Ram Charan Denied Immediate Release of ₹3.86 Crore Plot

Tollywood actor Ram Charan and three other claimants were denied the immediate release of four attached Boulder Hills villa plots valued at ₹14.1 crore in the ongoing Emaar-APIIC money-laundering case. In an order pronounced on August 6 this week, the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal in Delhi declined to lift the attachment or set aside the earlier confirmation order, ruling that the special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court must first examine the buyers’ bona fide status.

The claimants asserted they responded to public advertisements and paid 95% of the agreed consideration using accounted funds, with no connection to the alleged offenses. However, they will now face further scrutiny by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and a prolonged trial before final sale deeds can be executed.

SAFEMA Tribunal Defers Boulder Hills Plot Relief to PMLA Court

The single-bench tribunal, presided over by Rajesh Malhotra in Delhi, held that it could not conclusively determine whether the claimants were genuine purchasers or if they were acting in collusion with the accused. The tribunal directed that these critical issues must be resolved by the special PMLA court during the ongoing trial.

Alongside Ram Charan, the other claimants include V Chamundeswaranath, Bijay Kumar Mandhani, and K Lalitha. They are seeking the release of plots B-44 (1,458 square yards, ₹3.64 crore), B-46 (1,486 square yards, ₹3.71 crore), and A-11 (1,192 square yards, ₹2.98 crore). The Enforcement Directorate argued that the plots remained in the possession of Emaar Hills Township Private Ltd when they were attached, maintaining that unregistered agreements of sale do not confer legal ownership rights.

What This Means for Accounted Fund Buyers Facing Registration Blocks

This ruling leaves unresolved a major issue affecting numerous buyers in the Boulder Hills project: whether purchasers who paid accounted funds can eventually secure their properties. Because the assets are currently attached, buyers cannot formalize their transactions or receive immediate possession.

For buyers caught in such long-running land disputes, securing a clear title and a valid Record of Rights Telangana becomes impossible until the PMLA court explicitly lifts the attachment. The tribunal noted that if the buyers are ultimately accepted as bona fide victims of misdeclaration by the developer, the trial court may eventually permit the execution of sale deeds, provided the remaining consideration is deposited through fixed deposit receipts (FDR).

Premium Gachibowli Real Estate Caught in 535-Acre Dispute

The properties in question are located within the Boulder Hills project in Manikonda, part of Hyderabad’s highly sought-after Gachibowli area. The order is directly relevant to Hyderabad’s premium plotted-development and real-estate market, highlighting the risks of investing in projects entangled in complex legal battles.

The dispute spans a massive 535-acre integrated residential and commercial project, involving a multi-agency conflict among Emaar Hills Township Private Ltd, APIIC, the ED, and the CBI. Buyers who invested millions are currently sidelined as the legal machinery processes the developer’s alleged financial misconduct.

“The tribunal observed that if the trial court ultimately accepts the claimants as bona fide purchasers, it may permit execution of sale deeds after the remaining consideration is deposited through fixed deposit receipts before the court.”

Origins of the ₹102.87 Crore Emaar-APIIC Money Laundering Probe

The case traces its origins back to a 2011 CBI FIR concerning the Manikonda project. Investigators allege that ₹102.87 crore was collected above the officially recorded rate of ₹5,000 per square yard. These excess funds were allegedly not accounted for or shared with the state-backed APIIC.

Unlike modern housing developments closely monitored under the Telangana RERA Act, this decade-old project allowed developers to exploit regulatory gaps. Following the CBI FIR, the ED issued a provisional attachment order in September 2012, which was subsequently confirmed in 2013, prompting the four claimants to challenge the confirmation before the SAFEMA Appellate Tribunal.

Next Steps: ED Verification and Trial Court Decisions

The claimants now have a procedural route to follow. They must place their payment records, agreements, and other evidence before the special PMLA court to establish that they paid through accounted funds and had no connection with the alleged money-laundering offense.

The tribunal stated that the Enforcement Directorate may reverify the buyers’ claims. If the ED finds they were victims of misrepresentation, it can submit a report to the trial court regarding the release of the properties. However, if the ED does not act within a reasonable period, the buyers are authorized to pursue their claims directly before the PMLA court.