Order Complaint No.167 of 2024

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
16th October 2025
Coram:

Dr. N. Satyanarayana, IAS (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Sri LaxminarayanaJannu, Hon’ble Member
Sri K. Srinivasa Rao, Hon’ble Member
COMPLAINT NO.163 OF 2024

Between
Nayani Rakesh

…. Complainant

AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.164 OF 2024
Between
…. Complainant

Rama Krishna Konakandla
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.165 OF 2024
Between
…. Complainant

Vamsi Krishna
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hitton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.167 OF 2024
Between
…. Complainant

Shiva Prasad Karnala
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.168 OF 2024
Between
P. Chalasani and Srinivasa Rao Kalpana
…. Complainant
AND

1 of 11

---

Balaji Kolluru
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.172 OF 2024
Between
…. Complainant

Sandeep Naik
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.173 OF 2024
Between
Chidurala Rajesh
…. Complainant
AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.174 OF 2024
Between
…. Complainant

Sahu Kalyani Kumari
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.175 OF 2024
Between
…. Complainant

Sainath Reddy
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.176 OF 2024
Between
K Sai Charan

…. Complainant
2 of 11

---

Suryanaryana Murthy
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.873 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

B Sai Charan
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.967 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

U Raveendra Babu
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.1560 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

Shaik Nishad
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.1567 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

Arshiya Nikhat
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.1642 OF 2023
Between
Prateek Panigraphy

…. Complainant
3 of 11

---

Abhishek Velpula
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.109 OF 2023
Between
…. Complainant

Balaji Ram Rao Kotalwar
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.164 OF 2043
Between
…. Complainant

Neelakanti Abhiteja
AND

M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
COMPLAINT NO.165 OF 2024
Between
Gundra Nooka Raju

…. Complainant

AND
M/s Jayathri Infrastructures India Pvt Ltd.– “Jaya Hilton Project”, rep by Sri Srinivas.
…. Respondent
The present batch of complaints, filed by the complainants under Section 31 of the Real
Estate (Regulation and 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”), came up for hearing before this Authority.

2.

The complainants appeared in person, and for Respondent learned counsel, Sri Rambika.

The learned counsel for the respondent was present during the initial stage of hearing; however,
4 of 11

---

Upon perusal of the material available on record, and after hearing the submissions

advanced on behalf of the complainants, the matter was reserved for consideration. Having duly
considered the pleadings, documents, and submissions, this Authority proceeds to pass the
following order.
4.

It is pertinent to record that the present matter comprises multiple complaints pertaining

to the same project and involving identical questions of fact and law. Considering the
commonality of issues involved, and in view of the specific request made by the Complainants,
coupled with the absence of any objection from the respondent, all the captioned complaints have
been clubbed together and are being adjudicated by way of this common order.
A. Brief Facts of the Case (As Submitted by the Complainants):
5.

The present batch of complaints has been filed by the respective allottees of the project

titled “Jaya Hilton”, proposed to be developed by the Respondent, M/s Jayathri Infrastructures
Pvt. Ltd.
6.

The complainants have submitted that the Respondent entered into individual

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with them during the period between 2020 and 2022,
under a pre-launch offer, thereby collecting substantial amounts towards the consideration of the
respective units. As per the terms of the said MOUs, the Respondent undertook to obtain
necessary statutory permissions and hand over possession of the booked units to the complainants
on or before December 2023, failing which the Respondent was to be liable for payment of
compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016.
7.

The complainants have further averred that they have collectively paid substantial sums,

with several of them having paid more than 30% of the total sale consideration, and a few having
paid the entire amount towards their allotted units. Despite the lapse of more than two years since
execution of the respective MOUs, the complainants contend that the Respondent has failed to
adhere to the committed timelines, and that there has been no visible progress in the development
or construction of the said project.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

It is recorded that, in their respective Form ‘M’, a few of the complainants had initially

sought directions for completion of the project and delivery of possession after due registration.
However, during the course of proceedings, all the complainants unanimously submitted that
5 of 11

---

The same has been duly recorded by this Authority, and the matter is accordingly being

considered with respect to the claim for refund of the amounts deposited along with interest.
C. Respondent reply:
10.

The Respondent, M/s Jayathri Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., in its written statement, has

acknowledged having entered into MOUs with the complainants. The Respondent has submitted
that it had earlier executed an MOU dated 02.02.2021 with M/s Janapriya Engineer Syndicate
Pvt. Ltd. (“Janapriya”), whereby Janapriya had conferred upon the Respondent certain
development rights pertaining to specific towers within a residential project known as “Nile
Valley Project”. Based on the said arrangement, the Respondent claims to have marketed and
sold units to the complainants under the pre-launch scheme.
11.

However, the Respondent has contended that the said arrangement with M/s Janapriya

could not be implemented owing to financial constraints and insufficiency of cash flow on the
part of the Respondent. Consequently, both parties entered into a cancellation agreement, under
which it was agreed that the advance amount earlier paid by the Respondent to Janapriya would
be adjusted by allotting 48 units in the Janapriya Township Project to the Respondent’s
customers.
12.

The Respondent has further submitted that out of the said 48 allottees, 43 allottees have

already provided their consent to shift to the Janapriya Township Project, and the process of
transfer has been initiated and accepted by M/s Janapriya Township Pvt. Ltd. The remaining
customers, who have opted for cancellation, are stated to be entitled for refund, which, according
to the Respondent, shall be effected through adjustment of property in lieu of the amounts
received.
D. Proceedings:
13.

Upon perusal of the material on record and the written submissions of the Respondent,

this Authority, in order to obtain greater clarity regarding the nature and extent of rights allegedly
acquired by the Respondent M/s Jayathri Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. over certain towers forming
part of the “Nile Valley Project” of M/s Janapriya Township Pvt. Ltd., exercised its powers under
Section 35 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and called upon M/s
Janapriya Engineer Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. (JESPL) to submit its written explanation.
14.

In response, M/s Janapriya Engineer Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. filed its reply, wherein it was

stated inter alia as follows:

6 of 11

---

respective roles and obligations, this Authority, in exercise of its powers under Section
35 of the Act, further directed Engineering Staff College of India (ESCI) to conduct a
third-party inspection and submit a detailed technical and financial status report of the
project.
Findings of the ESCI Report:
15.

The ESCI, after inspection and examination of the documents, submitted a

comprehensive report, wherein the following key findings were recorded:
1. The landowners had executed a Development and General Power of Attorney (DGPA) in
favour of M/s Janapriya Township Pvt. Ltd. (JTPL) for development of a residential
project titled “Nile Valley Project” over the scheduled land. The developer obtained
revised technical approval for construction of a multi-storeyed building comprising 14
blocks (2 cellars + ground + 10 upper floors).
2. M/s Janapriya Engineers Township Ltd. (JETL) was constituted by Janapriya Engineers
Syndicate Ltd. (JESL) in collaboration with Aniket SA Investment LLC to undertake the
development. A Securities and Shareholders Agreement dated 22.08.2008 was executed,
7 of 11

---

Block 4(A) & 4(B): 0% work completed
Block 5: 27% work completed
Block 8(A): 1% work completed
Block 8(B): 1% work completed

Further, based on the above findings and in view of the submissions made, this Authority

directed the complainants to file Interlocutory Applications (IAs) for impleading M/s Janapriya
Engineer Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. as a necessary party (Respondent No. 2) to ensure complete
adjudication of the matter. Despite being granted multiple opportunities, the complainants failed
to comply with the said directions.
17.

On the final date of hearing, the complainants submitted that they did not wish to make

any further submissions and requested this Authority to proceed to decide the matter based on
the material available on record, reiterating their prayer for refund of the amounts paid along with
interest.
18.

Accordingly, noting the complainants’ unwillingness to pursue impleadment of M/s

Janapriya Engineer Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and their request to proceed with the matter as it stands,
this Authority decided to hear and adjudicate the complaints b on the pleadings, documents, and
material available on record, for the captioned complainants.

8 of 11

---

Upon careful examination of the pleadings, documents, and submissions made by the

parties, as well as the technical and financial report submitted by the Engineering Staff College
of India (ESCI), this Authority proceeds to record its observations and findings as follows:
20.

The complainants, despite being granted multiple opportunities by this Authority to

implead M/s Janapriya Engineer Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. as a necessary party in the proceedings, have
chosen not to pursue the same. In view of their explicit unwillingness to implead JESPL, as
recorded during the final hearing, this Authority is constrained to adjudicate the matter based
solely on the pleadings, documents, and material available on record, without delving into the
transactions or obligations involving JESPL. Consequently, this Authority refrains from entering
into the merits of the transactions or arrangements between M/s Jayathri Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd.
and JESPL, including the MOU dated 02.02.2021 or the subsequent cancellation agreement, as
JESPL is not a party to the present proceedings.
21.

It is pertinent to note that the observations and findings recorded herein are strictly

confined to the captioned complaints filed by the present batch of complainants. These
observations shall have no bearing or applicability to other batches of complainants (Batch 1 and
Batch 3) currently under adjudication before this Authority in relation to the same “Jaya Hilton
and Nile Valley” projects. In those matters, JESPL has been impleaded as a party, and the
adjudication involves distinct facts and considerations. Therefore, the Respondent, M/s Jayathri
Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., or any other party, including JESPL, shall not rely upon or construe the
findings or orders in the present matter as having any precedent, influence, or applicability to the
pending adjudication of other batches of complaints.
22.

Coming to the factual matrix, it is an admitted position that the complainants entered into

individual MOUs with M/s Jayathri Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. between 2020 and 2022 under a prelaunch offer for units in the project titled “Jaya Hilton.” The complainants collectively paid
substantial amounts—some having remitted over 30% of the sale consideration, while others
have paid the entire amount. The respondent has admitted the execution of the MOUs and the
receipt of payments but attributes its inability to perform its obligations to alleged financial
constraints and the termination of its arrangement with JESPL.
23.

Initially, certain complainants had sought completion of the project; however, during the

course of proceedings, they unanimously expressed their intention to withdraw from the project
and sought refund of the amounts paid along with applicable interest as per the provisions of the
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
9 of 11

---

Section 18 of the RE(R&D) Act governs the promoter’s liability in cases of delay or

failure to deliver possession and provides 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:
Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he
shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing
over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.
(2) The promoter shall compensate the allottees in case of any loss caused to him
due to defective title of the land, on which the project is being developed or has been
developed, in the manner as provided under this Act, and the claim for
compensation under this subsection shall not be barred by limitation provided
under any law for the time being in force.
(3) If the promoter fails to discharge any other obligations imposed on him under
this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder or in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the agreement for sale, he shall be liable to pay such
compensation to the allottees, in the manner as provided under this Act.

25.

The legislative intent underlying Section 18 is to ensure that the homebuyer’s investment

is protected and that promoters who fail to deliver possession in accordance with their contractual
obligations are held accountable. The provision operates irrespective of the reasons cited by the
promoter for non-performance. Once the allottee exercises the option to withdraw from the
project, the promoter is under a statutory obligation to refund the entire consideration received,
together with the prescribed rate of interest, until repayment.
26.

In the present case, it is evident from the material on record and the respondent’s own

submissions that the project has neither commenced nor progressed in any tangible manner. The
respondent has admitted its inability to perform the contractual obligations under the MOU, citing
loss of financial capacity and breakdown of the arrangement with JESPL. The fact remains that
the project was launched, and substantial sums were collected from homebuyers under the guise
of pre-launch offers, without requisite approvals or progress in execution.
27.

Consequently, in light of the respondent’s failure to fulfil its obligations and the

complainants’ clear intention to withdraw, this Authority holds that the respondent is liable to

10 of 11

---

The interest shall be computed from the respective dates of receipt of payments made by

each complainant to the respondent. This Authority also takes note of the respondent’s repeated
conduct in other projects, wherein similar pre-launch collections were made from unsuspecting
allottees without obtaining RERA registration or securing ownership rights over the project land.
Such recurring malpractices, including abandonment of projects and misleading advertisements,
have resulted in grave hardship and financial loss to homebuyers. These actions reflect a pattern
of deception and disregard for statutory obligations, which this Authority cannot overlook.
29.

Accordingly, considering the respondent’s repeated defaults, his failure to commence

construction, and his non-compliance with statutory provisions under the RE(R&D) Act, this
Authority concludes that the complainants are entitled to refund of the amounts paid along with
interest as prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017.
F. Directions of the Authority:
30.

In view of the foregoing findings and in exercise of the powers conferred under the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Authority issues the following directions:
a) The respondent, M/s Jayathri Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., is hereby directed to refund the
entire amounts collected from each of the captioned complainants within a period of
ninety (90) days from the date of this order.
b) The refund shall carry interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 15 of the Telangana Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, i.e., the current SBI Marginal Cost of
Lending Rate (MCLR) plus 2% per annum (presently 8.75% + 2% = 10.75% p.a.).
c) The said interest shall be calculated from the respective dates of receipt of each payment
made by the complainants to the respondent until full refund is made.
31.

Failure to comply with above said directions by the Respondent shall attract penalty in

accordance with Section 63 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.
32.

As a result, the complaint is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

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

Sd/Sri. LaxminaryanaJannu,
Hon’ble Member
TG RERA

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

11 of 11

---