Order Complaint No. 248 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO. 248 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:
Patlolla Harish Reddy,
(R/o. H. No. 1-7-40/A,
Battery Zone, SS Nagar, Street No. 8,
Habsiguda, Hyderabad- 500007.)

…Complainant
AND
1. M/s. Krithika Infra Developers
(Rep. by its Managing Director, 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

Page 1 of 7

---

2.

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.

It is submitted that the Complainant, Shri. Patlolla Harish Reddy S/o. Patlolla Damodar

Reddy purchased a residential flat from M/s Krithika Infra Developers 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, and the said flat was
purchased under a pre-launch offer and was issued an Agreement of Sale dated 26.02.2022,
after having paid the full payment of Rs. 30,05,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Five Thousand Only)
towards the size of 1202 sq. ft and such payment has been duly made by 26.02.2022.
4.

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 February 2024.
However, till date, there has been no commencement or progress of construction activity at the
project site.
5.

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.
6.

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

30,05,000/- 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
Page 2 of 7

---

B. Relief(s) Sought
7.

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:
8.

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:
9.

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

---

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.
11.

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.
12.

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
13.

Hence, Point I is answered in the affirmative

Point II
Page 4 of 7

---

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. Rs. 30,05,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh
Five Thousand Only), towards Flat No. C-117, Block-Cash in 1st floor built-up area 1202 sq.
ft. Feet along with UDS 26.7Sq. Yards and the receipt of which has been duly accepted,
admitted and acknowledged by the Respondent No.1.

15.

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. Such continued
inaction, despite having collected substantial amounts from the Complainant, indicates a
deliberate and dishonest course of conduct on the part of the Promoter. It is further observed
that the Respondent Promoter has completely abandoned the project and, in all proceedings
pertaining thereto, has failed to establish any genuine intent or credible plan to initiate or
resume construction. In view of the fact that the project has remained stalled for several years
and that the Respondent Promoter has effectively abandoned the development altogether, this
Authority finds it neither reasonable nor feasible to direct completion of the project at this
stage.

16.

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.

17.

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 with interest, in cases where the promoter fails to complete or is unable to deliver
possession within the stipulated period Hence, the Complainants are entitled to refund of the
amount paid along with interest, as mandated under the said provision.

Page 5 of 7

---

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.

19.

In the present case, the Respondent No.1 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 of
30,05,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Five Thousand 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.

20.

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.

21.

Hence, Point II is answered accordingly.

Page 6 of 7

---

22.

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:

a) The Respondent No. 1 is directed to refund 30,05,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Five
Thousand 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 26.02.2022 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.

23.

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

---