Order Complaint No. 344 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
9th March 2026
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. 344 of 2025

1. Yalamanchili Srinivasa Rao
(S/o. Late Radhakrishna Murthy
Aged about 59 years, Occ-Business
R/o. 6261, Prestige High fields,
Financial District, Ranga Reddy District)

2. Yalamanchili Minaly
(D/o. Y. Srinivasa Rao
Age: 27 years, Occ- Software Employee
R/o. 6261, Prestige High fields,
Financial District, Ranga Reddy District)

… Complainants
Versus
1. M/s. Garudaa Infra Innovative LLP,
(Rep by its designated partners i: Mr. Gunda Satish,
S/o Gunda Umakantham, Aged 35 years,
Occ: MD of M/s. Garudaa Infra,
G/o. 4th foor, Plot No.1038, Teja's Residency, St.6/B,
Botanical Garden Road, Sriram Nagar,
Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084)

2. M/s. Garudaa Infra Innovative LLP,
(Rep by its designated partners ii: Mr. Madduru Murali Jagannadh,
S/o Madduru Panduranga Rao, Aged 52 years,
Occ: Manager of M/s. Garudaa Infra,
G/o. 4th floor, Plot No.1038, Teja's Residency,
St.6/B, Botanical Garden Road, Sriram Nagar,
Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084)

3. M/s. Garudaa Infra Innovative LLP,
(Represented by its Manager Rani
Aged 38 years Occ: Manager of M/s. Garudaa Infra,
O/o. 4th floor, Plot No. 1038, Teja's Residency, St.6/B,
Botanical Garden Road, Sriram Nagar,
Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084)

… Respondents

Page 1 of 9

---

2. Yalamanchili Srinivasa Rao
(S/o. Late Radhakrishna Murthy
Aged about 59 years, Occ-Business
R/o. 6261, Prestige High fields,
Financial District, Ranga Reddy District)

… Complainants
Versus
1. M/s. Garudaa Infra Innovative LLP,
(Rep by its designated partners i: Mr. Gunda Satish,
S/o Gunda Umakantham, Aged 35 years,
Occ: MD of M/s. Garudaa Infra,
G/o. 4th foor, Plot No.1038, Teja's Residency, St.6/B,
Botanical Garden Road, Sriram Nagar,
Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084)

2. M/s. Garudaa Infra Innovative LLP,
(Rep by its designated partners ii: Mr. Madduru Murali Jagannadh,
S/o Madduru Panduranga Rao, Aged 52 years,
Occ: Manager of M/s. Garudaa Infra,
G/o. 4th floor, Plot No.1038, Teja's Residency,
St.6/B, Botanical Garden Road, Sriram Nagar,
Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084)

3. M/s. Garudaa Infra Innovative LLP,
(Represented by its Manager Rani
Aged 38 years Occ: Manager of M/s. Garudaa Infra,
O/o. 4th floor, Plot No. 1038, Teja's Residency, St.6/B,
Botanical Garden Road, Sriram Nagar,
Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084)

… Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainants herein came up for final hearing on
11.12.2025 before this Authority in the presence of Complainants and none appeared on
behalf of the Respondents No.1 to 3, despite service of notices on them and adjourning of the
case several times so as to enable them to take part in the proceedings of the case before this
Authority. Even then they did not choose to appear before this Authority and hence they were
set ex-parte and the case was heard Ex-parte. This Authority proceeds to pass the following
ORDER:

Page 2 of 9

---

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 “RE (R&D)
Act”) read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “TG RE (R&D) Rules”) seeking appropriate
relief(s) as against the Respondents No. 1 to 3 in accordance with law.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

The Complainant No.1 is the Complainant in C.C. No. 344 of 2025 and Complainant

No.2 is the Complainant in C.C. No. 411 of 2025. They are inter se related as father and
daughter respectively. These two Complainants have been filed by the said complaints against
the same Respondent Nos.1 to 3, as detailed in the cause title. Both of them in order to
purchase Villa Nos. 26 and 36 respectively, each Villa having a built-up area of 3000 sq. ft. in
200 sq. yds. situated in Sy.No.70/U/2 of Kardhanur Village, Patanchervu Mandal, Sangareddy
District, at the agreed rate of Rs. 4,200/- per sq. ft. The Complainant No.1 submitted that he
made the following payments to the Respondent No. 2, as detailed in the under mentioned
table in total Rs. 1,10,00,000/-.

Sl.No.
1

Date
22.10.2023

Mode of Payment
TSCA No. 000006

Amount
Rs. 10,00,000/-

2

27.10.2023

SBI Cheque No. 122230

Rs. 10,00,000/-

3

29.10.2023

SBI Cheque No. 122231

Rs. 10,00,000/-

4

02.01.2024

SBI Cheque No. 122233

Rs. 10,00,000/-

5

27.12.2023

CASH

Rs. 20,00,000/-

6

26.12.2023

CASH

Rs. 20,00,000/-

7

27.12.2023

CASH

Rs. 20,00,000/-

8

06.04.2024

CASH

Rs. 10,00,000/-

Total

Rs. 1,10,00,000/-

4.

Paid by
Y. Srinivasa Rao/
Complainant No.1
Y. Srinivasa Rao/
Complainant No.1
Y. Srinivasa Rao/
Complainant No.1
Y. Srinivasa Rao/
Complainant No.1
Y. Srinivasa Rao/
Complainant No.1
Y. Srinivasa Rao/
Complainant No.1
Y. Srinivasa Rao/
Complainant No.1
Y. Srinivasa Rao/
Complainant No.1

It is sated that the Complainant No.2 has paid an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- as detailed

in the following table:
Page 3 of 9

---

Date
19.10.2023

Mode of Payment
SBI Cheque No. 122229

Amount
Rs. 10,00,000/-

2

27.10.2023

SBI Cheque No. 012222

Rs. 10,00,000/-

Total

Rs. 20,00,000/-

5.

Paid by
Y. Minaly/ Complainant
No.2
Y. Minaly/ Complainant
No.2

The Complainants submits that, even after making the above detail payments

aggregating to Rs. 1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty Lakhs only), to the Respondents,
they have neither commenced construction of the subject Villas nor taken up any tangible
steps towards execution of the project and have failed to adhere to their assurances and
contractual obligations in respect of the development of the Villas. Neither Respondents are
showing any responsibility towards the Complainants nor they responding to the
Complainants when they tried to contact them.
6.

Further, the Complainants submit that the Respondents made false promises to them

by showing permissions, RERA approval and other documents pertaining to the land. This
shows Respondents evil nature and evil attitude. Thus, the Respondents have trapped them
with false promises only to avail the amounts from them.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
7.

In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, both the Complainants humbly

prayed for the following relief(s):
i.

To direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to refund a sum of Rs.1,30,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore Thirty Lakhs only) to the Complainants, along with interest at the rate of 24%
per annum calculated from the respective dates of payment until the date of
realization; or, in the alternative, to direct Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allot and hand
over possession of villas in Sy. No. 70/U/2 of Kardhanur Village, Patancheru Mandal,
Sangareddy District.

C. Observations of the Authority:
8.

As can be gathered from the case record notices were issued and send notices dated

01.07.2025 were issued and sent by post of hearing to Respondents No. 1 to 3 for their
appearance before this Authority on 16.07.2025 and to file Counter/Reply on their behalf on
or before the said date. On the said date, they (Respondents) remained absent. Hence, fresh
Page 4 of 9

---

Since, the Respondents No.1 to 3 remained ex-parte and so also did not file any

counter/reply, the pleas and submissions made by the Complainants in their respective
complaints remained unchallenged and un-rebutted. From such pleas and submissions, and
also from the information that has come to the notice of this Authority, that M/s. Garudaa
Infra Innovative LLP, the Respondent, represented by its designated partners, Sri Gunda
Satish and Sri Madduru Murali Jagannadh, has been advertising, marketing, offering for sale,
and inviting persons to purchase units in its project situated in Sy. No. 70/U/2 of Kahardanoor
Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District.
10.

Then, upon verification of information available on webpage of TG RERA it was

found that the said project was not registered with TG RERA and no application was filed for
getting registration of project with TG-RERA, and thereby the Respondents contravened the
provisions of Section 3(1) and 4(1) of Real Estate Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 04.08.2025 was issued to Respondents calling upon
them to submit their explanation with respect to the said violations. Despite due service of
notice of this Show Cause Notice, the Respondents failed to appear before this Authority and
so also failed to file any reply or place on record any material in their defence.
11.

Section 3(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 unequivocally

mandates that no promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell, offer for sale, or invite persons
to purchase any plot, apartment or building in any real estate project without prior registration
of such project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. The material placed on record
clearly establishes that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have collected an aggregate amount of
Rs.1,30,00,000/- from the Complainants towards the said Villas in Sy.No. 70/U/2 of
Page 5 of 9

---

Acceptance of consideration in any form prior to registration constitutes a direct and

continuing violation of Section 3(1) of the RE (R&D) Act. The obligation to secure
registration is mandatory, absolute and a condition precedent to the commencement of
marketing, booking or collection of advances. Any representation that registration or
approvals would be obtained subsequently does not absolve the Respondents of statutory
liability, nor can such post-facto justification cure the illegality committed in contravention of
the RE (R&D) Act.
13.

Furthermore, Section 4(1) of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 mandates that a promoter shall

apply for registration of the project with the Authority in the prescribed manner before
undertaking any sale or marketing activity. In the present case, there is no material on record
to show that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had applied for or obtained registration of the subject
project. Notwithstanding the same, they proceeded to collect Rs. 1,30,00,000/- from the
Complainants, which constitutes a clear violation of the statutory mandate.
14.

The conduct of the Respondents, as discernible from the material placed on record,

including stamped receipts bearing the seal of “Garudaa Infra” and duly signed by the
authorised signatory, prima facie evidences receipt of the amounts towards the proposed
Villas. The said acts constitute conscious and deliberate non-compliance with the mandatory
provisions of the Act and are in derogation of the statutory safeguards enacted for the
protection of allottees.
15.

The relevant portion of Section 3(1) of the RE (R&D) Act is extracted below for

reference:
“No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for sale, or invite
persons 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 established under this Act.
16. Having regard to the foregoing findings, this Authority holds that Respondent Nos. 1 to
3 have contravened Sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Act. As a consequence of such violations,

Page 6 of 9

---

Accordingly, Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are held liable for penalty under Sections 59 and

60 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 and the Authority shall initiate appropriate proceedings for
imposition of such penalty in accordance with law.
18.

Insofar as the relief sought in the present complaint is concerned, the Complainants

have prayed for refund of the said amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- paid by Complainant No.1 and
Rs. 20,00,000/- paid by Complainant No.2 to the Respondents along with interest, as can be
gathered from the pleas and submission made by the Complaint No.1 in CC. 344 of 2025 and
Complainant No.2 in CC. No. 411 of 2025 coupled with payment receipts filed by each one
of them along with the complaints, which remained un-rebutted and un-contested in view of
Respondents remaining ex-parte and as also in the absence of any contra evidence or material
on their behalf (Respondents) that the claim of the Complainant No.1 that he paid
Rs.1,10,00,000/- and the claim of Complainant No.2 that she paid Rs. 20,00,000/- to the
Respondents, this Authority in its considered view concludes that the above claims of
payments made by the Complainants No. 1 and 2 respectively is true and sustainable.
19.

In view of the categorical findings recorded hereinabove that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3

have collected the said amount in contravention of the provisions of the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and also failed to commence construction of the
subject Villas, therefore the Complainants No. 1 & 2 respectively are legally entitled to seek
refund of the amounts so paid. The continued retention of the said sum by the Respondents,
in the absence of registration and in the absence of any progress in development, is unlawful
and unsustainable in law.
Page 7 of 9

---

This Authority has thus duly considered the statutory right of the Complainants to seek

refund under Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Nonregistration of the project and failure to commence construction or deliver possession
constitute clear violations of the statutory obligations of the Promoter/Respondent(s), as per
Section 18(1) of RE (R&D) Act, which safeguards the interests of allottees, and the same
cannot be defeated by the Respondents by non-compliance. Accordingly, the Complainants
are entitled to refund of the amounts paid by each of them as detailed herein above, along
with admissible interest, in accordance with provision of RE (R&D) Act.
21. The provisions of Section 18(1) of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016 reads thus;
“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.

As per the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs and the material available on

record establishes that the Complainant No.1 has paid Rs.1, 10,00,000/- and Complainant No.
2 has paid Rs. 20,00,000 towards Villa Nos. 26 and 36 respectively, to the Respondents
through receipts and endorsements filed by the Complainants and available on record. Thus,
the total consideration of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- by Complainant No.1 and Rs. 20,00,000/- paid by
Complainant No.2 stands proved as having been received by the Respondents towards the
subject Villas.
23.

Consequently, this Authority is of the considered view that the Complainants are

entitled to the relief of refund of the amounts as sought for by each of them, as detailed
hereinabove in Para Nos. 18 and 22, along with applicable interest, in accordance with Rule
15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, framed under
RE(R&D) Act i.e., at the rate of the current highest Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR)

Page 8 of 9

---

In light of the foregoing discussion, findings, and conclusions recorded hereinabove,

and in exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the following directions are hereby
issued to the Respondents:
i.

The Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby restrained from advertising, marketing,
booking, selling, or collecting any consideration in respect of the subject project
without obtaining registration under Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation
and Development) Act, 2016. The Secretary, Telangana RERA, shall initiate
proceedings under Sections 59 and 60 of the Act for imposition of an appropriate
penalty and Respondents, subject to the approval of the Authority.

ii.

The Respondents are hereby directed to refund the amount specified in Paragraphs 22
and 23 above, i.e., Rs. 1,10,00,000/- to Complainant No.1 and Rs. 20,00,000/- to
Complainant No.2 respectively along with interest at the rate of 10.70% per annum to
each of them, calculated from the respective dates of payment until the date of actual
realization within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of this Order.

25.

Failure to comply with this Order shall attract Section 63 of the RE (R&D) Act, 2016.

26.

The Complaint is disposed of in lieu of the above directions. 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 9 of 9

---