Order Complaint No. 295 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 295 of 2025
Dated: 3rd November, 2025
Quorum:

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

Kosuri Uma Maheshwari,
R/o. H.No: Apt flat No. 501, Sai Ram Castle Apartment,
Plot No. 1331, Near Narayana Narmada Girls Campus,
Road No. 11 VIP Hills, Silicon Valley,
Hyderabad, Telangana - 500081
…Complainant
Versus
M/s. Krithika Infra Developers,
Represented by:
i. Doomavath Gopal, Director
ii. Radha Bhukya, Managing Director
iii. Doomavath Srikanth, Managing Partner/CEO
iv. Doomavath Shashikanth, Manager
All the Respondents are Residents of:
3rd Floor, X Road, Beside Bahar Cafe,
Opposite HP Petrol Bunk, LPT Market,
LB Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500074
…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing on 29.08.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Counsel for Complainant
Mr. D Lalith Kumar, and none for the Respondent despite service of notice, hence set ex-parte
and upon hearing the submissions of the Complainant, this Authority proceeds to pass the
following ORDER:
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 “RE(R&D) 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.
Page 1 of 8

---

It is submitted that the Complainant had purchased a flat from the Respondent

M/s. Krithika Infra Developers, situated at Survey No. 215, admeasuring 13,658 sq. yards
(11,418 sq. meters), at Boduppal Village, under Boduppal Municipality, Medipally Mandal,
Medchal–Malkajgiri District, Telangana. The said land was taken by M/s. Krithika Infra
Developers from its original owners for developing the said property into residential flats.
4.

The Complainant states that she purchased the flat during the pre-launch offer and was

issued an Agreement of Sale vide Document Sl. No. 29780, AK 938473, dated 01.08.2022, for
a flat of 1433 sq. ft. along with one car parking in the project “Sheshadri’s Silveroak.” The total
sale consideration of ₹35,00,000/- was paid by the Complainant between 06.06.2022 and
04.07.2022 through online transactions.
5.

Subsequently, the Respondent–Developer allegedly compelled the Complainant to pay

an additional sum of ₹2,85,000/- towards registration charges for UDS land of 31.8 sq. yards,
which amount was paid in February 2023. However, despite receipt of the said amount, the
Developer has not registered the UDS in favour of the Complainant, which the Complainant
contends amounts to cheating and breach of trust.
6.

The Complainant further submits that a subsequent Agreement of Sale was executed by

M/s. Krithika Infra Developers through its Managing Partner/CEO, Sri D. Srikanth, vide
Document AY 816468, assuring execution and completion. However, till date, the Developer
has not commenced any construction, nor has any progress been made on the project. It is
further alleged that the Developer has not obtained the necessary approvals for construction
and has also failed to secure RERA registration for the project.
7.

The Complainant states that despite repeated approaches, the Respondent–Developer

has neither registered the land nor commenced development, and presently they do not appear
to have land available for registration of the promised flat.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

Instruct the Promoters to register the land to the non-registered members.

ii.

Instruct the Promoters to get the RERA registration.

iii.

Instruct the Promoters to develop the development works as promised at the earliest.
Page 2 of 8

---

If the above 1, 2 & 3 points are not possible then we would request the RERA Authorities
to issue the orders in this matter to get the full refund, including the registration charges
of the above said amount with interest from the date of full payment as per government
norms.

v.

Till the time of refund process, M/s. Krithika Infra Developers should not do any activity
of selling the land or cancelling of Development agreement to registered members.

vi.

Request the RERA Authorities to give the timelines for the above requests as we are
paying the interest amount.

C. Points to be determined:
9.

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

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Respondent has violated Sections 3 & 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 by not
registering the project, Sheshadiri’s Silver Oak?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?

D. Observations of the Authority:
10.

The record clearly indicates that despite due service of notice through registered post

and substituted service, the Respondents have failed to appear before this Authority, nor have
they filed any written response or made any representation to contest the allegations made by
the Complainants. Such persistent non-appearance and failure to respond, despite repeated
opportunities afforded, demonstrate a deliberate disregard for the proceedings of this Authority.
Therefore, after being satisfied that due process was duly followed and all procedural
requirements were complied with, this Authority was constrained to proceed ex parte against
the Respondent by order dated 29.08.2025.
POINT I
11.

The Agreements of Sale dated 01.08.2022 and 13.07.2023, along with supporting

documents placed on record by the Complainant clearly establish that the Respondent, M/s.
Krithika Infra Developers, had launched and marketed a project titled “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak”
proposed to be developed at Survey No. 215, Boduppal Village, Medchal–Malkajgiri District,
Telangana. The land admeasuring approximately 13,658 square yards (about 11,418 square
Page 3 of 8

---

It is evident from the above that the area of land involved in the proposed project far

exceeds 500 square meters, and the number of apartments proposed clearly surpasses the
threshold of eight units. Therefore, the project does not fall within the ambit of exemption
prescribed under Section 3(2) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016,
which limits exemption only to projects below 500 square meters or eight apartments, inclusive
of all phases. Accordingly, the project Sheshadri’s Silver Oak mandatorily required registration
with the Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority prior to any form of advertisement,
marketing, booking, or sale.
13.

Further, under Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, every promoter is obligated to

submit an application for registration of a real estate project, enclosing all requisite documents
and disclosures as prescribed under the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the Respondent
had ever applied for such registration. On the contrary, the material before this Authority
clearly shows that the Respondent has entered into Agreement of Sale with the Complainant,
collected substantial sale consideration, and even undertaken to register undivided shares of
land, all without obtaining prior registration. Such conduct amounts to a direct contravention
of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
14.

The actions of Respondent, launching a “pre-launch offer,” advertising, accepting

bookings, executing sale agreements, and collecting payments without registration, constitute
grave statutory violations. These actions defeat the very objective of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which is to ensure transparency, accountability, and
protection of consumer interests in the real estate sector. The said non-compliance with the
mandatory registration provisions renders the entire transaction illegal and voidable at the
instance of the allottees.
15.

In light of the above discussion, this Authority holds that the Respondent has clearly

violated the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016. The Respondent is, therefore, liable for penal action under Section 59 of the
Page 4 of 8

---

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. 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 RE(R&D) Act, 2016 for the
same project. 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.

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

declared the Respondent/Promoter, M/s Krithika Infra Developers, as a “defaulter” for
continuous and willful violations of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Accordingly, all developmental activities undertaken by the said
Respondent are to be terminated with immediate effect, and the Respondent/Promoter is
restrained from carrying out any further advertisement, marketing, booking, sale, or offer for
sale of any apartment or part thereof in the said project or any other projects in the future, in
any manner whatsoever. The relevant portion of the above-mentioned order reads as follows:
Para 23. Further, the Respondent has consistently exhibited wilful contempt
for the authority. Despite due service of notices, publication of public notice,
and repeated opportunities, the Respondent has failed to appear, file replies,
or offer any explanation. Such recalcitrant conduct demonstrates wilful
disobedience, procedural evasion, and a premeditated intention to obstruct
justice and subvert regulatory oversight. The Respondent’s conduct strikes at
the very root of the regulatory mechanism envisaged under the RE(R&D) Act,
thereby undermining the faith of allottees and the integrity of the real estate
sector.
Para 24. In light of the above, and considering the grave, continued, and wilful
violations of statutory obligations, coupled with the malafide intent to deceive
and defraud the public at large, this Authority is constrained to hold that the
Respondent has engaged in malpractice, unfair trade practice, and deliberate
Page 5 of 8

---

Upon careful examination of the documents and submissions placed on record, this

Authority observes that the Complainant has produced substantial evidence in support of
having paid the total sale consideration of ₹35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs only) to the
Respondent towards the purchase of a residential flat in the project titled “Sheshadri’s Silver
Oak” situated at Sy. No. 215, Boduppal Village, Medchal–Malkajgiri District. The payment
details furnished in the complaint and corroborated by vouchers and receipts demonstrate that
the entire amount has been received by the Respondent.
19.

The Complainant has further stated that she paid an additional sum of ₹2,85,000/-

(Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty-Five Thousand only) in the month of February 2023 towards
registration of the undivided share of land admeasuring 31.8 sq. yds. However, the
Complainant has not submitted any receipts, bank records, or documentary proof to
substantiate such payment. The Agreement of Sale and payment receipts placed on record
clearly show that an amount of ₹35,00,000/- was paid towards the said flat. In the absence of
proof of payment of the additional amount of ₹2,85,000/-, the same cannot be considered for
refund.
20.

It is evident from the record that the construction activity on the project site has not

been commenced to date, and the Respondent has failed to secure requisite approvals and
permissions from the competent planning authorities. The Respondent has also not executed
the registration of the promised undivided share (UDS) of land in favour of the Complainant
despite having allegedly accepted specific amounts for that purpose.

Page 6 of 8

---

The Respondents’ failure to commence the project or to deliver possession within the

stipulated period, clearly demonstrates a wilful default on their part and only strengthens the
inference that the Respondent had no intention of fulfilling their contractual commitments or
refunding the amount voluntarily.
22.

Under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, a

promoter is bound to return the amount received from an allottee, along with interest at the
prescribed rate and compensation, in the event that the promoter fails to complete or is unable
to give possession of the apartment, plot, or building as per the terms of the agreement for sale.
23.

In the present case, the Respondent, having received the full sale consideration without

initiating construction, has evidently failed to perform its statutory obligations as promoter.
Consequently, the Complainant is entitled to a refund of the amount paid along with interest as
stipulated under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,
2017, which prescribes that the rate of interest payable by the promoter to the allottee shall be
the State Bank of India’s highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus two percent.
24.

Therefore, this Authority holds that the Complainant is entitled to a refund of the entire

sum of ₹35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs only) paid towards the purchase of the flat,
along with 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 highest MCLR + 2%
per annum, calculated from the respective dates of payment made by the Complainant until the
date of actual refund by the Respondent.
E. Directions of the Authority
25.

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. 35,00,000/- (Rupees
Thirty-Five Lakhs Only) along with interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI
MCLR of 8.75% + 2%) calculated from the respective dates of payment made by
the Complainant until the date of actual refund by the Respondent. The said refund
together with interest shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of this
order.

Page 7 of 8

---

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

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

In view of the above, the present 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

Page 8 of 8

---