Order Complaint No. 86 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 86 of 2025
Dated:
Quorum:

16th October 2025

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

Polisetty Swetha
(H. No. 2-4-120/14/7
1st floor, South Swaroop Nagar,
Uppal, Hyderabad – 500039)

…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s. Krithika Infra Developers
Rep. by its Managing Partner, D. Srikanth

(3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads, Beside Bahar Café,
Opp. HP Petrol Pump, LB Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500074)

2. Sri. D. Srikanth
(3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads, Beside Bahar Café,
Opp. HP Petrol Pump, LB Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500074)

3. Sri. D. Gopal
(H. No. 7-67, GVR Colony, Thattiannaram Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District, Telangana- 500068)

4. Smt. Radha Bhukya
(R/o of 3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads, Beside Bahar Café,
Opp. HP Petrol Pump, LB Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500074.)

5. Mr D. Shashikanth
(R/o of 3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads, Beside Bahar Café,
Opp. HP Petrol Pump,LB Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500074.)

…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
Page 1 of 8

---

The Complainant submitted that she had purchased a flat in the Respondent’s project.

The details of the flat are as follows: Flat No. 308, Block A, 3rd Floor, East-facing, with an
area of 1,594 sq. fts. The Complainant has paid the total sale consideration of Rs. 41,20,000/as per the Agreement for Sale dated 20.06.2022. It was undertaken by the Respondent that the
possession of the flat would be delivered within a period of two years from the date of execution
of the Agreement.
4.

However, the Complainant contended that, to date, no construction activity has been

initiated on the project. Further, it has been alleged that the project is not registered under the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, and no registration of the land has been
undertaken by the Respondent.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
5.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:

I. Refund of the principal amount of ₹54,26,190/- (Fifty-Four Lakhs Twenty Six Thousand
One Hundred and Ninety Only) along with Interest as per the govt norms.(OR)
II. Direct the developer to register the land to the aggrieved, to get the registration, to
commence the development works at the earliest and register and deliver the flat at the
earliest
C. Points to be determined:
6. Based on the facts and circumstances placed before this Authority, the following questions
arise for adjudication:
I. Whether the Respondents violated Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 by advertising,
marketing, and offering for sale the “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak” project without obtaining
registration with the Authority?
II. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?

Page 2 of 8

---

Before further adjudicating on the matter, this Authority takes due note of the repeated

non-compliance by the Respondents, who have failed to appear before this Authority despite
service of multiple notices and affording sufficient opportunities. In view of their continued
absence, the Respondents are hereby set ex parte on 13.06.2025, and the matter is being
adjudicated based on the pleadings, documents, and submissions placed on record by the
Complainant.
POINT I
8.

Upon perusal of the available documents submitted by the Complainant, it is evident

that the Respondent promoted and sold residential units in the project titled “Sheshadri’s Silver
Oak” located at Survey No. 215, Boduppal Village, without obtaining registration under
Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. The land in question exceeds the threshold of 500 sq.
meters as specified under Section 3(2)(a) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016and involves more than
eight units, which mandates registration with the Authority.
9.

In the present matter, the Complainant has submitted a copy of the Agreement of Sale

dated 20.06.2022, which confirms that the Respondent collected a sum of ₹41,20,000/- to sell
a proposed residential flat with built up area of 1594 Sq.fts, inclusive of all common areas, with
one car parking area, in Sheshadri’s Silver Oak, along with undivided share of land
admeasuring 35 Sq.Yds. The agreement of sale was entered into prior to obtaining registration
with RERA.
10.

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. After a
detailed examination of that matter, this Authority passed an order, holding that they had
violated provisions of the RE(R&D) Act 2016. In that said order, it was found that the
Respondent had marketed and sold units without registering the project with this authority, in
contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. Further, the Respondent had also
received advance payments exceeding 10% of the consideration prior to execution of a
registered agreement for sale, thereby violating under Section 13(1) of RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
Consequently, a penalty of ₹9,96,050/- was levied on the Respondent under Sections 59, 60,
and 61 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, and the Respondent was directed to register the project
without further delay and to restrain from engaging in any marketing or sale activity until
compliance was ensured.
Page 3 of 8

---

As this Authority had already adjudicated the matter on similar facts and imposed a

penalty for violation of Section 3. 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.
12.

Furthermore, this authority has issued Public Notice dated 25.04.2025, cautioning the

public not to enter into any transactions or purchase any plots in the real estate projects
purported to be promoted by M/s Krithika Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Krithika Infra
Developers.
The relevant portion of the said public notice is as follows:
Contrary to the above provision, M/s Krithika Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s
Krithika Infra Developers have collected amounts exceeding the prescribed limit from
allottees without executing and registering any written agreement for sale.
It is evident that the said entities have fraudulently collected substantial amounts from
the general public without fulfilling their legal obligations, thereby cheating and
misleading innocent allottees.
In view of the above, the general public is hereby cautioned and strictly advised not
to enter into any transactions or purchase any plots in the real estate projects
purported to be promoted by M/s Krithika Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Krithika
Infra Developers.
13.

Hence, Point I is answered in the affirmative

POINT II
14.

The Authority, upon perusal of the documents placed on record, observes that the

Respondent No.1 has obtained permission bearing No. 009613/BP/HMDA/2100/GHT/2023
for the construction of 2 Cellars + 1 Stilt + 1 Upper Floor. However, despite obtaining such
permission, the Respondent No.1 has neither commenced any construction activity in the said
project nor demonstrated any bona fide intention to fulfil its contractual obligations. Such
continued inaction, even after collecting substantial amounts of money from the Complainant,
points to a deliberate and dishonest course of conduct from the Respondents. In these
circumstances, under Section 18(1) of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 it extends a clear statutory right
to an allottee to seek a refund along with interest where the promoter/Respondents either fails

Page 4 of 8

---

In light of the above foregoing observations, this Authority notes that the Complainant

is entitled for relief as mentioned in the main complaint under Section 18(1)(a) of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, which reads as follows:
(1) 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:
16.

In the present case, the Respondent neither completed the project nor initiated the

mandatory statutory processes required for lawful execution of the project. The continued
failure to commence the construction clearly amounts to a violation of the provisions of the
RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
17.

Accordingly, the Complainant entitled for Refund of the amount paid by her to the

Respondents and also with the 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 Marginal
Cost of Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum (i.e., 8.75% + 2%), calculated from the
respective date of Agreement of sale until the date of actual refund.
18.

In view of the above findings, this Authority is of the considered that the Complainant

is entitled to the relief sought, refund of the entire sale consideration with interest.
19.

Further, this Authority takes serious and adverse cognizance of the repeated, deliberate,

and systemic noncompliance exhibited by Respondent No.1, M/s. Krithika Infra Developers,

Page 5 of 8

---

The records of this Authority reveal that multiple complaints, both pending and

adjudicated, pertaining to projects such as “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak” and several other similarly
styled developments attributed to the Respondent, disclose a recurring, calculated, and
deliberate pattern of statutory violations. This pattern demonstrates that the Respondent has
engaged in malpractice, misrepresentation, and deception of the public at large with a
consistent intention to evade the regulatory framework established under the Real Estate
(Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
21.

These violations include, but are not limited to—

a) Undertaking real estate development activities without registering the projects with this
Authority, in flagrant violation of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act;
b) Indulging in advertising, marketing, and soliciting bookings in unregistered projects,
thereby misleading and deceiving innocent purchasers;
c) Receiving substantial sums of money from allottees without executing valid and
registered agreements of sale, in contravention of RE(R&D) Act; and
d) collected major portions of sale consideration without having any legal entitlement over
the project, amounting to unfair trade practice.
22.

This Authority notes with dismay that even in matters previously adjudicated, the

Respondent was categorically found guilty of violating multiple provisions of the Act.
Monetary penalties were imposed for non-registration, and directions were issued for refund,
payment of interest, and compliance with statutory duties. Yet, the Respondent has neither
complied with such directions nor paid the penalties imposed, reflecting a conscious and
continued defiance of lawful orders.
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.
Page 6 of 8

---

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 misrepresentation within the meaning and spirit of the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
25.

Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sections 37 and 38 of RE(R&D)

Act, 2016, and in the larger public interest, this Authority hereby declares Respondent No.1,
M/s. Krithika Infra Developers, to be a “defaulter” and a habitual violator of the provisions of
the RE(R&D) Act. Consequently, the Respondent, including its directors, partners, and
associated entities, is prohibited from undertaking, advertising, marketing, booking, selling, or
registering any new real estate project within the jurisdiction of this Authority.
This declaration shall also be communicated to all other State Real Estate Regulatory
Authorities, as well as to the local planning authorities (HMDA/GHMC), so as to ensure that
no future project approvals are granted in favour of the Respondent or its associated entities
until compliance is duly verified. This measure is considered necessary to prevent further
prejudice to innocent purchasers and to uphold the sanctity and deterrent efficacy of the
regulatory framework under the RE(R&D) Act.
26.

Hence, Point II is answered in the affirmative, and the Complainant is entitled for refund

along with applicable interest.
E. Directions of the Authority:
27.

In exercise of the powers conferred upon this Authority under Sections 37 and 38 of the

Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and in furtherance of the findings and
conclusions drawn hereinabove, the following directions are hereby issued:
a)

The Respondent No. 1 is directed to refund Rs. 41,20,000/- (Forty One Lakh
Twenty Thousand) along with interest at the rate of 10.75% per annum (SBI
MCLR of 8.75% + 2%) from the date of the Agreement of Sale dated 20.06.2022
till the date of actual refund in accordance with Rule 15 of the Telangana
RE(R&D) Rules, 2017 within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this Order.

b)

The Respondent No.1/Promoter is hereby declared a “defaulter” for continuous
and wilful violation of the provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. As a result, any
developmental activities undertaken by the Respondent No.1, Promoter, stand
Page 7 of 8

---

Furthermore, the Secretary, TG RERA, is directed to ensure the name of the
Respondent Developer shall be included in the list of defaulters declared by this
Authority, and the same, along with the photographs of the Promoters, shall be
prominently displayed on the official website of TG RERA for public notice and
awareness. communicated to all other State Real Estate Regulatory Authorities,
as well as to the local planning authorities (HMDA/GHMC), so as to ensure that
no future project approvals are granted in favour of the Respondent or its
associated entities until compliance is duly verified.

d)

Failing to comply with the above-said direction by the Respondent shall attract a
penalty in accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

28.

The complaint stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

Sd/Sri K. Srinivasa Rao,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Sri Laxminarayana Jannu,
Hon'ble Member,
TG RERA

Sd/Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.),
Hon'ble Chairperson
TG RERA

Page 8 of 8

---