Order Complaint No. 65 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
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

Complaint No. 64/2025/TG RERA
Miriyala Bhagyalakshmi
R/o: H. No. 17-1-391/s/396, Singareni Colony
Saidabad, Hyderabad – 500059
Telangana

….Complainant

And
M/s. Krithika Infra Developers,
Represented through its Authorized M.D/CEO/Directors,
i. Smt. D. Radha Bukhya,
ii. Sri. D. Gopal,
iii. Sri. D. Srikanth
iv. Sri. D. Shashikanth
Office at: Shop No.314, 3rd Floor, H.No. 3-8-106,
LPT Market, Chintalakunta, L.B. Nagar, Ring Road,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500074.
…Respondents

Complaint No. 65/2025/TG RERA
Smt. Janaki,
R/o: H.No. 16-11-741, Flat No. 302,
Lakhsmi Kumar RK Heights Apartment,
Moosarambagh, Hyderabad

….Complainant
And

M/s. Krithika Infra Developers,
Represented through its Authorized M.D/CEO/Directors,
i. Smt. D. Radha Bukhya,
ii. Sri. D. Gopal,
iii. Sri. D. Srikanth
iv. Sri. D. Shashikanth
Page 1 of 7

---

The above-named Complainants made separate complaints to the Authority based on
similar facts and are seeking the same or similar relief against the same Promoter/Respondents
in the same project. Therefore, in terms of Regulation 7(9) made under the Real Estate
(Regulation & Development) Act, 2016, this Authority clubbed all the complaints filed by the
said Complainants together to dispose of them all in this common proceeding.
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 Complainants, this Authority proceeds to pass the following ORDER:
3.

The present Complaints have 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 Respondents.
A. Brief Facts of the Case:
4.

In November 2021, the complainants received calls from a tele-caller representing the

Respondent company, M/s. Krithika Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., informing them about the prelaunch offer of the proposed residential project “Seshadri’s Silver Oak” at Boduppal. It was
represented that all requisite approvals from competent authorities would be obtained within
two to three months, and that the construction would be completed, and possession of flats
would be handed over between December 2022 and maximum by March 2023. The
Complainants were further assured that in the event of full payment, the Respondent would
execute a Sale Deed for the undivided share of land (U.D.S.) immediately to safeguard the
interest of purchasers.
5.

Relying on these representations, the Complainants were coordinated by Ms. Supriya,

Sales Manager, and made full payments during December 2021 to January 2022, as detailed
below:
Page 2 of 7

---

Complaint No. 64 of 2025 (Smt. Miriyala Bhagya Lakshmi): Paid a total sum of
₹54,34,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Four Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand only) between December
2021 and January 2022, being the full price of a flat admeasuring 2470 sq. ft. (Flat No. B108, G+4 floor), inclusive of registration charges.

•

Complaint No. 65 of 2025 (Smt. Miriyala Janaki): Paid a total sum of ₹50,82,000/(Rupees Fifty Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand only) during the same period, being the full
price of a flat admeasuring 2310 sq. ft. (Flat No. C-110, G+4 floor), inclusive of
registration charges.

6.

Pursuant to the above payments, the Respondent executed Sale Deeds bearing

Document No. 1763/2022 registered at SRO Uppal, conveying 75 square yards of undivided
share of land (U.D.S.) to each of the Complainants, in the project land situated in Sy.No. 215,
Boduppal Village. In the said document, the name of Smt. Miriyala Bhagya Lakshmi appears
at Page 3, Serial No. 7, and the name of Smt. Miriyala Janaki appears at Page 3, Serial No. 6.
These sale deeds were executed by virtue of A.G.P.A. No. 431/2022 registered at the same
SRO.
7.

Subsequently, the Respondent obtained a Development A.G.P.A. bearing Document

No. 3201/2022 at SRO Uppal, authorizing the construction of the proposed residential
apartment complex. In this document, the names of Smt. Miriyala Bhagya Lakshmi and Smt.
Miriyala Janaki are recorded at Page 4, Serial Nos. 20 and 19, respectively, as consenting flat
purchasers who had executed the same in favour of the Respondent.
8.

The Respondent represented to the Complainants that construction was in progress and

that possession would be delivered by December 2022, or at the latest by March 2023.
However, subsequently, the Respondent informed the Complainants that the construction
permission obtained from HMDA vide Permit No. 009613/BP/HMDA/2100/GHT/2023 was
only for Cellar + Ground + First Floor, and that further approvals for additional floors and
RERA registration would be sought after completing the cellar and ground work.
9.

The Complainants observed that no proper construction was undertaken, that the

Respondent failed to furnish any evidence of applications for further permissions, and that the
project was being handled in a disorganized and irregular manner. When questioned, the
Respondents began evading the Complainants’ calls, postponing the matter, and at times
speaking in an offensive or dismissive manner.
Page 3 of 7

---

From January 2023, the Complainants repeatedly sought refund of their amounts, which

the Respondents kept deferring on one pretext or another. Despite continuous follow-ups, the
refund was not made. Finding no progress, both Complainants submitted formal Flat
Cancellation and Refund Request Letters in August 2023, seeking refund of the full amounts
paid. However, even thereafter, no refund was made, and the Respondent’s office has remained
closed for the past few months.
11.

It is further submitted by Complainant in Complaint No. 64 of 2025, that after repeated

demands, the Respondents made only partial repayments aggregating ₹ 31,00,000/- between
August 2023 and March 2024 and have failed to refund the balance ₹ 23,34,000/-. The said
information has been provided by the Complainant in Complaint No. 64 of 2025 as follows:
Complaint No. 64 of 2025 – Details of Payments and Refunds (Smt. Miriyala Bhagya
Lakshmi)
Amounts Paid to the Respondent:
Sl. No.

Date / Receipt / Mode

Amount (₹)

Remarks

1

Receipt No. 278 dated 13-12-2021 –

1,00,000

Cheque

4,00,000

Cheque

15,00,000

Cash

15,00,000

Cheque

2,47,000

Cheque

8,00,000

Cheque

Cheque No. 914062, SBI
Saraswathinagar (Cleared 14-12-2021)
2

Receipt No. 336 dated 16-12-2021 –
Cheque No. 914064, SBI
Saraswathinagar (Cleared 18-12-2021)

3

Receipt No. 486 dated 03-01-2022 –
Cash

4

Receipt No. 514 dated 07-01-2022 –
Cheque No. 914061, SBI
Saraswathinagar (Cleared 10-01-2022)

5

Receipt No. 556 dated 20-01-2022 –
Cheque No. 914066, SBI
Saraswathinagar (Cleared 21-01-2022)

6

Receipt No. 564 dated 24-01-2022 –
Cheque No. 914067, SBI
Saraswathinagar (Cleared 28-01-2022)

Page 4 of 7

---

7

8,87,000

Cheque

Cheque No. 914068, SBI
Saraswathinagar (Cleared 28-01-2022)
Total Paid as on 24.01.2022

Rs. 54,34,000/-

Refunds Received (Partial) and Balance Pending:
Date

Refund Amount (₹)

Balance (₹)

25-08-2023

4,00,000

50,34,000

26-08-2023

2,00,000

48,34,000

07-12-2023

5,00,000

43,34,000

11-12-2023

5,00,000

38,34,000

31-12-2023

9,00,000

29,34,000

07-01-2024

3,00,000

26,34,000

27-03-2024

3,00,000

23,34,000

Total Amount: ₹54,34,000/Total Refund Received: ₹31,00,000/Balance Pending: ₹23,34,000/12.

The Complainant in Complaint No. 64 of 2025, states that xerox copies of refund

receipts were misplaced during a house shifting, and that the Respondent has refused to furnish
duplicates despite repeated requests. The Complainant in this case thus seeks refund of the
balance ₹23,34,000/-, along with interest @ 18% per annum till the date of realization, and
compensation for loss and mental agony.
13.

The Complainant in Complaint No. 65 of 2025, has stated that no refund has been made

to date, and thus seeks refund of the entire ₹50,82,000/-, along with interest @ 18% per annum
till realization and suitable compensation for the loss, hardship, and mental agony suffered.
The said information has been provided by the Complainant in Complaint No. 65 of 2025 as
follows:

Page 5 of 7

---

Date / Receipt / Mode

Amount (₹)

Remarks

1

Cheque No. 914063, SBI Saraswathinagar,

1,00,000

Cheque

25,00,000

Cheque

24,82,000

Cheque

dated 13-12-2021
2

Cheque No. 734157, SBI High Court Branch,
dated 05-01-2022 (Cleared 07-01-2022 –
AXS Krithika Infra Developers)

3

Cheque No. 734162, SBI High Court Branch,
dated 19-01-2022 (Cleared 21-01-2022 –
AXS Krithika Infra Developers)

Total

₹50,82,000/-

Paid

B. Reliefs Sought
14.

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

before the Authority:
I.

Instruct the Respondents to refund back the total paid amounts which is paid towards flat
cost along with the registration charges with appropriate rate of interest of 18% per
annum with a suitable valid compensation for causing mental agony and loss.

C. Observations of the Authority
15.

Upon perusal of the pleadings, documents, and material on record, it is observed that

the Complainants have admittedly executed and registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.
1763/2022 dated 29.01.2022 at SRO, Uppal, whereby the Respondent conveyed an undivided
share of open land admeasuring 950 square yards, forming part of the total extent of 4635
square yards in Sy. No. 215, Boduppal Village, Medipally Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri
District, in favour of twenty purchasers, including the present Complainants. Each
Complainant thus holds ownership over 75 square yards representing his/her respective
undivided share (U.D.S.) in the land proposed for development of the project.
16.

It is pertinent to note that the registered Sale Deed continues to be valid and subsisting

and have neither been challenged nor cancelled before any forum. The Complainants, therefore,
Page 6 of 7

---

Having derived and retained ownership under a duly executed and registered

instrument, the Complainants cannot simultaneously seek refund of the entire sale
consideration while continuing to assert ownership over the said undivided share of land in the
concerned project.
18.

In Complaint No. 64 of 2025, it is noted that the Complainant has acknowledged receipt

of a partial refund of ₹31,00,000/- from the Respondent, leaving a balance of ₹23,34,000/-.
However, the Authority has not been furnished with any clarity as to the terms of such partial
refund, the mutual understanding between the parties, or whether the same was in lieu of any
relinquishment of rights in the said U.D.S.
19.

Further, there is no material on record indicating the value or consideration attributable

specifically to the U.D.S. conveyed to each Complainant. The complaints do not disclose what
portion of the total amount paid pertains to the value of the U.D.S., nor do they indicate
willingness to surrender the said rights while seeking refund. In the absence of such particulars,
this Authority is unable to ascertain the precise quantum of any refundable amount, if at all.
Consequently, the claim for refund, as made, remains indeterminate and legally unsustainable
in its present form.
20.

Accordingly, these complaints, being devoid of merit and not maintainable in their

present form, are dismissed.

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 7 of 7

---