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 Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has imposed a INR 98 lakh penalty on the promoter of Chabbras Bentley Woods in Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, for marketing and selling villas without registering the development as a villa project. The authority also directed the promoter to refund INR 20 lakh to a buyer within 30 days and barred further marketing of the development as a villa project. TG RERA found that the common layout, 44 villas and shared amenities constituted a single project, rejecting the promoter’s argument that individual plot permissions exempted it from RERA registration.
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TG RERA) has imposed a INR 98 lakh penalty on the promoter of Chabbras Bentley Woods in Jeedimetla, Hyderabad, after finding that villas were being marketed and sold without the development having the required RERA registration as a villa project.
The authority also directed promoter Ramesh Kumar Chabbra to refund INR 20 lakh collected from a homebuyer within 30 days and restrained him from continuing to market Bentley Woods as a villa development. The order was issued on August 24, following a complaint by P Krishna Reddy.
Reddy had alleged that Bentley Woods was presented as an integrated residential development comprising 44 villas spread across about 2.7 acres. The project was also promoted with common facilities, including a clubhouse, swimming pool and gated security. According to the complaint, he booked a villa for INR 3.8 crore and paid INR 20 lakh as an advance in October 2024.
A key issue before the authority was the nature of the project's existing RERA registration. Bentley Woods had been registered as a plotted layout rather than as a villa development. TG RERA examined whether the promoter could rely on individual permissions for plots to avoid separate registration of the overall development.
The promoter argued that individual permissions had been obtained from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for plots measuring less than 500 square metres. On that basis, the promoter contended that the development fell within an exemption under Section 3(2)(a) of the RERA Act. The promoter also disputed the amount paid by the complainant, maintaining that only INR 5 lakh had been received.
TG RERA rejected that position after considering the overall character of the development. The authority held that the common layout, shared amenities and 44 units demonstrated that the development functioned as a single project. It concluded that relying on individual permissions to divide the development for regulatory purposes amounted to an attempt to circumvent the registration requirement.
The authority also examined the dispute over the villa's stated area. Reddy had alleged that the property was initially represented as having a built-up area of 5,068 sq ft, but was later described as approximately 3,900 sq ft, with the remaining portion treated as open space. TG RERA considered the change in representation to be material misrepresentation under Section 12 of the RERA Act.
On the payment dispute, the authority relied on the registered agreement and other documents, including a legal notice, to conclude that the buyer had paid INR 20 lakh rather than the INR 5 lakh claimed by the promoter. The promoter was consequently directed to return the full amount to the complainant within the stipulated period.
The INR 98 lakh penalty has been directed to be deposited into the TG RERA Fund for violation of Section 3(1) of the RERA Act. The authority also warned that non-compliance could attract further action under Section 63
The order highlights an important compliance distinction for developers: registration of a plotted layout does not necessarily cover a separate residential product subsequently marketed on the same land. Where a development is planned and sold as a coordinated project with multiple units and common facilities, the regulatory treatment may depend on its actual structure rather than the manner in which individual plots or permissions are presented.
For homebuyers, the case reinforces the need to verify not only whether a project has a RERA registration number, but also what exactly that registration covers. Buyers should compare the registered project details with the product being advertised, including the nature of the development, sanctioned plans, unit configuration and promised amenities.
Source- Telangana RERA
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
