Order Complaint No. 172 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 28th October, 2025
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member
Complaint No. 172/2025/TG RERA

Teega Rammohan Reddy
(R/o Plot no-221, Road no-4, SBR colony, Boduppal, Uppal, Medchal Malkajgiri- 500092,
Telangana.)
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Krithika Infra Developers
Represented by: 2. Mr D. Srikanth
3. Mr D. Sashikanth
4. Mrs Radha Bukya
(Office at No. 314, 3rd floor, X roads, Opp. HP petrol bunk, Gunti Jangaiah Nagar, L. B. Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana, 500074)
…Respondents
The present matter filed by the Complainant came up for hearing on 18.07.2025 before
this Authority, in the presence of the Complainant in person, and no one appeared for the
Respondents despite due service of notice. After hearing the submissions of the Complainant,
the matter was set ex parte on 18.07.2025. This Authority now proceeds to pass the following
ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint have been filed by the Complainant under Section 31 of the Real

Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) read with
Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate reliefs against the Respondents.
A. Brief Facts of the Case as per Form M submitted by the Complainant:
3.

It was submitted that the Complainant, Teega Rammohan Reddy, purchased a flat from

the Respondent, M/s. Krithika Infra Developers, in their project known as "SHESHADRI’S
SILVER OAK," located at survey no. 215, Boduppal village, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
Page 1 of 7

---

It was stated that the Complainant had opted for a flat in a pre-launch offer, specifically

Flat No. ES-511 on the fifth floor, with a built-up area of 1452 Sft. It was submitted that this
included one car parking space and an undivided share of land (UDS) of 40 Sq. Yards. The total
sale consideration for the flat was stated to be ₹39,20,400/-.
5.

The Complainant submitted that a part payment of ₹10,00,000/- was made to the

Respondent. This payment was allegedly made in two tranches:
a. ₹5,00,000/- by way of RTGS on 23rd November 2020, and
b. ₹5,00,000/- by way of cash on 29th December 2020.
It was further stated that the Complainant had agreed to pay the remaining balance of
₹29,20,400/- through a home loan, with payments linked to construction progress.
6.

The Complainant contended that as per the agreement, the Respondent was supposed

to hand over the flat in December 2023. However, it was alleged that as of the date of the
complaint, there was "no progress at all" in the construction.
7.

Finally, it was contended that the Respondent had, to date, not obtained the necessary

approvals for the construction, nor had they obtained RERA approval for the project.
B. Reliefs Sought
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

Instruct the Promoters to register the Flat.

ii.

Instruct the Promoters to get the RERA registration.

iii.

Instruct the Promoters to complete the construction work at the earliest.

iv.

If the above 1, 2, 3 points are not possible then I would request the RERA authorities
to issue the orders in this matter to get the full refund with interest from the date of
payment as per the govt. norms.

v.

Till the time of refund process the M/s Krithika Infra Developers should not do any
activity of selling the land or cancelling of Development agreement to the registered
members.

C. Points for Consideration
9.

The following issues arise for consideration by the Authority:
Page 2 of 7

---

Whether the Respondents have violated Sections 3 & 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 by
not registering the project, Sheshadiri’s Silver Oak?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

D. Observations of the Authority
10.

The record clearly indicates that despite due service of notice through registered post

and substituted service, the Respondents have failed to appear before this Authority, nor have
they filed any written response or made any representation to contest the allegations made by
the Complainants. Such persistent non-appearance and failure to respond, despite repeated
opportunities afforded, demonstrate a deliberate disregard for the proceedings of this Authority.
Therefore, after being satisfied that due process was duly followed and all procedural
requirements were complied with, this Authority was constrained to proceed ex parte against
the Respondents by order dated 18.07.2025.
POINT I
11.

The Agreement of Sale dated 11.12.2020 and supporting documents placed on record

by the Complainant clearly establish that the Respondent No. 1, M/s. Krithika Infra Developers,
had launched and marketed a project titled “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak” proposed to be developed
at Survey No. 215, Boduppal Village, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, Telangana. The land
admeasuring approximately 13,658 square yards (about 11,418 square meters), as revealed
through the documents and representations, was intended to host multiple residential
apartments across several blocks. The Complainant was allotted a flat ES-511 on the 5th Floor,
with a built-up area of 1452 Sq. Feet in the said project and executed an Agreement of Sale, for
which payments were made towards the total sale consideration.
12.

It is evident from the above that the area of land involved in the proposed project far

exceeds 500 square meters, and the number of apartments proposed clearly surpasses the
threshold of eight units. Therefore, the project does not fall within the ambit of exemption
prescribed under Section 3(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
which limits exemption only to projects below 500 square meters or eight apartments, inclusive
of all phases. Accordingly, the project Sheshadri’s Silver Oak mandatorily required registration
with the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority prior to any form of advertisement,
marketing, booking, or sale.

Page 3 of 7

---

Further, under Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, every promoter is obligated to

submit an application for registration of a real estate project, enclosing all requisite documents
and disclosures as prescribed under the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the Respondent
no. 1 had ever applied for such registration. On the contrary, the material before this Authority
clearly shows that the Respondent No. 1 has entered into Agreements of Sale with the
Complainant, collected substantial sale consideration, and even undertaken to register
undivided shares of land, all without obtaining prior registration. Such conduct amounts to a
direct contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
14.

The actions of Respondent No. 1, launching a “pre-launch offer,” advertising, accepting

bookings, executing sale agreements, and collecting payments without registration, constitute
grave statutory violations. These actions defeat the very objective of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which is to ensure transparency, accountability, and
protection of consumer interests in the real estate sector. The said non-compliance with the
mandatory registration provisions renders the entire transaction illegal and voidable at the
instance of the allottees.
15.

In light of the above discussion, this Authority holds that the Respondent no. 1 has

clearly violated the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. The Respondent no. 1 is, therefore, liable for penal action under
Section 59 of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 for having advertised, marketed, sold, and entered into
agreements for the sale of flats in the unregistered project “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak.” This
conduct not only undermines the statutory objectives of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 but also causes
serious prejudice to the rights and financial security of the allottees.
16.

It is pertinent to mention that this Authority has already dealt with similar violations by

the same Respondent in Complaint No. 115 of 2024, which related to this very project. A
penalty of ₹9,96,050/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand and Fifty Only) was imposed
on the same Respondents for violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 for the
same project. Therefore, the issue of unregistered development by the Respondent-promoter in
the present case stands on an identical footing, and has already been addressed through the said
earlier order.
17.

Further, this Authority, in its Order in Complaint No. 86 of 2025 dated 16.10.2025, has

declared the Respondent No. 1/Promoter, M/s Krithika Infra Developers, as a “defaulter” for
Page 4 of 7

---

Upon careful examination of the documents and submissions placed on record, this

Authority observes that out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 39,20,400/- the Complainant
has paid Rs. 10,00,000/- to the Respondents as per the Agreement of Sale dated 11.12.2020,
towards the purchase of a residential flat in the project titled “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak” situated
Page 5 of 7

---

It is evident from the record that the construction activity on the project site has not

commenced to date, and the Respondents have failed to secure the requisite approvals and
permissions from the competent planning authorities.
20.

Under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a

promoter is bound to return the amount received from an allottee, along with interest at the
prescribed rate and compensation, in the event that the promoter fails to complete or is unable
to give possession of the apartment, plot, or building as per the terms of the agreement for sale.
21.

In the present case, the Respondents, having received the substantial sale consideration

without initiating construction, have evidently failed to perform their statutory obligations as
promoters. Consequently, the Complainant is entitled to a refund of the amount paid along with
interest as stipulated under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017, which prescribes that the rate of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee
shall be the State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus two
percent.
22.

Therefore, this Authority holds that the Complainant is entitled to a refund of the entire

sum of ₹10,00,000/- paid towards the purchase of the flat, along with interest at the rate
prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017, i.e., the State Bank of India’s highest MCLR + 2% per annum, calculated from the
respective dates of payment made by the Complainant until the date of actual refund by the
Respondents.
E. Directions of the Authority
23.

In accordance with the discussions made above, this Authority, vide its powers under

Sections 37 and 38, issues the following directions to the Respondents:
i.

The Respondents are directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- along with
interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI MCLR of 8.75% + 2%) calculated from

Page 6 of 7

---

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by Respondents shall attract penal

action in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
25.

In view of the above, the present complaint is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon’ble Chairperson,
TG RERA

Page 7 of 7

---