Order Complaint No. 381 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Date: 7th 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. 381/2025/TG RERA

Alekhya Chintakayala
(R/o 101, Asha Residency. Road 4A,
Bandari layout, Nizampet village,
Hyderabad- 500090)
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Idream Sai RK Infra., represented by,
1. Pratap Reddy Sanapu, Managing Partner
2. Konda Reddy, Managing Partner
3. Rajasekhar
(Office at Survey No.350, near to AERO Nagar, Pragathi Nagar, Bachupally, Hyderabad,
Telangana 500090)
…Respondents
The present matter, filed by the Complainant, came up for hearing before this Authority,
in the presence of the Complainant and the Respondents in person. After hearing the
submissions of the Complainant and the Respondents, this Authority now proceeds to pass the
following ORDER:
2.

The present Complaint have 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 reliefs against the Respondents.
A. Brief Facts of the Case as per Form M submitted by the Complainant:
3.

It was submitted that the Complainant intended to purchase a semi-finished residential

flat bearing No. 718, on the 7th floor, admeasuring 1465 sq. ft. of built-up area, together with
an undivided share of land admeasuring 30 sq. yds., in the project known as “OXYGEN
HOMES”. The said project, situated at Survey No. 350, Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur
Page 1 of 8

---

It was further submitted that the total sale consideration for the said flat was fixed at

₹70,32,000/-. The Complainant paid an amount of ₹14,00,000/- towards down payment in
October 2021, and an Agreement of Sale was executed on 06-12-2021. To meet the balance
consideration, the Complainant availed a housing loan of ₹56,00,000/- from HDFC Bank vide
Loan Account No. 669379870, with interest at 9.20% per annum, sanctioned in December
2021. The Complainant commenced payment of Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) from
January 2022 and continued paying the same.
5.

The Complainant stated that in June 2024, finding the kitchen and bedroom of the

subject flat (No. 718) to be insufficient in size, she approached Mr. Prathap to replace the unit
with a 2BHK flat. Consequently, Flat No. 222, admeasuring 1260 sq. ft., was orally allotted to
the Complainant around August-September 2024. However, upon visiting the site in January
2025 along with her family, the security personnel denied them entry, stating that the
Complainant’s name was not reflected against either Flat No. 718 or Flat No. 222.
6.

It was submitted that, upon verification, it was revealed that Flat No. 718 had been

registered in favour of a third party, Mr. Vishal, for a consideration of ₹95,00,000/- (excluding
registration charges), despite the Complainant continuing to pay the EMIs. Furthermore, an
agreement of sale for Flat No. 222 was found to be executed in the name of one Mr. Gangadhar.
The Developer failed to inform the Complainant or obtain her consent regarding these
transactions. Aggrieved by the same, the Complainant and her father, Mr. Chandra Sekhar Rao,
approached the Developer on 04-01-2025 to close the transaction. The parties arrived at a
settlement for a sum of ₹84,64,500/-, with an undertaking by the Developer to pay the EMIs
from January 2025 onwards. The Complainant also informed the bank regarding the issue via
email in January 2025 and met the HDFC Bank Manager in February 2025.
7.

It was further submitted that the Developer failed to fulfill the terms of the settlement

as committed. Upon the Complainant’s visit to the site in February 2025 and meeting with Mr.
Konda Reddy and Mr. Rajasekhar, the timeline for closure was extended to March 2025.
Subsequently, the Developer returned a partial payment of ₹15,00,000/- in March 2025 and

Page 2 of 8

---

The Complainant submitted that as of 27-05-2025, the Developer had returned only

₹15,00,000/- and the EMIs for the period from January 2025 to May 2025. There was no
visibility regarding the pending amount of ₹13,64,504/- or the closure of the outstanding loan
amount of ₹56,00,000/- with HDFC Bank. In view of the above, the Complainant prayed for
immediate action to enforce the settlement and close the transaction.
B. Relief(s) Sought
9.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
i.

ii.

Flat value agreed in 2021-70,32,000 INR
Flat value in 2024-95,00,000 INR (Registered to another)
Agreed value by both parties in Jan 2025-8464500 INR +EMI from Jan 25 Total
amount returned by builder till date - 15 lakh +EMI- Jan 25 to May'25
Balance amount to be paid = Bank loan - 56 Lakh and pending amount 1364504 + EMI
70 Lakhs
Interest amount as applicable norms for 70 lakhs

iii.

Compensation for mental agony and hardship - 7.5 Lakh

iv.

Opportunity Loss (unable to invest in new): 9 Lakh

v.

Any other relief the Authority deems fit in the interest of Justice

C. Counter filed by Respondents 1, 2 & 3.
10.

The Respondents, represented by Respondent No. 3, Sri Rajasekhar Reddy, Managing

Partner of M/s IDREAM SAI RK INFRA, submitted the counter-affidavit. It was stated that
the complaint was not maintainable either in law or on facts and was liable to be dismissed as
the Complainant had not approached the Authority with clean hands and was guilty of
suppressio facto and suppressio veri. The Respondents denied all allegations made in the
complaint, save for those expressly admitted, and put the Complainant to strict proof of the
same.
11.

It was submitted that the Complainant voluntarily approached the Respondents to

purchase a 3BHK residential apartment, specifically Flat No. 718, admeasuring 1465 sq. ft., in
the project "Oxygen Homes" at Gajularamaram Village. A Sale Agreement was executed on
06-12-2021 for a total sale consideration of ₹70,32,000/-. The Respondents stated that the
Complainant paid an advance of ₹14,00,000/- in October 2021 and subsequently secured a loan
Page 3 of 8

---

The Respondents submitted that in June 2024, the Complainant unilaterally requested

to exchange the originally booked 3BHK flat for a 2BHK unit. Acceding to this request, the
Respondents offered Flat No. 222, admeasuring 1260 sq. ft., for a negotiated consideration of
₹65,00,000/-, with the understanding that previous payments would be adjusted. However, it
was subsequently discovered due to an internal miscommunication between the marketing and
sales department of the Respondents that Flat No. 222 had already been agreed to be sold to
another customer. Upon being informed of this oversight, the Complainant expressed her
intention to cancel the transaction.
13.

It was further submitted that to rectify the situation, the Respondents proposed to cancel

the agreement, refund the entire amount received, and pay an additional goodwill amount of
₹14,32,500/-, totalling ₹84,64,500/-. In fulfillment of this settlement, the Respondents refunded
₹29,79,000/- directly to the Complainant in a phased manner via cheques. Additionally, the
Respondents undertook to clear the housing loan liability of ₹49,79,000/-, which was
discharged on 28-07-2025, with the loan closure letter issued on 26-08-2025. The particulars
of the ₹29,79,000/- refunded directly to the Complainant were tabulated as follows:
Date

Amount (₹)

Mode of Payment

11-03-2025

10,00,000/-

Cheque Nos. KVB00518 & KVB00519

13-03-2025

5,00,000/-

Cheque No. KVB000520

03-06-2025

5,00,000/-

Cheque No. HDFC003085

05-06-2025

5,00,000/-

Cheque No. HDFC003086

06-06-2025

4,79,000/-

Cheque No. HDFC003087

14.

The Respondents stated that they also bore the burden of paying the EMIs on the

Complainant’s housing loan from January 2025 to July 2025. A cancellation agreement was
signed in July 2025, wherein the Complainant received a full refund along with an additional
goodwill sum of ₹14,32,500/-. It was contended that despite this full and final settlement, the
Page 4 of 8

---

The Complainant filed a Counter Reply to the submissions made by the Respondents.

At the outset, the Complainant reiterated the facts regarding the execution of the Agreement of
Sale dated 06-12-2021 for Flat No. 718, admeasuring 1465 sq. ft. (3BHK), for a total
consideration of ₹70,32,000/-. It was submitted that an advance amount of ₹14,00,000/- was
paid in October 2021, and a housing loan of ₹56,00,000/- was availed from HDFC Bank. A
sum of ₹49,79,000/- was disbursed directly to the Respondents, bringing the total amount paid
to ₹63,79,000/-. The Complainant stated that she had been paying the Equated Monthly
Installments (EMIs) diligently since January 2022.
16.

Regarding the allegation of non-payment of GST, the Complainant vehemently denied

the same. It was submitted that once the Complainant conveyed her unwillingness to proceed
with Flat No. 718 in or about June 2024 and requested cancellation and settlement, the demand
for GST no longer arose. It was contended that despite repeated follow-ups, the delay in
settlement and refund was caused solely by the Respondents. Therefore, the non-payment of
GST could not be attributed to the Complainant nor treated as a default.
17.

The Complainant further placed on record the specific circumstances surrounding the

request for a change of flat. It was stated that around June 2024, upon inspection and evaluation,
the Complainant found the kitchen area of Flat No. 718 to be significantly smaller than
expected and unsuitable for her requirements, noting that approximately 30% of the area was
allocated to balconies. Consequently, mutual discussions were held, and the Respondents
offered an alternative unit, Flat No. 222, admeasuring approximately 1260 sq. ft., at a mutually
agreed price of ₹65,00,000/-. It was emphasized that this arrangement was reached through
bilateral negotiation and consent, and was not a unilateral decision by the Complainant.
18.

It was forcefully submitted that while offering Flat No. 222 to the Complainant, the

Respondents simultaneously resold the originally allotted Flat No. 718 for approximately
₹95,00,000/- around September/October 2024, without informing the Complainant. It was
argued that although the Respondents benefited from the higher value upon resale, they failed
to settle the Complainant’s account promptly. Despite repeated requests from October 2024
Page 5 of 8

---

The Complainant contended that the resale of Flat No. 718 was illegal and constituted

an unfair trade practice. It was submitted that the said flat, being under a subsisting Agreement
of Sale with the Complainant, could not have been lawfully sold or registered to a third party
without the Complainant’s written cancellation and the bank's clearance. At the time of the said
resale, the Complainant was still servicing the EMIs on the HDFC loan linked to Flat No. 718.
This action was termed a clear deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents.
20.

It was further submitted that the Complainant requested a refund in January 2025 when

it was discovered that Flat No. 222 was also unavailable. While acknowledging the
Respondents' admission of inadvertent error, the Complainant stated that a settlement closure
was mutually decided in January 2025. However, the Respondents repeatedly shifted the
timelines from January 2025 to March 2025, and subsequently to May 2025. It was stated that
during this prolonged period, the Complainant suffered severe financial stress.
21.

The Complainant submitted that the Respondents settled the matter by clearing the

HDFC loan liability and refunding the amounts along with a goodwill payment only in July
2025, subsequent to the filing of the RERA complaint. The Complainant acknowledged signing
the cancellation agreement in July 2025 as a procedural requirement for the closure of the bank
loan.
22.

Finally, the Complainant detailed the opportunity loss and mental agony suffered. It

was submitted that funds remained blocked from June 2024 to July 2025, resulting in the loss
of multiple investment opportunities. The Complainant narrated that in January 2025, upon
discovering that Flat No. 718 had been sold to another purchaser and Flat No. 222 was under
agreement with a third party, she realized she had been paying EMIs for over three years
without any flat in her name. It was further stated that when she visited the project with her
family, the security personnel refused to allow her car to be parked, causing humiliation and
distress. Despite acting patiently and extending time for settlement, the constant follow-ups
and absence of the Respondents in scheduled bank meetings caused immense mental stress. It
was submitted that the delay and mistreatment caused severe financial loss, opportunity cost,
and mental agony.
Page 6 of 8

---

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

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

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

E. Observations of the Authority:
Point I
24.

Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the

submissions advanced by both parties, this Authority observes that the dispute between the
parties stood resolved by way of mutual settlement. It is an admitted position that a cancellation
agreement was executed between the Complainant and the Respondents on 28.07.2025,
whereby the Agreement of Sale in respect of the subject flat was cancelled by mutual consent.
25.

This Authority further notes that the Complainant herself, in her rejoinder, has

acknowledged that the issue relating to refund and cancellation of the subject flat was
completed in July 2025. The said admission clearly establishes that the transaction between the
parties has been brought to a closure and that the reliefs pertaining to refund no longer survive
for consideration before this Authority.
26.

It is also placed on record that, as part of the settlement, the Respondents have paid an

amount of ₹14,32,500/- as goodwill to the Complainant. The Respondents have stated that the
entire dispute arose on account of a misunderstanding on their part, and the goodwill payment
was made to amicably resolve the matter and avoid further hardship to the Complainant.
27.

This Authority notes that the Complainant has acknowledged receipt of the amounts

paid pursuant to the settlement and has voluntarily executed the cancellation agreement dated
28.07.2025. The settlement, therefore, reflects a conscious and informed compromise arrived
at between the parties, resulting in the complete resolution of the dispute relating to the subject
flat.
28.

In view of the above, this Authority is of the considered opinion that no surviving cause

of action subsists insofar as the reliefs sought in the present complaint are concerned.
Accordingly, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as having been settled between the parties.

Page 7 of 8

---

However, with respect to the claim of compensation towards mental agony and alleged

opportunity loss, this Authority observes that such claims fall within the scope of adjudication
under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Liberty is
therefore reserved to the Complainant to approach the Adjudicating Officer, if so advised, in
accordance with law.
30.

Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. 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

---