Telangana REAT Upholds Order To Refund ₹36.58 Lakh To Homebuyers For Same Plot Sold To Third Party

The Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (REAT) has upheld an order directing Amacon Developers to refund ₹36.58 lakh with 10.75% annual interest to two homebuyers after it sold the same plot to a third party despite an earlier agreement with them.

A bench comprising Chairperson Justice A. Santhosh Reddy, Judicial Member P. Pradeep Kumar Reddy and Administrative Member Vemula Sreekar dismissed the buyers' appeal against the October 16, 2025 order of the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The Authority had directed Amacon to refund the amount with interest from April 9, 2021.

The dispute concerned Plot No. 895, measuring 355.56 square yards, in DLF Garden City. Amacon had agreed to sell it to Sandeep Kumar and Shipali for ₹37.38 lakh and executed an Agreement of Sale on April 9, 2021, describing itself as the sole and absolute owner and possessor. The buyers paid ₹36.58 lakh, leaving ₹80,000 for registration.

Amacon did not execute the sale deed in their favour. It instead conveyed the same plot to Yalavarthi Naveena Babu through a registered sale deed dated April 21, 2022.

The tribunal held that Amacon could not claim to have acted merely as an agent. It had entered into the agreement as vendor while claiming ownership of the plot, making its conduct that of a promoter under Section 2(zk) of RERA.

“From a perusal of the entire material available on record, it is established that the conduct of respondent No.1 cannot be considered that of a mere agent. On the contrary, his actions are indicative of those of a promoter within the meaning of Section 2(zk) of the Act.”, the tribunal noted.

The tribunal further held that Amacon breached its continuing obligation under Section 11(4)(a) to protect the buyers' interests by transferring the plot to a third party. Since it failed to complete the transaction under the agreement, Section 18(1) entitled the buyers to refund with interest.

The buyers had also sought liability against the other entities involved in the land transaction.

The tribunal rejected the claim, noting that Clause 10 of the April 11, 2022 Agreement to Sell-cum-General Power of Attorney put Amacon solely in charge of any sale, transfer or creation of third-party rights in the plot.

It also let Naveena Babu off the hook, finding no concrete material to show that he knew about the earlier agreement with the buyers.

The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the Authority's order was upheld. There was no order as to costs.

For Respondent No. 1 (M/s Amacon Developers): Advocate T. Rajashekar.

For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: Advocate P. Sriram.

For Respondent No. 6 (Yalavarthi Naveena Babu): Advocate K. Shivanand.