeal Tribunal has issued compliance instructions to the sponsors of the Western Springs project under the RERA Act, but the judges remain divided within the scope of the imposed fines.
Jai Kumar Tawrani has filed a complaint that Western Construction was the sponsor of the Western Springs project and failed to disclose that part of the project land in the investigation No. 341 was classified as “prohibited property” under the Land Allocated (Prohibited Transfers) Act in Telangana. He said the promoters have not announced a lawsuit related to the land in the RERA document.
In its order dated April 8, the tribunal found that the promoter had violent major provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and the Telangana State RERA Rules, 2017. The tribunal unanimously directed the promoter to submit a revised Form-B declaration and an updated legal title report within 10 days and to upload details about litigation and land classification on the RERA portal.
In the monetary fine, the Chairperson of the Tribunal A. Rajashekar Reddy directed it to increase from Rs 1111 crore to Rs 223 crore and believed the promoters deliberately hid key information. He rejected the appellant’s request for the blacklist sponsor, revoke the item registration or cancel the execution of the deed of sales, and stated that such relief was not within the scope of the RERA Act.
He noted that higher economic fines combined with public disclosures will serve as a deterrent while protecting the interests of home buyers.
P. Pradeep P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy (Judgment) does not support immediate enhanced fines, and believes that the sponsor should provide the final opportunity to correct the violation. He believes that if the promoter fails to comply with the instructions, a fine should be considered.
Chitra Ramchandran, member (administrative), proposed a fine of Rs 17.32 crore, accounting for 1.5% of the project cost of Rs 11,5457 crore. She believes the promoters deliberately hide key facts that directly affect hundreds of buyers.
The court left the matter because of this difference in opinion and because the RERA Act did not provide a mechanism to resolve such disagreements within the bench. It noted that the parties were free to impose penalties on appropriate forums.
The court also ruled that the appellant Jai Kumar Tawrani lacked legal status to file an appeal because he was not a “grieved person” under Article 31 of the RERA Act and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Nikunj Dugar, an advocate for appeals to appeal Tawrani, said: “Although the RERA Act does not have a clear mechanism to address the split decisions among its members of the adjudication, the obvious majority, two-thirds, support augmented penalties for Western architecture and the view of the majority is effective.”
“Given the different opinions of the Court of Appeals in the Court of Appeals, which decision to follow now, the decision of the Chair, they reinforced the other two members’ punishment or disagreement,” explains Khaja Aijazuddin, a high court advocate. “Unfortunately, the RERA Act does not provide a clear mechanism to resolve such impasses within the court.”
Aijazuddin said the complainant could file a second appeal in the High Court order to the Court of Appeal. The High Court can confirm the President’s strengthening fines, reduce them, or even further increase them. ” he added.
