AP RERA Directs Anjani Projects To Hand Over Incomplete Project To Landowners After 12-Year Delay

The Andhra Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (AP RERA) on 1 September directed Anjani Projects to hand over an incomplete real estate project to the landowners within 15 days, after finding that the developer had failed to complete the project for nearly 12 years.

A Bench comprising Members E. Rajasekhara Reddy and A. Jagannadha Rao passed the common order in execution petitions filed by the landowners against Anjani Projects, represented by its proprietor Kanupuru Seshavardhana Reddy, and Ponnavolu Prathima Reddy. The Authority held:

“The Development Agreement does not contain any provision entitling the respondents to insist upon execution of fresh or supplementary agreements after expiry of the contractual period as a condition precedent for completion of the project. Having voluntarily undertaken the contractual obligation to complete the project within the stipulated period, the respondents cannot indefinitely postpone completion of the project and thereafter impose fresh contractual conditions upon the complainants.”

The dispute arose from a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney executed in 2014, under which Anjani Projects undertook to complete construction and deliver possession of the respective flats within 30 months. The agreed period expired, but the project remained incomplete for nearly 12 years. The landowners had earlier approached AP RERA over the developer's failure to complete the project within the agreed period.

On 26 April 2023, the Authority gave Anjani Projects a final opportunity to complete the construction. It directed the developer to register the project, obtain revised approvals, mobilise funds, complete construction in phases, secure the Occupancy Certificate and hand over possession. The landowners subsequently filed the present execution petitions, alleging non-compliance with the 26 April 2023 order.

Anjani Projects attributed the delay to the landowners' alleged failure to execute documents required for project registration and revised statutory approvals. The landowners contended that the contractual period had long expired and said they were financially capable of completing the remaining work through another competent builder or agency.

Rejecting the developer's defence, the Authority noted that a purchaser had also sought completion and possession, showing that the project remained incomplete for an “inordinate period”. It held that disputes between the developer and landowners could not indefinitely stall the project or prejudice homebuyers waiting for over a decade. It observed:

“The paramount consideration of this Authority is to secure completion of the project and protect the interests of the allottees in accordance with the objectives of the Act”

The Bench noted that the landowners qualified as “Promoters” under Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act and had undertaken to complete the project while protecting the rights of existing allottees.

Finding an “extraordinary delay of over twelve years”, repeated contractual breaches and wilful non-compliance with its 26 April 2023 order, it held that Anjani Projects had failed to discharge its obligations. It noted that “Their continued default has frustrated the very object and purpose of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016”.

Accordingly, the AP RERA allowed the landowners/co-promoters to take over and complete the project. It directed Anjani Projects to hand over the project site within 15 days, along with the structures, construction materials, plans, approvals and project records. It also directed the landowners to submit a stage-wise completion schedule within 30 days and protect the rights of existing allottees.

However, the Authority rejected the landowners' Rs. 1.24 lakh compensation claim, finding no evidence establishing when the foundation and related works, which triggered the payment, had been completed. On the lack of evidence, it held:

“An executing Authority cannot presume the occurrence of a contingent event or quantify the amount payable in the absence of cogent evidence. Consequently, the monetary claim made by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated on the basis of assumptions or presumptions.”

Lastly, it clarified that the landowners could file a fresh claim with appropriate pleadings and documentary evidence.

Appearances for petitioners (landowners): Advocate Sri Akhil Krishna.

Appearances for respondents (Anjani Projects & Anr.): Advocate Sri K.S. Reddy.