Order Complaint No. 255 Of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA STATE REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
COMPLAINT NO. 255 of 2025
Dated: 01st December 2025
Coram:

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

Between
Maganti Srikanth
(R/o. Flat 202, Trident Ramsaroj Apartments
Teachers colony, East Marredpally,
Secunderabad Telangana – 500026)

…Complainant
Versus
M/s Chalamala Infra
(Rep by Sri Chalamala Madhava Babu)
(R/o. Plot No. 195, Road No. 13, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana )

…. Respondent

The present matters filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person and Respondent in person, upon hearing
submissions made by both parties, this Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
2.

This Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and

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 action against the Respondents.
3.

The Complainant submitted that he entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 30.12.2022

with the Respondent for the purchase of Flat No. 301, Second Floor, in the project titled
“Chalamalas Velaga Prasadam,” admeasuring 1435 sq. ft. (including 100 sq. ft. of car parking)
with a UDS of 44.4 sq. yds., situated in Plot No. 51, Sy. Nos. 17, 18, 21 and part of 22,
Yellareddyguda, Hyderabad. He states that he paid a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Lakhs only) as token advance. The Complainant contends that the Respondent had assured
Page 1 of 3

---

The Complainant further states that despite repeated requests to either refund the

advance or adhere to the sanctioned plan, the Respondent did neither. On obtaining the
Encumbrance Certificate, the Complainant discovered that the very unit allotted to him, i.e.,
Flat No. 301, had been sold and registered in favour of a third party, one Sri Sanaka Sita Rama
Anjaneyulu, under Document No. 7804/2024, SRO Banjara Hills. Despite multiple reminders,
the Respondent failed to respond, which the Complainant alleges amounts to fraud, breach of
trust, and violation of agreed terms. The Complainant therefore approached this Authority
seeking refund of the paid amount along with interest and compensation.
5.

The Respondent filed a reply statement wherein it admitted receipt of Rs. 20,00,000/-

as advance towards booking of the said flat. It is the Respondent’s case that the Complainant
was clearly informed that in case of cancellation, the advance would be refunded only upon
sale of the said unit to a third party. Owing to non-payment of instalments by several
purchasers, the Respondent claims to have faced financial constraints and therefore raised
private finance by offering certain flats, including Flat No. 301, as security. The Respondent
alleges that the Complainant was fully aware of these circumstances.
6.

The Respondent further submitted that it is ready and willing to hand over possession

of Flat No. 301 upon receipt of the balance sale consideration. It is also stated that the
Complainant has not submitted any written cancellation request to date, and if such cancellation
is submitted, the Respondent undertakes to refund the advance amount, without interest, within
60 days from the date of cancellation.
7.

It is recorded that during the proceedings, both parties filed a Joint Memo of Settlement.

8.

However, upon examination of the documents placed before this Authority, including

the approved building permission bearing File No. 011213/GHMC/5514/KHB2/2022-BP dated
13.02.2023, it is observed that the project “Chalamalas Velaga Prasadam” consists of stilt plus
four floors, with one residential unit per floor. The total plot area is 371.55 sq. metres, which
is below the statutory threshold of 500 sq. metres, and the total number of units is fewer than
eight.

Page 2 of 3

---

In terms of Section 3(2) of the RE(R&D) Act, registration under the Act is not required

where the area proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 sq. metres or the number of
apartments proposed does not exceed eight. Consequently, the project in question falls outside
the regulatory ambit of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and therefore
outside the jurisdiction of this Authority.
10.

In view of the above statutory position, this Authority holds that it lacks jurisdiction to

adjudicate the present dispute on the merits.
11.

Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The Complainant is

at liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before a competent forum, in accordance with law.
12.

Accordingly, the Complaint stands dismissed.

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 3 of 3

---