Order Complaint No. 246 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 246 of 2024
29th September 2025
Quorum:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu, Hon’ble Member

Anuparthi Sandhya Rani
H.No. 2-20-4/26/C,
Sairam Nagar Colony,
Uppal, Hyderabad - 500039

…Complainant
Versus
1.

M/s. Krithika Infra Developers
Rep. by its Managing Partner, D. Srikanth
3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads,
Beside Medquest Diagnostic Centre,
Krithika Hospital Building, Gunti Jangaiah Nagar,
L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad – 500074

2.

Sri. Doomavath Srikanth
3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads,
Beside Medquest Diagnostic Centre,
Krithika Hospital Building, Gunti Jangaiah Nagar,
L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad – 500074

3.

Smt. Radha Bhukya
3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads,
Beside Medquest Diagnostic Centre,
Krithika Hospital Building, Gunti Jangaiah Nagar,
L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad – 500074

4.

Mr. Doomavath Shashikanth
3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads,
Beside Medquest Diagnostic Centre,
Krithika Hospital Building, Gunti Jangaiah Nagar,
L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad – 500074

…Respondents

Page 1 of 7

---

The present Complaint has 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 relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant stated that on 10.08.2022, she was approached by a salesperson of

the Respondent, namely Mr. Srikanth, with a pre-launch offer in respect of a residential project
“Sheshadri’s Silver Oak”, located at Survey No. 215 of Boduppal Village, Medipally Mandal,
Medchal–Malkajgiri District, Telangana.
4.

Subsequently, on 15.08.2022, the Complainant visited the Respondent’s office at LB

Nagar Ring Road, where the Sales Manager, Mr. Mahender, assured that they had obtained all
approvals and that construction would commence within six months. The Complainant was
promised possession by December 2024.
5.

Relying on their strong representations, the Complainant initially issued a cheque of

Rs. 5,00,000/-(Five Lakhs) and booked Flat No. 110 in Block-C, having a built-up area of 2310
sq. ft., at the rate of ₹2,349/- per sq. ft. The total consideration agreed was ₹54,26,190/-,
inclusive of one car parking space and undivided share of land measuring 51.3 sq. yds.
6.

Under continuous pressure from the Respondents' staff, the Complainant paid the entire

sale consideration of ₹54,26,190/- through various transactions. The payment details are as
follows:
Sl.No Date

Amount

1.

15.08.2022

Rs. 5,00,000/

2.

22.08.2022

Rs. 5,00,000/

3.

30.08.2022

Rs. 5,00,000/

4.

01.10.2022

Rs. 20,00,000/

5.

17.10.2022

Rs. 3,26,190/
Page 2 of 7

---

27.10.2022

Rs. 2,00,000/

7.

01.11.2022

Rs. 14,00,000/-

Total

Rs. 54,26,190

Upon receipt of the full payment, the Respondents executed an unregistered Agreement of Sale
confirming the allotment.
7.

Despite repeated assurances, no construction activity was commenced by the

Respondent even several months after the promised dates. After numerous visits to the project
site and the Respondents' office yielded no results, the Complainant decided to cancel the
booking and requested a full refund with interest. Upon further inquiry, the Complainant
learned that the project was not registered with the TG RERA, despite the Respondent having
claimed otherwise.
8.

After persistent follow-ups, the Respondents issued a cheque dated 04.08.2024 for the

full amount of ₹54,26,190/- (Cheque No. 001300, Kotak Mahindra Bank). However, when the
Complainant presented the cheque, it was dishonoured with the reason "Insufficient Funds."
Since the cheque bounced, the Respondents have become unresponsive to the Complainant's
calls and have shown no intention of making the payment to the Complainant.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
9.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

Refund of the principal amount of ₹54,26,190/- (Fifty Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand
One Hundred and Ninety Only).

ii.

Interest on the above-mentioned principal amount from August 2022 as per the
provisions of the Act.

C. Points to be determined:
10.

Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Respondents violated Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 by advertising,
marketing, and offering for sale the “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak” project without obtaining
registration with the Authority?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought?
Page 3 of 7

---

Upon perusal of the available documents submitted by the Complainant, it is evident

that the Respondent promoted and sold residential units in the project titled “Sheshadri’s Silver
Oak” located at Survey No. 215, Boduppal Village, without obtaining registration under
Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The land in question exceeds the threshold of 500 sq.
meters as specified under Section 3(2)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016and involves more than
eight units, which mandates registration with the Authority.
12.

In the present matter, the Complainant has submitted a copy of the Agreement of Sale

dated 05.11.2022, which confirms that the Respondent collected a sum of ₹54,26,190/- to sell
a proposed residential flat with built up area of 2130 Sq.fts, inclusive of all common areas, with
one car parking area, in Sheshadri’s Silver Oak, along with undivided share of land
admeasuring 51.3 Sq.Yds. The agreement of sale was entered into prior to obtaining
registration with RERA.
13.

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. After a
detailed examination of that matter, this Authority passed an order, holding that they had
violated provisions of the RE(R&D)Act 2016. In that said order, it was found that the
Respondent had marketed and sold units without registering the project with this authority, in
contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Further, the Respondent had also
received advance payments exceeding 10% of the consideration prior to execution of a
registered agreement for sale, thereby violating under Section 13(1) of RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Consequently, a penalty of ₹9,96,050/- was levied on the Respondent under Sections 59, 60,
and 61 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, and the Respondent was directed to register the project

Page 4 of 7

---

As this Authority had already adjudicated the matter on similar facts and imposed a

penalty for violation of Section 3. 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.

Hence, Point I is answered in the affirmative

Point II
18.

Upon perusal of the Agreement of Sale executed by the Respondents in favour of the

Complainant, it is evident that the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 54,26,190/- (Rupees
Fifty-Four Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Only), which payment has
been duly acknowledged by the Respondents. Further, the Respondents have also issued a
cheque for the said amount in favour of the Complainant; however, the same was dishonoured
with the remarks “Funds Insufficient.”
19.

Moreover, it is further observed from the available documents placed on record that

the

Respondent

No.1

has

obtained

permission

bearing

No.

009613/BP/HMDA/2100/GHT/2023 for the construction of 2 Cellars + 1 Stilt + 1 Upper Floor.
However, despite obtaining such permission, the Respondent No.1 has neither commenced any
construction activity in the said project nor demonstrated any bona fide intention to fulfil its
contractual obligations. Such continued inaction, even after collecting substantial amounts of
money from the Complainant, points to a deliberate and dishonest course of conduct from the
Respondents. In these circumstances, under Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 extends
a clear statutory right to an allottee to seek a refund along with interest where the
promoter/Respondents either fails to complete the project or is unable to hand over possession
within the stipulated timeframe. So, the allottee is entitled for a refund with interest. In the
present case, the issue is not merely one of delay; it is a case of complete inaction on the
Respondents.
20.

In light of the above foregoing observations, this Authority notes that the Complainant

is entitled for relief as mentioned in the main complaint under Section 18(1)(a) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which reads as follows:
Page 5 of 7

---

In the present case, the Respondent neither completed the project nor initiated the

mandatory statutory processes required for lawful execution of the project. The continued
failure to commence the construction clearly amounts to a violation of the provisions of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
22.

Accordingly, the Complainant entitled for Refund of the amount paid by her to the

Respondents and also with the 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 Marginal
Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum (i.e., 8.75% + 2%), calculated from the
respective date of Agreement of sale until the date of actual refund.
23. In view of the above findings, this Authority is of the considered that the Complainant is
entitled to the relief sought, refund of the entire sale consideration with interest.
24.

Hence, Point II is answered in the affirmative, and the Complainant is entitled for refund

along with applicable interest.
E. Directions of the Authority:
25.

In exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of the

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and in furtherance of the findings and
conclusions drawn hereinabove, the following directions are hereby issued:

Page 6 of 7

---

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by the Respondent shall attract a

penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
27.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be 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

---