Telangana REAT Upholds ₹27.50 Lakh Penalty Against Promoter for Additional Clubhouse Floor and Revised Plan Without Allottees’ Consent
Case: Trendset Jayabheri Projects LLP & Ors. v. Neelima Vanguru
Case No.: T.A. No. 35 of 2024
Forum: Telangana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (TSREAT)
Citation: 2026 LLBiz REAT (TS) 69
The Telangana REAT dismissed the promoter’s appeal and upheld the ₹27.50 lakh penalty imposed by TG RERA in relation to an additional floor constructed in the project’s clubhouse/amenities block.
Background
The dispute concerned the Trendset Jayabheri Elevate project at Kondapur, Hyderabad. The project is registered with Telangana RERA as P02400000452.
The allottee, Neelima Vanguru, alleged that the promoter had:
obtained a revised sanctioned plan without obtaining the requisite consent of the allottees;
failed to upload/disclose the revised plan to the allottees as required under RERA; and
constructed an additional floor in the clubhouse/amenities block.
Findings of Telangana REAT
The Tribunal noted that the original building permission showed the amenities block as Ground + 2 floors. Subsequently, another building permit dated 25 May 2023 reflected the amenities block as Ground + 3 upper floors.
The Tribunal found that the promoter had not uploaded the revised sanctioned plan, amounting to a violation of Section 11(3) of the RERA Act, which requires the promoter to make relevant sanctioned plans and revisions available to allottees.
More importantly, the Tribunal held that the promoter had not obtained the consent of two-thirds of the allottees before obtaining the revised sanctioned plan, thereby violating Section 14(2) of RERA.
Section 14(2) — significance
Section 14(2) restricts a promoter from making alterations or additions in the sanctioned plans and specifications except in accordance with the statutory requirements, including obtaining the consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees for material alterations/additions.
The Tribunal therefore rejected the promoter's contention that the additional clubhouse floor was merely a minor deviation which benefited allottees and did not impose any additional financial burden upon them.
Section 11(4)(f) and common areas
The Tribunal also relied upon Section 11(4)(f) read with Section 17, observing that the promoter was required to convey the undivided proportionate title in the common areas to the association of allottees.
The clubhouse, including the additional floor, formed part of the common amenities/common areas. Consequently, the promoter could not treat the alteration as inconsequential merely because it did not result in an additional charge to the allottees.
Final decision
The Telangana REAT dismissed the appeal and upheld the ₹27.50 lakh penalty imposed by TG RERA. It found the RERA order to be legally sustainable and based on appreciation of the facts and applicable provisions of RERA.
Key RERA proposition
A promoter cannot avoid the requirement of obtaining the requisite consent under Section 14(2) merely by characterising a deviation in the sanctioned plan as minor or beneficial to the allottees. Failure to disclose the revised sanctioned plan may independently constitute a violation of Section 11(3).
This case is particularly useful when dealing with unauthorised/revised building plans, alterations in common amenities, clubhouse modifications, and the requirement of two-thirds allottees' consent under Section 14(2) of RERA. (Live Law
