Order Complaint No. 247 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO. 247 of 2025
Dated:
Quorum:

3rd November 2025

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

Between:
Shri. Kadipikonda Ranadheer
(S/o. Kadipikonda Venkat Reddy
#301, A BLOCK Apurupa Jagapati heights,
Adarsh Nagar, Uppal, Hyderabad – 500039)

…Complainant
AND
1.

M/s. Krithika Infra Developers
(Rep. by its Managing Partner, D. Srikanth,
3rd & 4th Floor, Sri Padanjali Building,
Beside Bahar cafe L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad – 500074)

2.

Doomavath Gopal
(Director of M/s Krithika Infra Developers
H.No. 7-67, Gvr Colony, Tattiannaram Village,
Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist- 500068)

3.

Doomavath Srikanth
(MD of M/s Krithika Infra Developers
H.No. 7-67, Gvr Colony, Tattiannaram Village,
Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist- 500068)

4.

Smt. Radha Bhukya
(MD of M/s Krithika Infra Developers
H No. 7-67, Gvr Colony, Tattiannaram Village,
Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist- 500068)

5.

Shri. Doomavath Shashikanth
((Exective Director of M/s Krithika Infra Developers
H No. 7-67, Gvr Colony, Tattiannaram Village,
Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Dist- 500068)

…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person, and none appeared on behalf of the
Respondents despite service of notice; hence set ex parte and upon hearing the submissions of the
Complainant, this Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
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, Mr. Kadipikonda Ranadheer, S/o. Kadipikonda Venkat Reddy

submitted that he has booked a residential flat in Block C, Fifth Floor, with a built-up area of 1594
sq. ft. (inclusive of all common areas), including one car parking area, in the Complex known as
‘Sheshadri’s Silver Oak', along with an undivided share of land measuring 35 Sq. Yards, situated
in Survey No. 215, admeasuring 13,658 sq. ft. Yards (11,418 sq. Meters), located at Boduppal
Village, Municipality Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, Telangana State, with the
Respondent No.1, M/s. Krithika Infra Developers.
4.

The Complainant submitted he booked a flat under a pre-launch offer and was issued an

Agreement of Sale dated 25.08.2021, after part payment of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only) out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 57,38,400/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakh Thirty-Eight
Thousand Four Hundred Only) towards a flat measuring 1594 sq. ft. The balance amount of Rs.
37,38,400/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Lakh Thirty-Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only) was to be
paid at the time of construction through a Housing Loan from a financial institution

5.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondent No.1, M/s. Krithika Infra Developers, had

orally assured the Complainant that the possession of the said flat would be handed over by June
2024. However, till date, there has been no commencement or progress of construction activity at
the project site
6.

It is submitted by the Complainant that on 23.09.2023, the Respondent No.1, M/s. Krithika

Infra Developers obtained a building permission from the Boduppal Municipal Corporation vide
Application No. 009613/BP/HMDA/2100/GHT/2023, for the construction of (2 Cellars + 1 Stilt
+ 1 Upper Floor) only; however, the Respondent had falsely represented to the Complainant that
the project was approved for 10 floors, and the Complainant submitted that M/s Krithika Infra
Developers has not obtained the mandatory RERA registration for the said project.

Page 2 of 7

---

The Complainant submitted that they are forcing the Respondents for a refund of Rs.

20,00,000/- with interest, as M/s Krithika Infra Developers has failed to commence construction
or to register the Undivided Share of Land (UDS) and it is submitted the Complainant is forcing
the Respondent to register the land in their name, however the Respondents do not have the land
to register in favour of Complainant.
B. Relief(s) Sought
9.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought for the following reliefs:
1. To instruct the Respondent Promoter to register the land to the non-register members.
2. To instruct the Respondent Promoter to get the RERA Registration.
3. To instruct the Respondent Promoter to develop the development works at the earliest.
4. If the above 1,2, & 3 are not possible, then direct the Respondent for full refund along with
interest as per the government norms.
5. To instruct the Respondents till the time of processing the refund to not engage in any
activity of selling the land or cancelling of the Development Agreement to registered
members.
6. To direct the RERA authorities to give the time lines for the above request as we are paying
the interest through EMIs.

C. Points for consideration:
10.

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

questions arises for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Respondents have violated any provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016?

II.

Whether Complainant is liable for relief as prayed for? If yes, to what extent?

D. Observation of the Authority:
11.

Before further adjudicating on the matter, this Authority takes due note of the repeated

non-compliance by the Respondents, who have failed to appear before this Authority despite
service of notice and affording sufficient opportunities. In view of their continued absence, the
Respondents are hereby set ex parte, and the matter is being adjudicated based on the pleadings,
documents, and submissions placed on record by the Complainant.

Page 3 of 7

---

12.

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 without further delay and to restrain
from engaging in any marketing or sale activity until compliance was ensured.
13.

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
14.

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

declared the Respondent No. 1/Promoter, M/s Krithika Infra Developers, as a “defaulter”
The relevant portion of the said order is as follows:
“27(b)….The Respondent No.1/Promoter is hereby declared a “defaulter” for
continuous and willful violation of the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. As a
result, any developmental activities undertaken by the Respondent No.1, Promoter
stand terminated with immediate effect. The impugned developer is hereby restrained
from undertaking any further advertisement, marketing, booking, sale, or offering for
sale of any apartment or part thereof in the said project or any other projects in the
future, in any manner whatsoever.
15.

Hence, Point I is answered in the affirmative

Page 4 of 7

---

16.

Upon perusal of the Agreement of Sale dated 26.02.2022, executed between Shri. D.

Srikanth, Managing Partner of M/s Krithika Infra Developers, in favour of the Complainant, it is
evident that the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs. ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only)
towards part payment of the total sale consideration of Rs. 57,38,400/-, which has been duly
acknowledged by the Respondents.

17.

It is further observed from the documents placed on record that Respondent No.1 has

obtained building permission bearing No. 009613/BP/HMDA/2100/GHT/2023 for the
construction of 2 Cellars + 1 Stilt + 1 Upper Floor. However, despite having secured such
permission, Respondent No.1 has neither commenced any construction activity at the project site
nor demonstrated any bona fide intention to fulfil its contractual obligations. This persistent
inaction, notwithstanding the substantial amounts collected from the Complainant, reflects a
deliberate and dishonest course of conduct on the part of the Respondents.

18.

The Complainants have sought directions from this Authority to cause registration of the

land, obtain RERA registration for the project, and direct the promoters to complete the project.
However, considering that there has been no commencement of construction whatsoever, and
further noting that this Authority has previously dealt with complaints relating to the same project,
it is evident that the Respondents have completely abandoned the project and have consistently
disregarded the adjudications and directions issued by this Authority. In light of the above
circumstances, and having regard to the larger interest of the allottees, this Authority is constrained
to hold that no effective relief can be granted by way of directing completion of the project, as
such a direction would be incapable of execution in view of the Respondents’ continued absence,
lack of bona fide intention to complete construction, and failure even to obtain RERA registration
or enter appearance in any related proceedings till date.

19.

Accordingly, the relief sought by the Complainants, insofar as it pertains to the refund of

the amounts paid along with applicable interest, deserves to be allowed.

20.

In these circumstances, Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)

Act, 2016, confers a clear statutory right upon an allottee to seek refund of the amounts paid, along
Page 5 of 7

---

21.

In light of the abovementioned 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:

(1) If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or
building,
a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly
completed by the date specified therein; or
b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or
revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on
demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without
prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect
of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be
prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act.

22.

Accordingly, the Complainant entitled for refund of the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Lakh Only) paid by the Complainant 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 opinion 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 to a refund

along with applicable interest.

Page 6 of 7

---

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 a nd
conclusions drawn hereinabove, the following directions are hereby issued:

a) The Respondent No. 1 is directed to refund Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh Only)
along with interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI MCLR of 8.75% + 2%) from the
date of the Agreement of Sale dated 25.08.2021 till the date of actual refund in accordance
with Rule 15 of the Telangana RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 within 30 (thirty) days from the date
of this Order;
b) 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.

26.

In light of the above, the present Complaint is disposed of in terms of the directions

contained herein. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sd/-

Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,

Sri Laxmi Narayana Jannu,

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),

Hon'ble Member,

Hon'ble Member,

Hon'ble Chairperson,

TG RERA

TG RERA

TG RERA

Page 7 of 7

---