Order Complaint No. 263 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
30th Day of July 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.262 of 2024
Swapna Chikoti
R/o- H. No.8-49, Flat-406, Vimala Vihar Apartments
Gowtham Nagar, Dilshuknagar
Hyderabad, Telangana-500060

…Complainant

Versus
Krithika Infra Developers, rep. through its Authorized Representative
D. Srikanth, D. Shashikanth
R/o- 4th floor, Beside Bahar Biryani Café, Padhanjali Building
Opposite to HP Petrol Bunk/Orange Hospitals
Gunti Jangaiah Nagar, L.B Nagar X Road
Hyderabad, Telangana-500074
…Respondent
Complaint No.263 of 2024
Cheekoti Samprithi
R/o- H. No.8-49, Flat-406, Vimala Vihar Apartments
Gowtham Nagar, Dilshuknagar
Hyderabad, Telangana-500060

…Complainant

Versus
Krithika Infra Developers, rep. through its Authorized Representative
D. Srikanth, D. Shashikanth
R/o- 4th floor, Beside Bahar Biryani Café, Padhanjali Building
Opposite to HP Petrol Bunk/Orange Hospitals
Gunti Jangaiah Nagar, L.B Nagar X Road
Hyderabad, Telangana-500074
…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for hearing on 10.04.2025
before this Authority in the presence of the Complainants in persons and none for Respondent
despite service of notice and after hearing the arguments by the Complainants and therefore he
1

---

2.

The present Complaint has been filed by the Complainants 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 Respondent.
3.

Given the similarity in the subject matter and the reliefs sought in both cases, they have

been consolidated for the sake of convenience and to prevent unnecessary repetition.

A. Brief Facts of the Case:
4.

The Complainants submitted that they were initially referred to the project by browsing

Housing.com, following which they received a call from the agents representing Krithika Infra
Developers. Within a couple of days of receiving this call, they visited both the developer’s office
and the proposed project site “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak”. During this visit, they were informed that
the pre-launch offer would close within 4 to 5 days. Upon requesting documents related to the
zonal conversion and HMDA approval, the agents showed these at the office but declined to
provide copies for the Complainants' records.
5.

The Complainants submitted that the agents targeted middle-class sentiments by repeatedly

emphasizing the urgency of the pre-launch offer and persistently pressured them into making a
payment. Under this pressure, the Complainants availed a personal loan and individually paid a
total amount of ₹39,83,406/-(Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Eighty Three Thousands Four Hundred
and Six Rupees Only) within a month for the purchase of a 1,594 sq. ft. flat in the said project. A
sum of ₹37,44,306 was paid by 16.08.2022, followed by an additional ₹2,39,100 on 23.03.2023
towards registration charges. Despite full payment, the registration was not completed.
6.

The Complainants submitted that they regularly visited the project site (Sheshadri’s Silver

Oak) to assess the development but observed no initiation or progress of construction for over a
year. Their repeated attempts to contact the developer and specifically Mr. D. Srikanth and his

2

---

The Complainants submitted that after facing repeated negligence and being treated in an

unprofessional and intimidating manner—including the presence of bouncers to deter their visits—
they approached a journalist for support, after which the developers began to respond. Mr. D.
Srikanth then called the Complainants to the office and assured that the project would be completed
within six months to a year. However, unwilling to fall into further false promises, the
Complainants decided to cancel the flat purchase.
8.

The Complainants submitted that since June 2023, Mr. D. Srikanth orally assured them that

the entire paid amount of ₹39,83,406 would be refunded, but he repeatedly failed to fulfill these
promises and did not provide any post-dated cheques initially. Only after continuous follow-ups
and due to the absence of registration or any refund, he issued post-dated cheques on 15.11.2023
dated for 31.01.2024, with an additional commitment that the payment might be made before the
due date.
9.

The Complainants submitted that despite several follow-ups before 31.01.2024, Mr. D.

Srikanth requested them not to deposit the cheques, citing a lack of funds, and personally visited
their residence to make this request. He later promised repayment by 25.03.2024, but failed again
and issued a second set of post-dated cheques dated 30.04.2024, which were also dishonored.
10.

The Complainants submitted that due to continuous breaches of commitment and non-

fulfillment of obligations despite issuing cheques, they approached Medipally Police Station and
lodged a complaint. During mediation facilitated by the police, Mr. D. Srikanth again promised to
refund the amount by 05.08.2024, a commitment which was documented on ₹100 bond paper
along with the issuance of a post-dated cheque for ₹44,03,406 (including nominal interest).
11.

The Complainants submitted that despite police intervention, the cheque was dishonored

due to insufficient funds. This continued failure has not only caused them severe financial stress
but also led to significant mental trauma, as they are burdened with repaying high-interest personal
loans availed for the said purchase.

3

---

The Complainants submitted that while they struggle financially, the developer, Mr. D.

Srikanth, continues to lead a lavish lifestyle, reportedly purchasing expensive vehicles and luxury
goods using funds collected from over 80 customers. Feedback from local residents and online
reviews has revealed serious concerns about the developer's credibility, including fears of
absconding with customer funds. Alarmingly, the developer is still marketing and selling flats
under the pretext of offering affordable housing to emotionally vulnerable middle-class buyers.
13.

The Complainants submitted that in light of all the above, and in pursuit of justice and the

refund of their hard-earned money, they are compelled to approach this Hon’ble Authority with a
humble request to intervene and ensure immediate redressal by directing the developer to refund
the total amount of ₹39,83,406 with appropriate interest and compensation for mental harassment
and financial loss.
B. Relief Sought:
14.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought for the following reliefs:
I. Refund of Amount Rs.39,83,406/-(Rupees Thirty Nine Lakh Eighty Three Thousands
Four Hundred Six Rupees) with 3% interest from the date of 16.08.2022.
II. proper Punishment should be given to D. Srikanth and D. Shashikanth for cheating
people to make money.
III. Please make sure to stop this project.

C. Points for consideration
15.

Following issues sprout for consideration by the Authority:

I. Whether the Respondent violated Sections 3 & 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, by not registering
the project, Sheshadri's Silver Oak?
II. Whether the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs? If yes, to what extent?
D. Observation of the Authority
4

---

The record clearly indicates that the attempt to serve notice upon the Respondent was

unsuccessful, as the notice was returned with the postal remark “no such person at the address.”
Thereafter, in strict compliance with the directions of this Authority, the Complainants undertook
substituted service, including personal delivery of the notice to the Respondent. Despite such valid
and adequate service, the Respondent failed to appear before this Authority, did not file any reply
or response, nor did he participate by making oral submissions during the proceedings. This
persistent refusal to engage, despite multiple opportunities afforded, evidences a clear and
deliberate avoidance of legal accountability. Therefore, this Authority, after ensuring that all
procedural requirements were fully complied with, was constrained to proceed ex-parte against the
Respondent by order dated 10.04.2025.
17.

The Agreements of Sale placed on record, dated 05.11.2022 for Complaint No. 262 of

2024 and 09.12.2022 for Complaint No. 263 of 2024 respectively, unequivocally establish that the
Complainants were allotted flats in the proposed real estate project named “Sheshadri’s Silver
Oak.” This project is situated in Survey No. 215, Boduppal Village, Medipally Mandal, MedchalMalkajgiri District, Telangana. The project area encompasses approximately 13,658 square yards,
which converts to about 11,418 square meters. Each Complainant was allotted a flat with a builtup area of 1,594 square feet, along with a corresponding undivided share in the land.
18.

It is clear from the aforementioned data that the land area involved in the project exceeds

500 square meters, and the number of residential units proposed is significantly above eight.
Consequently, the project does not qualify for the exemption specified under Section 3(2) of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016, which exempts projects only where the land area is less than or equal to 500
square meters or the total number of apartments does not exceed eight inclusive of all phases. This
statutory provision is crucial as it imposes a mandatory requirement for registration of projects of
the magnitude of “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak” prior to any advertisement, marketing, or sale activity.
19.

Furthermore, Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 explicitly mandates that every promoter

must file an application for registration of the real estate project in the manner prescribed by the
Rules. In the instant case, there is no evidence on record to suggest that the Respondent has fulfilled
5

---

In light of the foregoing analysis, it is established that the Respondent has committed clear

violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the RERA(R&D) Act, 2016. The Respondent entered into
Agreements of Sale and accepted substantial payments from the Complainants for units in the
project “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak” without obtaining the mandatory registration from this Authority.
Despite being provided an opportunity to demonstrate compliance, the Respondent neither
submitted a valid application under Section 4 nor placed any material on record to justify his
actions. This amounts to a direct and continuing breach of the statutory provisions and violation
of Section 3 of RE(R&D) Act, 2016 which mandates pre-registration as a prerequisite for
marketing, advertising, booking, offering for sale, selling, or entering into any agreement or
inviting person/s to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may be,
in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate project
with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. These actions not only contravene the legal obligations
imposed upon promoters but also undermine the trust and financial security of consumers, which
the RERA(R&D) Act, 2016 seeks to safeguard. Accordingly, the Authority holds the Respondent
liable for penalty under Sections 59 and 60 of the RERA(R&D) Act, 2016 for these violations. In
view of the same, Point I answered in the affirmative.
21.

This Authority further takes notice of the fact that in Complaint No. 115 of 2024, a penalty

of ₹9,96,050/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety-Six Thousand and Fifty Only) was imposed on the
same Respondent for violation of Sections 3 and 4 of the RERA(R&D) Act, 2016 in connection
with the same unregistered project, “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak.” That penalty was levied on account
of the Respondent’s failure to register the project prior to advertising, marketing, and entering into
agreements for sale with prospective buyers. The present complaints emanate from the very same
project and involve identical omissions and statutory contraventions on the part of the Respondent.
The Authority views this pattern of persistent non-compliance and failure to reform, even after
penal action, as a deliberate and wilful breach of the statutory framework prescribed under the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Such conduct undermines the primary
6

---

With respect to reliefs, the Complainants have prayed for full refund of the amounts paid,

together with interest as prescribed under the relevant Rules. In addition, the Complainants have
sought imposition of appropriate punitive action against the Respondent, given the repeated
violations, false assurances, and the overall pattern of conduct exhibiting a wilful disregard for
statutory obligations and consumer rights.
23.

In this context, it is relevant to observe that this Authority is currently seized of numerous

complaints involving M/s Krithika Infra Developers, many raising identical allegations of failure
to register projects, unauthorized collection of funds, mismanagement of allottee monies, and
failure to deliver possession. This persistent pattern of violations across multiple projects indicates
a systemic disregard for the regulatory regime and the allottees protection objectives of the
RERA(R&D) Act, 2016. Such conduct necessitates vigilant oversight and firm penal measures to
deter recurrence and protect the interests of homebuyers.
24.

In addition, this Authority had earlier issued a public notice dated 25.04.2025 for the

concerned project cautioning the general public against engaging in any transactions or dealings
with the Respondent, M/s Krithika Infra Developers and its representatives with respect to the
concerned project, in view of ongoing non-compliance and unresolved grievances. The public
notice served as a protective measure to prevent further financial harm to potential buyers and to
uphold the integrity of the real estate regulatory framework.
25.

Coming to the facts of the present complaint, the Complainants have brought on record

that the Respondent issued post-dated cheques towards refund on three separate occasions dated
7

---

Moreover, despite proper service of notice and subsequent substituted service carried out

in strict compliance with the directions of this Authority, the Respondent deliberately chose not to
appear or file any response. This continued non-participation reflects a blatant disregard for the
proceedings before this Authority and indicates the seriousness of the grievances raised by the
Complainants. The Respondent’s failure to engage with the process further lends credence to the
allegations made and reinforces the necessity for expeditious adjudication and appropriate
remedial action in the interest of justice and consumer protection.
27.

From the material on record, it is evident that the Respondent received the entire sale

consideration from the Complainants but failed to commence any construction activity at the
project site. Despite repeated personal assurances and issuance of multiple post-dated cheques
accompanied by written undertaking, the Respondent did not refund the amounts paid. All such
cheques were dishonoured, and no steps were taken to fulfil the promised refund. This persistent
inaction, coupled with the absence of project development, has resulted in severe financial and
mental hardship to the Complainants.
28.

In view of these circumstances, this Authority finds that the Complainants are entitled to a

refund of the entire amount paid, along with interest, in accordance with Section 18(1)(a) of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 read with Rule 15 of the Telangana Rules,
2017.
29.

As regards, violations are concerned, this Authority in Point I has already concluded the

violations committed on part of the Respondent for which he is liable for penalty. Therefore, Point
II is answered in affirmative, and the Complainants are entitled to a full refund of ₹39,83,406/(Rupees Thirty-Nine Lakh Eighty-Three Thousand Four Hundred and Six Only) each along with
applicable interest. Therefore, Point II is answered in the affirmative.
8

---

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

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

The Respondent is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. ₹39,83,406/-(Rupees Thirty
Nine Lakh Eighty Three Thousands Four Hundred and Six Rupees Only) to each of the
Complainants individually along with interest at the rate of 11% per annum (SBI MCLR
of 9% + 2%) from the date of the agreement of sale (05.11.2022 for Complaint
No.262/2024 and 09.12.2022 for Complaint No. 263/2024) till the date of actual refund in
accordance with Rule 15 of the Rules, 2017 within 30 (thirty) days;

31.

As a result, the 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

9

---