Order Complaint No.66 of 2025

BEFORE TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
[Under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016]
Dated: 31st 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. 07/2025/TG RERA

Smt. Araveti Ratnakumari
Represented by Sri Yelisetty Krishnaiah
#402, Prithivi Stargaze Apartment, Balagare Road,
Varthur, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560087

...Complainant

Versus
Sri Guntupalli Srinivasrao, MD of M/s EVK projects Pvt Ltd.
Office Address: 490/A, Nirmalam,
2nd Floor, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500033

…Respondent

Complaint No. 66/2025/TG RERA
Yelisetty Niranjan Prasad
Represented by Sri Yelisetty Krishnaiah
#402, Prithivi Stargaze Apartment, Balagare Road,
Varthur, Bangalore, Karnataka – 560087

...Complainant

Versus
Sri Guntupalli Srinivasrao MD of M/s EVK projects Pvt Ltd.
Office Address: 490/A, Nirmalam,
2nd Floor, Road No. 10, Jubilee Hills,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500033

…Respondent

The present matter filed by the Complainants mentioned herein above 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:
Page 1 of 8

---

This Complaint has been filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and

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 action against the Respondents.
3.

Given the similarity in the subject matter and the nature of reliefs sought in both cases, they

have been consolidated for the sake of convenience and to avoid unnecessary repetition. Further,
Although the Complainants have erroneously arrayed the Managing Director of M/s. EVK Projects
Pvt. Ltd. as the Respondent in his individual capacity, this Authority, considering the beneficial
nature of the legislation and to avoid being defeated by technicalities, deems it appropriate to treat
the Respondent as representing the company, M/s. EVK Projects Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the matter
has been heard and adjudicated as against the said company, and not in the individual capacity of
its Managing Director.
A. Brief facts of the case:
4.

The Complainants, having come across an online advertisement for open plots in the

“Aalaya Sreemeru” Project promoted by GSR Group, approached the marketing advisor, Mr.
Srikanth, for purchase of plots. The said advisor showed the Complainants the project site at
Kongarakalan and its developments, stating that the project was in the pre-launch stage and plots
were being offered at a lower rate. The then Marketing Director, Mr. Chandrasekhar, further
assured the Complainant that land acquisition was in progress and that registration of plots would
be completed by May 2022. He directed the Complainants to pay the full consideration amount for
plots measuring 200 square yards each at the rate of ₹21,500 per square yard.
5.

It is submitted that the Managing Director of GSR Group, Mr. Guntupalli Srinivas Rao,

had also showed the Complainants, an Agreement of Sale of the proposed land, claiming that an
amount of ₹5 crore had already been paid to the land owners towards land purchase. When the
Complainants requested a copy of the said agreement, they were informed that it could not be
shared due to business confidentiality. Relying on these assurances and the company’s prior
ventures, each Complainant agreed to purchase a plot measuring 200 square yards for a total
consideration of ₹43,00,000/– under separate Agreements of Sale executed in their respective
names.
Page 2 of 8

---

As payments shown in the Agreement of Sale, the Respondents issued post-dated cheques

in favour of the Complainants as a security measure. However, despite repeated follow-ups, the
Respondents failed to complete the registration of the plots. The promised registration date of May
2022 was successively postponed to September 2022, then to November 2022, January 2023, and
subsequently to May 2023.
7.

Later, the Respondents again assured the Complainants that registration would be

completed in December 2023, after the Telangana Elections, and issued fresh post-dated cheques
from time to time as earlier ones lapsed. However, even till April 2024, the registration was not
completed. During a customer meet held on 20.04.2024, Mr. Guntupalli Srinivas Rao promised
that on 15.05.2024, a plot measuring 15 square yards in their Kollur Project would be registered
in favour of the Complainants as security until the registration of plots in the Aalaya Sreemeru
project. When the Complainants visited the Respondents’ registered office on the said date, they
met one lawyer, Ms.Durgabhavani, who claimed to be handling all the disputes of GSR Group.
However, by the end of May 2024, the office was found closed and non-operational.
8.

Subsequently, when the Complainants presented the last issued post-dated cheques in June

2024, the same were dishonoured with the endorsement “Insufficient Funds.” Upon learning
through media reports that Mr. Guntupalli Srinivas Rao had been arrested by the CCS authorities,
the Complainants lodged a complaint with CCS Basheerbagh on 24.07.2024.
B. Relief sought:
9.

In light of the aforementioned facts, the Complainants have prayed for the following relief

before the Authority:
I.

Recover the entire amount of ₹43,00,000/- paid by each complainant, along with interest at
24% from the dates of payment as shown in the Agreement of Sale, at the earliest.

C. Points to be determined:
10.

Based on the above facts and circumstances, the following questions arise before this

Authority for determination:
I.

Whether the Respondent has violated any provisions of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016?

II.

Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought? If so, to what extent?
Page 3 of 8

---

In the present matter, despite service of notice, the respondent failed to appear before the

Authority either in person or through an authorized representative. No written statement, reply, or
documentary evidence has been filed on behalf of the respondent. The matter has, therefore, been
proceeded ex parte, and the case is being decided on the basis of the material available on record
and the submissions of the complainant.
Point I
12.

Upon careful consideration of the material available on record, it is observed that the

Respondent has launched and marketed the project named “Aalaya Srimeru” at Kongarakalan
Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, in pre-launch scheme without
obtaining the mandatory registration as required under the Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Section 3(1) of the RE(R&D) Act,
2016 unequivocally provides that: “No promoter shall advertise, market, book, sell or offer for
sale, or invite persons to purchase in any manner any plot, apartment or building, as the case may
be, in any real estate project or part of it, in any planning area, without registering the real estate
project with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority established under this Act.”
13.

Further, Section 3(2)(a) carves out a limited exemption from registration only in cases

where the area of land proposed to be developed does not exceed 500 square metres or the number
of apartments proposed to be developed does not exceed eight. The material available on record
shows that, the project in the present case, namely “Aalaya Srimeru”, consists of open plots
admeasuring 150 and 200 Square Yards, Duplex Villas Gated Community, 9 towers of G+14
Floors, and Commercial Complex, which is indisputably above the statutory threshold, and
therefore squarely attracts the mandate of compulsory registration under Section 3 of the RE(R&D)
Act, 2016. Hence, the act of the Respondent in advertising, marketing, and selling plots therein
without such registration constitutes a direct contravention of Section 3.
14.

Further, Section 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016 requires every promoter to submit an

application for registration of a real estate project in the prescribed form, supported by requisite
documents. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the Respondent has ever
Page 4 of 8

---

In view of the above, this Authority holds that the Respondent has committed a breach of

the mandatory statutory obligations contained under Sections 3 and 4 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016,
and shall be levied penalty under Sections 59 and 60 of the said Act accordingly.
Point I is answered accordingly.
Point II
16.

Upon a careful consideration of the pleadings, documents placed on record, and the evidence

adduced, this Authority proceeds with the following observations
17.

In Complaint No. 07/2025, the Complainant, Smt. Araveti Ratnakumari, has placed on

record an Agreement of Sale dated 12.02.2022, executed between the Complainant and M/s EVK
Projects Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Sri Guntupalli Srinivas Rao. The said
Agreement clearly records that the Respondent offered to sell Plot No. 109, admeasuring 200
square yards, at the rate of ₹21,500/- per square yard, for a total sale consideration of ₹43,00,000/,
in the project “GSR – Aalaya Sreemeru”, situated at Kongarakalan Village, Ibrahimpatnam
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.
18.

In Complaint No. 66/2025, the Complainant, Yelisetty Niranjan Prasad, has similarly

placed on record an Agreement of Sale dated 12.02.2022, executed between the Complainant and
M/s EVK Projects Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Managing Director, Sri Guntupalli Srinivas Rao.
The said Agreement pertains to Plot No. 110, admeasuring 200 square yards, at the rate of
₹21,500/- per square yard, for a total sale consideration of ₹43,00,000/-, in the same project “GSR
– Aalaya Sreemeru”.
19.

In both complaints, Clause 3 of the respective Agreements of Sale stipulates that each

Complainant has paid the entire sale consideration of ₹43,00,000/- in full, in the following manner
as shown in the payment details annexed to the Agreements. The Complainants have also placed
on record Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.03.2022, executed separately with M/s EVK
Projects Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Respondent once again acknowledged the receipt of ₹43,00,000/Page 5 of 8

---

The said MoU further records that in the event the Respondent fails to obtain the requisite

project approvals within six months from the date of the Agreement of Sale, the Respondent agreed
to pay to the Complainants interest at the prevailing SBI Fixed Deposit rate, commencing from the
seventh month, and continuing until the said project receives approvals from the competent
Government authorities.
21.

Upon perusal of the material on record, this Authority notes that despite having received

the entire sale consideration of Rs. 43,00,000/- from each Complainant, the Respondent has neither
registered the subject plots in their favour nor refunded the said amounts. There is no material
placed on record to show that the Respondent had obtained the requisite statutory approvals for
the project within the stipulated period as mentioned in the Memorandum of Understanding dated
12.03.2022. The issuance of a guaranteed cheque by the Respondent further establishes his
acknowledgment of the liability and commitment to either register the plots or refund the
consideration received.
22.

The conduct of the Respondent, in failing to secure such approvals and in consistently

postponing the registration of the plots despite repeated assurances, clearly demonstrates a
deliberate default and non-performance of the contractual obligations undertaken under both the
Agreement of Sale and the Memorandum of Understanding.
23.

In this context, reference must be made to Section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and

Development) Act, 2016, which reads as under:
“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
Page 6 of 8

---

A plain reading of the above provision makes it abundantly clear that the promoter is under

a statutory obligation to refund the amount received from an allottee, together with interest, in the
event of failure to complete the project or deliver possession in accordance with the terms of the
agreement. In the present case, the Respondent has consistently failed to register the plot despite
having received the entire sale consideration and has not demonstrated any bona fide steps toward
the fulfillment of its contractual obligations. Therefore, the Complainant’s prayer for refund of the
amount paid, along with interest, squarely falls within the ambit of Section 18(1) of the Act.
25.

With respect to the rate of interest, while the Complainants have prayed for interest at

24% per annum, this Authority is bound by the statutory framework. Rule 15 of the Telangana
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 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. At present, the SBI MCLR stands at 8.75%, and therefore the
applicable rate will be 10.75% per annum. Accordingly, each Complainant is entitled to interest at
the rate of 10.75% per annum from the respective dates of payment as shown in their respective
Agreements of Sale dated 12.02.2022 until the date of actual refund.
26.

Accordingly, this Authority holds that the Complainants are entitled to refund of the amount

of ₹43,00,000/- each along with interest at 10.75% per annum, in accordance with Section 18 of
the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rules, until realisation.
Point II is answered accordingly.
E. Directions of the Authority:
27.

Vide the powers vested under Section 37 of the RE(R&D) Act, 2016, this Authority issues

the following directions:
i.

The Respondent herein, is hereby directed to pay a penalty of ₹27,45,600/- (Rupees
Twenty-Seven Lakh Forty-Five Thousand Six Hundred Only) under Sections 59 and 60 of
the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, for violation of Sections 3 and 4
of the Act. The said penalty shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of

Page 7 of 8

---

The Respondent is further directed to refund to the respective Complainants the amounts
received towards the purchase of plots, together with interest at the rate of 10.75% per
annum (being SBI MCLR of 8.75% + 2%) in accordance with Rule 15 of the Telangana
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, calculated from the respective date
of payments as shown in the Agreement of Sale dated 12.02.2022 until the date of actual
refund, as follows:
a) To the Complainant in Complaint No. 07/2025/TG RERA, refund ₹43,00,000/(Rupees Forty-Three Lakh Only) along interest at 10.75% per annum from the
respective dates of payment as shown in the Agreement of Sale dated 12.02.2022 till
the date of actual refund;
b) To the Complainant in Complaint No. 66/2025/TG RERA, refund ₹43,00,000/(Rupees Forty-Three Lakh Only) along interest at 10.75% per annum from the
respective dates of payment as shown in the Agreement of Sale dated 12.02.2022 till
the date of actual refund.

iii.

The said refund together with interest shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date
of receipt of this order.

28.

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.
29.

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 Laxmi Narayana Jannu,
Hon’ble Member,
TG RERA

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

Page 8 of 8

---