TGRERA orders refund to villa buyer in unapproved Pocharam project
HYDERABAD: Authority finds RSR Greenway Infra violated registration norms
The Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (TGRERA) has directed Hyderabad-based developer RSR Greenway Infra Pvt Ltd to refund ₹72,00,000 along with ₹1,78,000 towards registration charges and interest at 10.75% per annum to the complainant, Kondapalli Abdul Razak, for failing to register and execute a villa project in Pocharam village, Sangareddy district.
According to the order dated October 9, 2025, Razak had booked Villa No. 138 in the unregistered project “Rocketry”, developed by RSR Greenway Infra. The villa, measuring 165 square yards with a built-up area of 2,340 sq ft, was priced at ₹91,26,000 excluding ₹6,00,000 for amenities and ₹1,78,000 for registration.
Buyer alleged non-approval and non-refund
The complainant stated that he had paid ₹80,00,000 between April and August 2023, following verbal assurances from company executives that approvals from the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) would be obtained within three months. However, no progress was made, and the project remained unapproved by TGRERA.
Razak further submitted that an MoU dated September 25, 2024, was signed under which the developer agreed to refund the entire ₹80,00,000 along with ₹10,00,000 as compensation and ₹1,78,000 registration charges by January 20, 2025. Only ₹18,00,000 was refunded in three instalments, leaving the balance unpaid despite repeated requests.
The complainant accused RSR Greenway Infra executives — identified as Madhu, Naresh, and accountants Gouse/Vishnu — of avoiding communication after collecting payments. He alleged that they persuaded him to sell his house to invest in the project, which never materialised.
TGRERA invokes suo motu action
Exercising powers under Section 37 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the authority directed the Secretary, Telangana RERA, to initiate suo motu proceedings against the developer for violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, citing failure to register the project and non-disclosure of encumbrances.
The authority warned that non-compliance with its order would attract penalties under Section 63 of the Act. The complaint was disposed of with no order as to costs.
