Haryana RERA Dismisses Complaint Against Vatika Ltd After Complainant Fails To Show Proof Of Allotment

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority recently dismissed a complaint seeking execution of a builder buyer agreement, allotment of a plot, possession and delayed possession charges for a Vatika project in Gurugram after holding that the complainant had not produced any evidence to show that a plot had ever been allotted.

The matter was heard by a bench of Chairperson Arun Kumar, who noted that the complainant, Meenakshi Sharma, relied on an expression of interest and proof of payments made for a plot in Vatika Ltd's project at Sector 88B, Gurugram, but none of the documents established a concluded allotment between her and the builder.

According to the order, the complainant initially booked a 136.76 sq. yd. plot in the project known as 'Vatika India Next 2' and paid Rs 9.76 lakh as the initial booking amount. An expression of interest reflecting a total price of Rs 97.64 lakh was signed. The complainant alleged that the builder later demanded a second instalment in cash, issued a revised expression of interest with a lower total price and later sought an additional Rs 5 lakh to offer a different 160 sq. yd. plot. Despite paying these amounts, the complainant stated that the builder never issued an allotment letter, never identified a plot number and never executed the builder buyer agreement that was required to be executed between the complainant and Vatika Ltd.

Vatika Ltd argued that the complainant was never allotted any unit and had only submitted an expression of interest, which was an initial offer that did not crystallise into an allotment. The builder submitted that the complainant did not complete the essential step of selecting a unit and never came forward to execute the builder buyer agreement, which led the company to cancel the booking on 7 September 2022.

In its order, the authority found that the complainant had not placed on record any document that legally established an allotment in her favour. The bench noted that although the complainant claimed to have repeatedly approached the builder to execute the builder buyer agreement, there was nothing in the record to substantiate this assertion. The Authority observed that no allotment letter was ever issued and no builder buyer agreement was executed between the parties.

Referring to Section 2(d) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the authority held that the complainant could not be considered an allottee. The Authority stated that in the absence of any evidence of allotment, the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'allottee' under Section 2(d), and therefore the questions of possession and interest do not arise.The complaint was dismissed.