Advertisement
The Gulf conflict has disrupted global supply chains, pushed...
REITs have changed the way commercial real estate is owned a...
What does it take to preserve a real estate legacy while bui...
What really powers the cloud? Behind every Google search, A...
A lot of what defines a home isn’t visible at handover. I...
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA has disposed of appeals filed by actor K. Ramcharan Tej and former cricketer V. Chamundeshwarnath, along with two other purchasers, over villa plots in Hyderabad’s Boulder Hills that were attached in a money-laundering investigation. The tribunal found that the purchasers had paid substantial portions of the agreed consideration, but no sale deeds had been executed. However, it declined to conclusively determine whether they were bona fide purchasers or connected to the alleged wrongdoing. Their claims can now be examined by the PMLA trial court.
The Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA has declined to grant immediate conclusive relief to K. Ramcharan Tej and V. Chamundeshwarnath in the long-running dispute over villa plots at Boulder Hills in Hyderabad. The tribunal disposed of appeals filed by the two purchasers and two other appellants, leaving the question of their ownership and bona fide status to be examined through the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The order, pronounced on August 6, 2026, concerns four villa plots in the Boulder Hills development at Guchibowli, Ranga Reddy district. Chamundeshwarnath had claimed plot B-44, measuring 1,458 square yards and valued at INR 3.64 crore in the attachment proceedings, while Ramcharan Tej claimed plot B-30, measuring 1,545 square yards and valued at INR 3.86 crore. The other appeals concerned Bijay Kumar Mandhani and K. Lalitha.
The properties had been attached by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under a September 25, 2012 provisional attachment order, which was subsequently confirmed by the adjudicating authority in February 2013. The underlying case arose from a CBI investigation into alleged irregularities surrounding the development of the integrated township project at Manikonda and the handling of villa plots by Emaar Hills Township Pvt Ltd and Emaar MGF Land Ltd.
The tribunal noted that the CBI investigation had identified alleged excess collections from villa plot buyers. According to the findings recorded in the tribunal order, the investigation indicated that plots were documented at INR 5,000 per square yard while higher amounts were allegedly collected in cash. The CBI had assessed undue pecuniary advantage to Emaar MGF and Emaar Properties at INR 167.29 crore.
The appellants argued that they were bona fide purchasers who had entered into agreements and paid around 95% of the agreed consideration. The tribunal's record shows that Chamundeshwarnath had paid INR 69.255 lakh against the agreed consideration for B-44, while the balance was payable at registration. Ramcharan Tej's bank records also reflected payments towards B-30.
However, no sale deeds had been executed in favour of the appellants. The tribunal also noted differences in the documentation produced by individual appellants. Ramcharan Tej had not filed a copy of the agreement to sell, although payment of consideration was not disputed.
The tribunal held that it could not conclusively determine whether the appellants were genuine purchasers or had any connection with the principal accused. It said that the issue must be decided by the PMLA trial court after considering the evidence from both sides.
At the same time, the tribunal observed that if the transactions are ultimately established as genuine, the attachment could have resulted from a misdeclaration to investigating authorities. It permitted the ED to reinvestigate and verify the appellants' claims and submit its findings before the PMLA court.
If the purchasers are ultimately found to be bona fide, they may press their claims before the Special Judge, PMLA Court. The tribunal indicated that, subject to the statutory process, sale deeds could then be executed after the remaining consideration is secured as directed by the court.
The appeals have therefore been disposed of with directions, but the tribunal has expressly left the parties' substantive rights over the attached properties open for determination under law.
Source- ATFP Govt
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
