Order Complaint No. 59 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 59/2025/TG RERA
Date: 22nd October, 2025
Quorum:

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

Madhu Sudhan Cheedalla,
R/o. Plot no.319, Flat no. 402,
Lahari Residency, Road No.7,
Anjaneya Nagar, Moosapet,
Hyderabad,
Telangana - 500018.

...Complainant
Versus

1.
2.
3.
4.

M/s. Krithika Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Mr. D. Srikanth, Managing Partner,
Mr. D. Gopal, Managing Director,
Mr. D. Sashikanth, Executive Director.
R/o: Door No: 314, 3rd Floor,
LPT Market, L.B. Nagar,
Ranga Reddy District-500070.

…Respondents

The present matter filed by the Complainant herein came up for hearing before this
Authority in the presence of the Complainant in person, and none appeared on behalf of the
Respondents 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 “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.

Page 1 of 8

---

It is submitted that the Complainant had entered into an Agreement of Sale dated

14.12.2022 with the Respondents in respect of purchase of a flat in the project “Sheshadri’s
Silver Oak” for a total sale consideration of Rs. 35,00,000 (Rupees Thirty-Five Lakhs Only).
The sale consideration amount paid is represented in the table below:
Sl. No.

4.

Date

Amount

Mode of

Receipt/

Payment

Voucher No.

1

18/01/2021

2,50,000

Cash

408

2

28/01/2021

10,00,000

Cash

236

3

28/01/2021

3,00,000

Cheque

359

4

21/06/2021

4,00,000

Cheque

24

5

21/06/2021

2,00,000

Cheque

25

6

12/08/2021

4,30,000

Cash

98

7

12/08/2021

9,20,000

Cash

34

TOTAL

35,00,000

It is submitted that as per the terms stipulated under the Agreement for Sale, the

possession of the subject property was originally scheduled to be handed over to the
Complainant on or before 11.08.2024. However, despite repeated assurances and
representations made by the Respondents regarding timely delivery of the possession of
property to the Complainant it has been unduly delayed beyond the agreed timeline.
5.

It is submitted that the construction activities have not been commenced till date by the

Respondents as the proceeding from the Sanctioning Authority are still pending and have not
yet been sanctioned. Additionally, after several follow-ups and personal visits, the Respondents
had agreed to register an undivided share of 70 square yards of land as collateral security until
the repayment of the due amount. However, the registration for the same has not been executed
till date by the Respondents.

Page 2 of 8

---

In view of the delay and failure to fulfil the commitments made under the above stated

Agreement of Sale, the Respondent developer subsequently issued three cheques in the
Complainants favour as a means of refunding the amount that was paid by the Complainant in
furtherance of the Agreement of Sale. The Respondents have issued three cheques bearing Nos.
002145, 002146, and 002147 dated 30.08.2024, 03.09.2024, and 30.10.2024 respectively, each
for an amount of Rs. 17,36,334/-, inclusive of the compensation for delay. However, all the
aforesaid cheques were dishonoured upon presentation with the endorsement “Insufficient
Funds” in the Respondents' account.
B. Relief sought:
7.

In light of the aforementioned facts, the Complainant has prayed for the following relief

before the Authority:
I.

Instruct the promoter to refund the entire sale consideration along with reasonable
compensation.

C. Points to be determined:
8.

The following issues arise for consideration by the Authority:
I.

Whether the Respondents have 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:
9.

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 Respondents by order dated 13.06.2025.

Page 3 of 8

---

The Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2022 and supporting documents placed on record

by the Complainant clearly establish that the Respondent No. 1, 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 meters), as revealed
through the documents and representations, was intended to host multiple residential
apartments across several blocks. The Complainant was allotted a flat in the 6th Floor, with a
built-up area of 1400 Sq. Feet in the said project and executed an Agreement of Sale, for which
substantial payments were made towards the total sale consideration.
11.

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.
12.

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
no. 1 had ever applied for such registration. On the contrary, the material before this Authority
clearly shows that the Respondent No. 1 has entered into Agreements 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.
13.

The actions of Respondent No. 1, 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
Page 4 of 8

---

In light of the above discussion, this Authority holds that the Respondent no. 1 has

clearly violated the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. The Respondent no. 1 is, therefore, liable for penal action under
Section 59 of the RE (R & D) Act, 2016 for having advertised, marketed, sold, and entered into
agreements for the sale of flats in the unregistered project “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak.” This
conduct not only undermines the statutory objectives of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 but also
causes serious prejudice to the rights and financial security of the allottees.
15.

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 Respondents 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.
16.

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

declared the Respondent No. 1/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 no. 1 are to be terminated with immediate effect, and the Respondent No.
1/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
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
Respondents 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 Respondents.
18.

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

been commenced to date, and the Respondents have failed to secure requisite approvals and
permissions from the competent planning authorities. The Respondents have also not executed
the registration of the promised undivided share (UDS) of land in favour of the Complainant
despite having 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, coupled with the subsequent issuance of cheques that were dishonoured due
to “insufficient funds,” clearly demonstrates a willful default on their part. The issuance and
dishonour of cheques only strengthen the inference that the Respondents had no intention of
fulfilling their contractual commitments or refunding the amount voluntarily.
20.

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.
21.

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

initiating construction, have evidently failed to perform their statutory obligations as
promoters. 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.
22.

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 Respondents.
E. Directions of the Authority
23.

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

Sections 37 and 38, issues the following directions to the Respondents:
i)

The Respondents are 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
Respondents, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order.
Page 7 of 8

---

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

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
25.

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

---