Order Complaint No.577 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Complaint No. 577 of 2025
Dated: 30th 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

Bogireddy Bharathi W/o Veerabhadra Reddy,
R/o. A-.205, Mayflower Park,
Annapurna Colony, Mallapur
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500076.
…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. D. Srikanth, CEO
3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads,
Beside Bahar Café,
Opp. HP Petrol Pump, LB Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500074.
3. D. Gopal, M.D
R/o. H No. 7-67, GVR Colony, Thattiannaram village,
Abdullapurmet mandal, Ranga Reddy District,
Telangana- 500068.
4. Radha Bhukya, Director
3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads,
Beside Bahar Café,
Opp. HP Petrol Pump, LB Nagar,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500074
5. D. Shashikanth, Executive Director
3rd and 4th Floor, X Roads,
Page 1 of 10

---

The present matter filed by the Complainant mentioned herein above came up for
hearing on 09.01.2026 before this Authority in the presence of Complainant, and none for the
Respondent 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 “RE(R&D) Act”)
read with Rule 34(1) of the Telangana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) seeking appropriate relief(s) against the Respondents.
A. Brief facts of the case:
3.

It is submitted that the Complainant had purchased a flat from the Respondent

M/s. Krithika Infra Developers, situated at Survey No. 215 at Boduppal Village, under
Boduppal Municipality, Medipally Mandal, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, Telangana. The said
land was taken by M/s. Krithika Infra Developers from its original owners for developing the
said property into residential flats.
4.

The Complainant states that the flat was purchased during the pre-launch offer and was

issued an Agreement of Sale, dated 16.09.2022, for a flat of 1202 sq. ft. along with one car
parking in the project “Sheshadri’s Silveroak.” The total sale consideration of ₹28,23,498/- was
paid by the Complainant between 03.07.2022 and 15.08.2022 through online transactions.
5.

Subsequently, the Respondent–Developer allegedly compelled the Complainant to pay

an additional sum of ₹1,80,300/- towards registration charges for UDS land of 26.7 sq. yards,
which amount was paid on 26th February 2023. However, despite receipt of the said amount,
the Developer has not registered the UDS in favour of the Complainant, which the Complainant
contends amounts to cheating and breach of trust.
Page 2 of 10

---

The Complainant further submits that a subsequent Agreement of Sale was executed by

M/s. Krithika Infra Developers through its Managing Partner/CEO, Sri D. Srikanth, assuring
execution and completion. However, till date, the Developer has not commenced any
construction, nor has any progress been made on the project. It is further alleged that the
Developer has not obtained the necessary approvals for construction and has also failed to
secure RERA registration for the project.
7.

The Complainant states that despite repeated approaches, the Respondent–Developer

has neither registered the land nor commenced development, and presently they do not appear
to have land available for registration of the promised flat.
B. Relief(s) Sought:
8.

Accordingly, the Complainant sought the following reliefs:
I.

To issue orders for full refund of Rs. 30,03,798/- (Rupees Thirty Lakh Three
Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety-Eight) with interest from date of full payment 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:
9.

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

questions arise for adjudication:
I.

Whether the Respondent has 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:
10.

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 09.01.2026 and the matter is being

Page 3 of 10

---

Upon perusal of the Agreements of Sale dated 16.09.2022, along with supporting

documents placed on record by the Complainant clearly establish that the Respondent, 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 (or 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 proposed
residential flat with a built-up area of 1202 Sq. Feet, “Sheshadri’s Silver Oak” at Survey No.
215, Boduppal Village, Medchal–Malkajgiri District, Telangana (hereinafter the “Scheduled
Property”) inclusive of all common areas with one car parking area, in the said project and
executed an Agreement of Sale, for which substantial payments were made towards the total
sale consideration as has been acknowledged in the Agreement of Sale.
12.

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.
13.

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
had ever applied for such registration. On the contrary, the material before this Authority
clearly shows that the Respondent has entered into Agreement of Sale with the Complainant,
collected substantial sale consideration without obtaining prior registration. Such conduct
amounts to a direct contravention of Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016.

Page 4 of 10

---

The actions of Respondent, 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
protection of consumer interests in the real estate sector. The said non-compliance with the
mandatory registration provisions renders the entire transaction illegal and voidable at the
instance of the allottees.
15.

In light of the above discussion, this Authority holds that the Respondent has clearly

violated the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016. The Respondent 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.
16.

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. As this Authority had already adjudicated the matter on similar facts
and imposed a penalty for violation of Section 3 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016. 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.
17.

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

declared the Respondent/Promoter, M/s Krithika Infra Developers, as a “defaulter” for
continuous and wilful violations of the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016. Accordingly, all developmental activities undertaken by the said
Page 5 of 10

---

Furthermore, this authority has also 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:
Page 6 of 10

---

Hence, Point I is answered in affirmative.

POINT II
20.

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 ₹28,23,498/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs twentythree thousand four hundred and ninety-eight only) to the Respondent towards the purchase of
a proposed 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 Respondent.
21.

It is further stated by the Complainant that an additional sum of ₹1,80,300/- (Rupees

One Lakh Eighty Thousand and Three Hundred only) has been paid in on 26.02.2023 towards
registration of the undivided share of land admeasuring 26.7 sq. yds. However, the
Complainant has not submitted any receipts, bank records, or documentary proof to
substantiate such payment. The Agreement of Sale dated 16.09.2022 placed on record clearly
shows that an amount of ₹28,23,498/- was paid towards the said flat. In the absence of proof
of payment of the additional amount of ₹1,80,300/-, the same cannot be considered for refund.
22.

The Authority also 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
Page 7 of 10

---

The Respondents failure to commence the project or to deliver possession within the

stipulated period, clearly demonstrates a wilful default on their part and only strengthens the
inference that the Respondent had no intention of fulfilling their contractual commitments or
refunding the amount voluntarily.
24.

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:”
25.

Therefore, 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
Page 8 of 10

---

In the present case, the Respondent, having received the full sale consideration towards

the Scheduled property without initiating construction, has evidently failed to perform its
statutory obligations as promoter. 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 2% per annum.
27.

Therefore , this Authority holds that the Complainant is entitled to a refund of the entire

sum of ₹28,23,498/- (Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs twenty-three thousand four hundred and
ninety-eight only) paid towards the purchase of the Scheduled property as has been
acknowledged in the Agreement of Sale dated 16.09.2022, 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
Respondent. However, as has been already established, due to Complainant’s failure to furnish
the records for an amount of Rs. 1,80,300/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Thousand Three Hundred
Only) claimed to have been paid on 26.02.2023, to register the undivided share of land this
Authority holds that the Complainant is not entitled to a refund of the said amount.
28.

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 applicable interest.
29.

Hence, Point II is answered in the affirmative.

E. Directions of the Authority
30.

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

Sections 37 and 38, issues the following direction to the Respondent:
i)

The Respondent No.1 is directed to refund the entire amount of Rs. 28,23,498/(Rupees Twenty-Eight Lakhs Twenty-Three Thousand Four Hundred and NinetyEight only) along with interest at the rate of 10.70% per annum (SBI MCLR of
8.70% + 2%) calculated from the date of Agreement of Sale i.e.16.09.2022 made
Page 9 of 10

---

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

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

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 10 of 10

---