HIGH COURTSALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RERA Tribunal Has Appellate & Revision Powers; Interest Payable Only After Pre-Deposit U/S 43(5): Allahabad High CourtCase Title: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida, Gautambudh Nagar through its Authorized Representative v. Raj Kumar Goyal Case No: RERA Appeal No.124 of 2023While entertaining a set of appeals regarding the...
HIGH COURTS
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Case Title: Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, Greater Noida, Gautambudh Nagar through its Authorized Representative v. Raj Kumar Goyal
Case No: RERA Appeal No.124 of 2023
While entertaining a set of appeals regarding the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, the Appellate Tribunal could award interest or compensation only after mandatory pre-deposit is made for entertaining such appeal.
Further, it held that the RERA Appellate Tribunal has both appellate and revisional powers for examining the legality and propriety and correctness of any order or direction of the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer.
Regarding the issue of jurisdiction that was framed in another connected set of appeals, the Court relied on Ratan Buildtech to hold that as per Section 44 and 45 of the RERA Act, the Appellate Authority is entitled to exercise the powers of the authority against whom the appeal has been preferred. It was held that this would find greater merit in cases where no appreciation of evidence is required and only a mechanical exercise was to be performed.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RERA Orders Not Decrees, Cannot Be Executed Through Civil Courts: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Snil Pathiyam Veetil & Ors.
Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 417
The Karnataka High Court ruled that an order passed by a Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) does not amount to a civil court decree and cannot be executed through civil execution proceedings, holding that RERA orders must be enforced only through the statutory recovery mechanism provided under the Act.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said the statutory scheme shows that RERA is a 'self-contained code' whose decisions do not conform to any of the requirements of a decree as defined in Section 2(2) CPC, and therefore its orders cannot be executed as civil decrees.
It held that "On a coalesce of the judgments noted above, what would unmistakably emerge is, the order of the Adjudicating Officer or the order of the Appellate Tribunal, constituted under the Act, does not assume the mantle of a decree, within the contemplation of Section 2(2) of the CPC. Therefore, such an order/orders cannot traverse the path of execution delineated under Order XXI of the CPC. The Courts have, in the afore-quoted judgments have illuminated that the proceedings before the RERA are not conceived in the mould of a civil suit, though the Act provides the procedure to be followed, as if it is a civil Court and therefore, cannot culminate in a decree in the classical sense. In that light, the applications so filed by the petitioner invoking Section 47 of the CPC to hold that the concerned Executing Court did not have jurisdiction was in tune with law."
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Case Title: Sana Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Madan Kishan Gurow & Ors.
Case No: Civil Revision Application No. 606 of 2024
The Bombay High Court held that authorities and tribunals under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA) cannot adjudicate title disputes between allottees or grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs, ruling that such powers lie exclusively with civil courts.
Clarifying the limits of RERA jurisdiction, the court held that disputes concerning the validity of title instruments “is not a matter which the authorities under the RERA are empowered to adjudicate. Consequently, the reliefs of declaration and injunction sought by the Plaintiffs in the instant suit, may not be granted by authorities under RERA"
Single bench of Justice N J Jamadar emphasized that the presence of execution powers does not transform the Appellate Tribunal into a civil court. It said “ At best, it can be said that, while executing an order, the Appellate Tribunal may have the trappings of the civil Court, but it cannot be called a Civil Court, in the sense that, it can grant reliefs which can be granted by the Civil Court as the court of plenary and residuary jurisdiction while determining a suit of civil nature.”
Case Title: Keyana Estate LLP (Earlier Known as Kiyana Ventures LLP) Versus Paresh Parihar & Anr
Complaint No - Second Appeal No. 537 of 2025 With Interim Application No. 11757 Of 2025
The Bombay High Court (“High Court”) bench, comprising Justice N. J. Jamadar, upheld the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's (“Tribunal”) decision holding Keyana Estate liable for the delay in handing over possession.
High Court observed that under RERA, interest on delayed possession continues until actual physical possession is handed over with all Occupation Certificate conditions fully complied with and the flat fit for habitation.
High Court referred to Section 270A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 which provides that no person shall occupy, use or permit the use of any premises until a certificate is obtained from the Commissioner confirming that there is an adequate supply of water for the persons intending to occupy or use the premises.
High Court observed that a mere offer of possession of the flat is not enough to meet the builder's obligation under RERA. If the Occupation Certificate is issued subject to certain conditions especially those related to making the flat fit for occupation, those conditions must first be fulfilled.
Bombay High Court To Examine If Non-Advertised Project Need Mandatory RERA Registration
Case Title: Goldendreams Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Saffron Infradev Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: Second Appeal No. 426 of 2025 (with connected matters)
The Bombay High Court has stayed a Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal order requiring a builder to register two additional wings of its real estate project in Maharashtra, noting that the central issue of whether registration under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act becomes mandatory when no units are advertised or offered for sale requires examination.
Justice Arun R Pedneker made this observation on November 25, 2025 while issuing notice in the second appeals filed by Goldendreams Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, a promoter of the Flamingo project. The Appelllate tribunal order had required Goldendreams to register “B” and “C” wing of the “Flamingo” Project which was not yet advertised. The court said that whether such a registration is mandated when the wings are not yet advertised needs to be examined.
DELHI HIGH COURT
Case Title: Rahul Bhargava & Anr. vs M/S Neo Developers Pvt Ltd along with Connected matters
Case No: FAO (COMM) 210/2025 and connected matters
The Delhi High Court ruled that homebuyers and investors are not barred from seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, solely on the ground that they had already previously approached the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail noting that remedies under the RERA Act and the Arbitration Act are contemporaneous and not mutually exclusive, pronounced that “The mere fact that a party has availed a statutory remedy under a special enactment does not, by itself, denude the Court of jurisdiction to grant interim protection, particularly where the reliefs sought do not overlap in substance or effect”.
The Bench noted that “In cases where one party is in a position of dominance, such as a developer exercising control over possession and allotment, Section 9 enables the Court to neutralise such an imbalance, ensuring procedural fairness and preserving the sanctity of the arbitral process”, highlighting the broad scope of the provision.
Case Title: Singh Kapoor & Anr. Versus M/S Neo Developers Pvt Ltd And Ors.
Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1159
The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Pratibha M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain has held that Buyers of commercial units are not prohibited from seeking arbitration relief subsequent to availing remedies under RERA, provided that the arbitration petitions were filed after a change in circumstances.
The court at the outset observed that although the Supreme Court's judgment in Ireo Grace Realtech bars simultaneous remedies for the same cause of action but does not prohibit the party from seeking arbitration relief once the circumstances have changed.
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prospective Home Buyers Can Also Approach RERA For Remedies: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: M/S Ramprastha Developers Pvt Ltd And Ors V. State Of Haryana And Ors
Case No: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 71
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that home buyers who have deposited certain amount and are prospective allottees can also filed complaint in Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) for redressal of grievances.
The Court rejected the contention of a Real Estate Company that the complainants are not home buyers or allottees because the project is not in existence and they only tendered money for prospective projects, hence no cause of action will arise.
As per Section 37, the Authority may, for the purpose of discharging its functions under the provisions of the Act or rules or regulations made thereunder, issue such directions from time to time, to the promoters or allottees or real estate agents, as the case may be, as it may consider necessary and such directions shall be binding on all concerned.
The Court clarified that under RERA, both existing and prospective allottees have the right to approach the authority with their grievances.
REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNALS
HARYANA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Case Title: M/s Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd Versus Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram & Another
Case No - Appeal No.547 of 2025
(Chairperson) and Rakesh Manocha (Member–Technical) sets aside the order of Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) rejecting the application for registration of the Commercial Colony promoted by Inspire Parking Nest Pvt. Ltd.
Tribunal held that the Authority which consists of a Chairperson and two Members must decide with proper quorum under Section 29 of the RERA Act. Since the order was passed solely by the Chairperson without quorum, it was unsustainable. Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., wherein it was held that Section 29 of the Act governs only policy and regulatory meetings of the Authority and not its quasi-judicial functions. It was further held that quorum requirements cannot be bypassed or delegated to a single Member as policy matters must be decided collectively by the Chairperson and Members to reflect their combined wisdom.
Tribunal held that order passed without quorum had caused prejudice to the appellant. The order was therefore set aside.
UTTAR PRADESH REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Case Title: AR Landcraft LLP v. Radhakrishnan Srinivasan ( Appeal No. 196 of 2024) and connected matters
Complaint No: Appeal No. 196/2024
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (UP REAT) has ordered a government probe into the role of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority in granting approvals for the Godrej Golf Links township in Greater Noida, holding that apparent violations of the planning scheme “call for inquiry/investigation as per law”.
The tribunal directed the Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, to examine whether the Recreational Entertainment Park scheme and building regulations were violated by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority to benefit the developer, while exercising powers under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, read with the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973
WEST BENGAL REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Bengal REAT Clarifies That Interest On Delay Shall Be Calculated Using SBI MCLR Rate
Case Title: Amitava Samanta Versus Saswati Ghosh & Anr
Complaint No - WBREAT/APPEAL NO. – 017/2025
West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson) and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Technical/Administrative Member) clarified that interest payable under the RERA order shall be computed based on the State Bank of India's Marginal Cost of Lending Rate (“MCLR”) plus 2%, rather than the Prime Lending Rate (PLR).
Tribunal observed that states like Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Assam follow a uniform approach of using SBI's highest MCLR plus 2% as the benchmark for calculating interest. It also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Bikram Chatterji v. Union of India (2022) which clarified that MCLR applies from 1 April 2016 while the Base Rate applies for earlier periods.
It held that rule 17 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021 specifies the rate of interest as the Prime Lending Rate of SBI plus 2%. The issue before the Tribunal was therefore to determine which lending rate should apply, the SBI Benchmark Prime Lending Rate (BPLR) or the MCLR.
Case Title: Mrs. Mita Roy vs Debdutta Chatterjee
Complaint No: WBREAT Appeal No. 003/2025
The West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata bench comprising Rabindranath Samantha, Chairperson and Subrat Mukherjee, Administrative member has held that simultaneous legal proceedings in the consumer forum and before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority in respect of the same cause of action cannot be pursued.
The bench observed that though the proviso to Section 43(5) of RERA Act, 2016 provides for deposit of penalty as a mandatory condition for filing an appeal, but no penalty has been imposed by the Regulatory Authority. Hence, the contention of the complainant that the complaint is not maintainable without the deposit was rejected.
The bench further placed reliance on Section 71 of the RERA Act which inter-alia provides that a complainant may withdraw a proceeding before the consumer forum and file the same before the adjudicating officer under the RERA Act. Hence, it was held that the complainants are not legally allowed to continue both the proceedings.
Case Title: M/s. Sreeram Enterprise & Anr Versus Champak Bhattacharjee & others
Complaint No - WBREAT/Appeal No. – 018/2025
West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) bench comprising of Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson) and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administrative Member) held that a complainant cannot simultaneously pursue identical reliefs before the State Consumer Commission (“Commission”) and the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”).
The Tribunal applied the doctrine of election and dismissed the complaint before Authority since the same reliefs were already sought before the Consumer Commission. Tribunal held that the complainants must elect either to continue with their consumer case or their RERA complaint. Since they had filed the RERA complaint later and intended to continue with both, the complaint before the Regulatory Authority could not be sustained.
WBREAT: Extension Of Project Registration Under Section 6 Of RERA Cannot Exceed One Year
Case Title : Suman Bhaumik Versus Periwal Constructions L.L.P. & anr
Complaint No: WBREAT/Appeal No. – 010/2025
West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (“Tribunal”) bench comprising Justice Rabindranath Samanta (Chairperson) and Dr. Subrat Mukherjee (Administrative Member) held that under Section 6 of the RERA Act, a project's registration cannot be extended for more than one year.
Tribunal referred to Section 6 of the RERA Act which allows the Authority to extend project registration due to force majeure without any fixed time limit but limits discretionary extensions “in reasonable circumstances” to a maximum of one year. It held that the two segments of Section 6 operate distinctly, force majeure extensions are open ended while other extensions cannot exceed one year.
Tribunal observed that the builder's plea for further extension was based on the stop construction order issued by Howrah Municipal Corporation and subsequent relief granted by the Supreme Court. It held that these circumstances were reasonable grounds for extension under Section 6. However, the Regulatory Authority exceeded its power by granting an extension beyond one year.
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Case Title: Arshi Ahmed & Mr. E. Suhail Ahmed v. L&T Construction Equipment Ltd. and Anr
Complaint No: Appeal No. (K-REAT) 17/2024
The Karnataka Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (KREAT) has dismissed an appeal filed by homebuyers seeking demolition of parts of the L&T Realty Raintree Boulevard project, thereby affirming the Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority's order in favour of L&T Realty Developers Limited.
A coram of Judicial Member Justice Santhosh Kumar Shetty N and Administrative Member Mahendra Jain, on November 26, 2025, held that the allottees had “no legal foundation to challenge the decision and that RERA had issued a “well-reasoned" and "sound" order requiring no interference.
Citing the Bombay High Court's ruling in Neelkamal Realtors Pvt. Ltd., the bench noted, “if the registered agreement for sale itself permits certain modifications or alterations and the allottees have consented to such terms in advance, then; the Promoter's action in making such modifications is not violative of Section 14(2)(ii).”
REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITIES
UTTAR PRADESH REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
UP RERA Issues Advisory After 129 Projects Enter Insolvency, Stops Hearing Homebuyer Complaints
The Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UP RERA) has warned homebuyers that it can no longer hear or pursue any case linked to 129 real estate projects after 14 developers were pushed into insolvency proceedings before the NCLT between January 2024 and December 2025.
The authority has told buyers that all grievances, including dues, rights and obligations, must now be taken only to the Insolvency Resolution Professionals (IRPs) appointed in each case.
Homebuyers have been told to immediately file their claims with the concerned IRP using the forms prescribed under the IBBI and NCLT framework. The authority has also urged buyers to stay in touch with the IRPs for updates on claim verification, project status, CoC meetings and directions issued during the CIRP.
PUNJAB REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Case Title: Prof. (Dr.) Anuradha Sharma v. Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Complaint No: RERA/GC No. 0294 of 2023
Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising of Arunvir Vashista (Member) directed Omaxe New Chandigarh Developers to refund the amount paid by the homebuyer to purchase a flat in their project.
Authority noted that builder had agreed to hand over possession by June 2019 under the terms of the agreement but failed to provide possession by the due date.
Authority referred to Section 18(1) of the RERA, 2016 and observed that the provision makes it clear that an allottee gains an indefeasible right to seek relief when a promoter fails to complete the project or is unable to hand over possession in line with the terms of the agreement for sale. Therefore, Authority directed builder to refund all amounts deposited by the homebuyer along with interest at the interest rate (highest MCLR + 2%) payable from the date of each deposit until refund. Authority also clarified that SBI being the lender would have the first charge over the refund amount.
Case Title: Bhupinder Singh Dhillon & Others vs. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No: Complaint No. RERA/GC/0190/2023
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority directed Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers to pay statutory interest to a homebuyer for a delay of more than five years in handing over possession of a flat in its project 'The Lake'.
A coram of Member Arunvir Vashista held that the delay violated Section 18(1) of the RERA Act and that the homebuyer was entitled to interest from the promised date of possession until a valid offer is made after obtaining an occupation certificate.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Emaar MGF v. Aftab Singh and noted that the arbitration clause does not take away the jurisdiction of the Authority. It also observed that the RERA Act itself provides a statutory right to interest for delayed possession and that such a right cannot be excluded by contractual terms.
Punjab RERA Directs ATS to Refund ₹57 Lakh to Two Homebuyers In ATS Golf Meadows Life Style Project
Case Title: Col. Vishal Goindi & Anr. v. ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Complaint No: GC No. 0014/2023
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has ordered ATS Estates Private Limited and ATS Infrastructure Limited to refund a little over Rs 57 lakh to two homebuyers, after finding that the developer did not live up to its contractual promises concering the ATS Golf Meadows Lifestyle project in Mohali .
The order was passed by a coram headed by Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal. In the decision, the Authority observed that when a developer fails to hand over possession as promised in the buyer's agreement, homebuyers have an absolute right to walk out of the project and seek a full refund with interest. The authority held a promoter cannot force homebuyers to wait until the RERA completion date when the specific tower allotted to them has not been built within the agreed possession period.
GUJARAT REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Gujarat RERA Orders Builders To Install Boards Displaying Complete Project Details At Sites
Order Number: GujRERA/112
The Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) has issued a general order directing all builders to install detailed information boards and banners at every registered project site so that homebuyers can access complete and updated project details without relying solely on the RERA website.
The Authority noted that many prospective buyers remain unaware of the existing practice where project information is accessed mainly through a QR code on the RERA registration certificate, leaving them without easy access to key facts about the project. It observed that citizens often struggle to obtain accurate and current details before making investment decisions.
MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Case Title: Uttam Bhagwan Bhosale & Anr. vs. M/s Calyx Spaces LLP & Others, along with 66 Home Buyers
Complaint No: Complaint No. CC005000000289987, along with 66 others
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority) bench comprising of Manoj Saunik (Chairperson) granted relief to 60 home buyers by holding Calyx Spaces, a Pune-based builder liable for failing to complete the project. As per the contractual terms, the builder was required to hand over possession of the flats between 2020 and 2023.
The Authority observed that the builder cannot claim the benefit of the moratorium period declared during the COVID-19 pandemic for agreements executed after the pandemic began as the builder was already aware of the prevailing situation at the time of signing those agreements.
Therefore, the Authority directed the builder to refund the amounts of homebuyers who wish to exit the project with interest and to pay monthly interest to those facing delayed possession.
MahaRERA Says It Has No Jurisdiction to Decide FSI Misuse, Rejects Challenge To Mumbai Project
Case Title: Sanjay P. Vohra v. Sanjona Builders
Complaint No.: CC12502735
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain allegations of FSI misuse, illegal construction or partnership irregularities in the redevelopment project Abhilash Phase II in Mumbai Suburban region, and dismissed a complaint seeking revocation of its registration after finding that the complainant was not an allottee under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The order was passed by Member Mahesh Pathak, who recorded that the complainant who was not an allottee had “no locus standi” to file the case and that it “does not involve any cause of action falling within the ambit of RERA”.
It said “MahaRERA is of the view that it lacks jurisdiction under the RERA to adjudicate issues relating to the sale or misuse of FSI. Such grievances, if any, must be raised before the proper court of law.”
Godrej Can't Forfeit 10% On Booking Cancellation; MahaRERA Ruling
Case Title: Rahul Naresh Bari Versus Godrej Properties Limited
Complaint No: - Complaint No. CC12400126
Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising Mahesh Pathak (Member I), held that a builder can forfeit only 2% of the total sale consideration if the Homebuyer cancels the booking. Accordingly, Authority found Godrej Properties claim to forfeit 10% of the total sale consideration to be unjustified.
The authority noted that any forfeiture must comply with the statutory framework of RERA and cannot be arbitrary or disproportionate. Authority referred to its earlier order issued in 2022, which permits builders to forfeit up to 2% of the total consideration in case of cancellation by the homebuyers.
In view of this, Authority directed the Builder to refund the amount paid by the Homebuyer towards the flat after deducting 2% of the total consideration (excluding statutory dues paid to the government or brokerage) within 45 days.
MahaRERA Rejects Plea To Cancel Pratham Infra's 'Anantham' Project In Borivali Over Title Dispute
Case Title: Om Savji Waghela v. Pratham Infra Developers Mumbai
Complaint No.: CC12501990
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has dismissed a complaint seeking cancellation of the registration of “Anantham,” a redevelopment project in Borivali, after finding that the objections raised by the complainant revolved around a long-running dispute over who owns the land.
Member Mahesh Pathak rejected complainant Savji Waghela's plea to freeze the project's bank accounts, halt sales, refund buyers and revoke the project's registration. The authority said these requests were rooted entirely in a title dispute that must be resolved before any question of project registration can be examined.
MahaRERA Gives Westwood Allottees Final 30-Day Window To Clear Dues Before Forfeiture of Units
Case Title: Dimple Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaymanav Singh & Ors.
Complaint Numbers: CC12500250, CC12500251, CC12500252, CC12500253
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has ruled that homebuyers who default on payments in the Westwood project in Borivali cannot prevent the promoter from terminating their agreements for sale.
Holding that an allottee who signs such an agreement is bound “to make necessary payments in the manner and within the time as specified”, Member Mahesh Pathak granted them “one last opportunity” to clear their dues with interest within 30 days or face automatic forfeiture of their allotments.
Invoking the principles of natural justice, the authority granted all allottees a final period of 30 days to pay the outstanding consideration with applicable interest. It warned that failure to comply would allow the promoter to terminate the agreements under Section 11(5) of the RERA Act by invoking the forfeiture clause for liquidated damages.
Case Title: Raajyam Realty LLP v. Radhika Ganatra & Rishabh Gopesh Mastaram
Complaint No: CC006000000591010
The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has held that it cannot order the recovery of possession or eviction of homebuyers, ruling that such reliefs lie exclusively within the jurisdiction of civil courts.
The authority dismissed a complaint by Raajyam Realty LLP. The promoter had sought cancellation of the sale agreement, forfeiture of the money paid and permission to take back possession of the flat in its Amity Apartments project in Bandra.
The order was passed by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik, who observed that “the recovery of possession, and eviction of the respondents, are beyond the scope of MahaRERA's jurisdiction. The reliefs sought necessarily involve adjudication of proprietary and possessory rights, which fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of a competent civil court"
TELANGANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Acting As Real Estate Agent Without Registration, Telangana RERA Imposes Rs. 3.69 Lakh Penalty
Case Title : M/s Viana Homes Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sri Sikha Balaraju & others
Complaint No :Complaint No.117 of 2024
Telangana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Justice Dr. N. Satyanarayana (Chairperson), K. Srinivasa Rao (Member), and Laxmi Narayana Jannu (Member) imposed a penalty of Rs. 3.69 Lakhs on Mr. Sikha Balaraju and his two companies for acting as real estate agents without registration, which is a statutory requirement under Section 9 of the RERA Act, 2016. As per Section 9(1) of the RERA Act, no real estate agent is allowed to facilitate the sale or purchase of any plot, apartment, or building in a registered real estate project unless they have obtained registration from the RERA Authority.
Additionally, the Authority directed Mr. Sikha Balaraju and his two companies to not act as agents or assist in selling or buying any property in a registered real estate project without registration under Section 9. If they continue to act without registration, strict action will be taken. They may face a daily penalty that can go up to 5% of the project cost under Section 65 of the Act
KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Case Title: Divya Balasubrmaniam & Anr Versus M/s. Ozone Infra Developers Pvt Ltd.
Complaint No: Complaint No: CMP/1362/2024
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising GR Reddy (Member) has directed Ozone Infra Developers to refund Rs. 70.33 Lakhs to the homebuyer for the delayed possession.
Authority noted that the builder failed to hand over possession of the flat on time as promised in the sale agreement and did not provide any proof about the current status of the project.
Authority observed that the builder had accepted a substantial amount from the homebuyers towards the sale consideration. Since the builder did not fulfil the promise of handing over possession, the homebuyers are entitled to a refund with interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act. Authority also referred to Supreme Court decisions where it was held that under Section 18 of the RERA Act, if a builder fails to complete or give possession of an apartment by the specified date, the builder must return the amount received if the homebuyer wishes to withdraw from the project.
Therefore, the Authority allowed the homebuyers to withdraw from the project and directed the builder to refund Rs.70,33,424 to the homebuyers within 60 days, as per the calculation submitted by them.
Karnataka RERA Directs Casa Grande To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession
Case Title: Mr. Shashidar Irappa Bagewadi Vs M/s. Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No: Complaint No: CMP/221104/10175
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising of G.R Reddy (Member) directed Casa Grande to pay delay interest to the homebuyer for a 1 year and 3 month delay in possession. Authority held that the homebuyer was entitled to delayed interest only up to the date of the Occupancy Certificate (up to 28 January 2022). Any claim for interest beyond this date was not accepted.
Authority observed that once the builder offered possession, the homebuyer could have taken possession and still kept his defect liability rights open for five years under Section 14(3) of the RERA, Act. Therefore, Authority directed the builder to pay delay-period interest at SBI MCLR + 2 percent on the amounts paid by the homebuyer from 15 October 2020 until 28 January 2022. Lastly, Authority also directed builder to hand over possession and execute the registered sale deed in favour of the homebuyer.
Karnataka RERA Directs Ozone Realtors To Refund 1.49 Crore To Homebuyer Due To Delayed Possession
Case Title: Gurajapu Venkata Satya Manikya Varaprasad vs. M/s Ozone Realtors Private Limited
Complaint No: Complaint No. CMP/00380/2025
Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising of GR Reddy (Member) directed Ozone Realtors to refund Rs. 1.49 crore to the homebuyer for failing to deliver possession by the promised date in December 2021.
Authority referred to the Supreme Court decision in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (LL 2021 SC 641) where it was held that if the builder fails to handover the possession of the flat within the time stipulated under the terms of the agreement then the homebuyer right under the RERA to seek interest for delay is unconditional and absolute. Authority also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Imperia Structures Ltd. v. Anil Patni (Civil Appeal Nos. 3581–3590 of 2020) where the Court held that under Section 18 of the RERA, a homebuyer who chooses to withdraw from the project is entitled to an unconditional refund with prescribed interest.
Karnataka RERA Recalls Orders Transferring Decrees To Civil Courts Without Hearing Parties
Case Title: MG Ashok Rao & Ors. v. Nitesh Estates Limited & Ors.
Complaint Numbers: CMP/00001/2023, CMP/00204/2023
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (K-RERA) has recalled its own earlier orders permitting transfer of decrees to the civil court, holding that such orders were void for breach of natural justice and that decree holders must first seek execution before the Authority.
A coram of Chairman Rakesh Singh and Member Gurijala Ravindranadha Reddy, in an order dated November 17, 2025, held that “failure to hear a necessary party renders the order void for violation of natural justice,” and reaffirmed that any such order “falls within the category of decisions passed without jurisdiction.”
It further ruled that decree holders cannot circumvent RERA and immediately seek transfer of decrees to Civil Courts, holding that execution must first be sought before the Authority, where non-compliance must be established after notice to the judgment debtor and an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: Dhannanjaya & Anr. v. Sobha Limited & Anr.
Complaint No: 00427/2024
The Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority (KarRERA) ruled that builders cannot escape their statutory obligation to insure common areas of a housing project, even after handing over maintenance to an apartment owners' association.
The authority said statutory insurance under Section 16 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) is a binding requirement, not a formality.
the authority said handing over maintenance does not free a promoter from the duty to secure insurance under Section 16, stressing that this obligation applies regardless of who manages the common areas and carries its own financial consequences if ignored.
PUNJAB REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Case Title: Vandana Negi v. Address Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd. & Ankit Sidana
Complaint Number: RERA/AdC/0055 of 2024
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) held that a homebuyer who chooses to remain in a delayed housing project can only receive statutory interest for the period of delay and cannot seek compensation, rent or litigation expenses in addition.
The Authority dismissed a complaint filed by homebuyer Vandana Negi seeking further relief against the residential project developed by Address Infrastructures Private Limited in Mohali, after finding that she had already availed the statutory interest remedy and had elected not to withdraw from the project.
Adjudicating Officer Rajinder Singh Rai decided the matter and relied on the wording of Section 18 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016. He observed that the provision "makes it crystal clear that allottee/complainant can only seek compensation, if he/she withdraws from the project. Otherwise, if he/she does not intend to withdraw from the project, he/she shall be paid only interest for every month of delay, till handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed. This remedy has already been availed by the complainant."
Punjab RERA Directs ATS to Refund ₹57 Lakh to Two Homebuyers In ATS Golf Meadows Life Style Project
Case Title: Col. Vishal Goindi & Anr. v. ATS Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Complaint No: GC No. 0014/2023
The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has ordered ATS Estates Private Limited and ATS Infrastructure Limited to refund a little over Rs 57 lakh to two homebuyers, after finding that the developer did not live up to its contractual promises concering the ATS Golf Meadows Lifestyle project in Mohali .
The coram headed by Chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal held that when a developer fails to hand over possession as promised in the buyer's agreement, homebuyers have an absolute right to walk out of the project and seek a full refund with interest.
TAMIL NADU REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Tamil Nadu RERA Directs Alliance Group To Refund Money Deducted As Cancellation Fee To Homebuyer
Case Title: K.S. Aruna Vasumathi Versus M/s. Alliance Group
Complaint No - RCP No. 62 of 2023
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority Bench, comprising Dr. L. Subramanian (Member) and Adv. M. Krishnamoorthy (Member) directed Alliance Group to refund Rs. 50,000 to the homebuyer. The amount was deducted as a cancellation fee for a flat after the homebuyer cancelled the booking when the possession date was shifted from 2018 to 2020.
Authority observed that the homebuyer's emails showed repeated requests for clarifications and her decision to cancel when the possession date was shifted from December 2018 to July 2020. The builder's replies were delayed and vague and the promised adjustments for payments were not made.
Authority referred to Section 18(1) of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act 2016 and as a result, the Authority held that the builder shall refund Rs. 50,000 which was withheld as cancellation charges along with the specified interest and Rs. 25,000 as costs to the homebuyer within 90 days from the date of the order.
Case Title: Bhuvana Ramkumar Versus M/s. Casa Grande Homes Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No - RCP No. 86 of 2023
Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising Dr. L. Subramanian (Member) and M. Krishnamoorthy (Member) held, Casa Grande Homes liable for wrongfully charging late fee from Homebuyer despite timely payments.
Authority directed the Builder to refund the charged late fee along with interest and litigation costs to the Homebuyer. M Authority observed that other payments shown as delayed were also misrepresented. Even though the Homebuyer had made payments on earlier dates, the Builder recorded them later to claim delays. Therefore, the Authority held that the Builder was not entitled to charge any interest on the alleged delayed payments.
HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY
Seizure Of Plots By CBI, Haryana RERA Refuses To grant Relief To Complainants
Case Title: Priyanka Batra and Vivek Batra Versus M/S DLF Limited
Complaint No - Complaint no. 5237 of 2024 and 5049 of 2024.
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) refused to grant relief to the complainants whose plot documents were seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Branch–III, New Delhi (CBI) and before whom the matter was pending.
The complainants had approached the Authority seeking execution of the conveyance deed in their favour. DLF had provided possession of the plots in 2016 and the delay in executing conveyance deed occurred due to the complainants failure to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the CBI.
Authority held that since another forum is already hearing the matter and no clear details were given about it, no directions can be issued to the builder for now. It said the complainants may get a No Objection Certificate from the concerned authority and then approach the builder for possession and execution of the conveyance deed.
Case Title: Kamal Singhal Vs Emaar MGF Land Limited
Complaint No: Complainant No 1885 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Ashok Sangwan (Member), held that while the RERA Act, 2016 does not contain any specific provision imposing a limitation period, a delay of more than three years in approaching the Authority is unreasonable.
In doing so, the Authority departed from its earlier stance where it had allowed a homebuyer's complaint even though it was filed more than six years after the offer of possession. uthority noted that while the law of limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under the RERA, 2016, it must still be guided by principles of natural justice under Section 38 of the Act.
To prevent opportunistic and frivolous litigation, the Authority held that a reasonable time limit should be considered. In its view, a period of three years is reasonable for a homebuyer to initiate legal action to assert their rights under normal circumstances.
Case Title - Pankaj Arora Through SPA Holder Kashti Arora Versus M/s Oasis Landmarks LLP & others
Complaint No: Complaint no - 2397 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member), directed a refund to the homebuyer along with interest for a flat booked in the Godrej Icon project at Sector 88A and 89A, Gurugram.
The homebuyer had made the payment under the impression that the project was being developed by Godrej Properties (Respondent No. 2), whereas it was actually being developed by Oasis Landmarks LLP, a joint venture partner of Godrej Properties.Authority observed that respondents misrepresented the project by using the name and logo of Godrej in the brochure and buyer's agreement. It held that such false representation influenced the complainant's decision to invest. Since the complainant seeks refund due to this misrepresentation, he is entitled to full refund with interest under the proviso to Section 12 of the RERA Act, 2016. Authority held that the respondents had violated Sections 12 and 14(2)(ii) of the RERA Act. Therefore, it directed the respondents to refund the entire amount received from the homebuyer along with interest at the rate of 11.10%.
Haryana RERA Issues Arrest Warrants Against Directors Of Parsvnath Developers
Case Title: VP Batra Versus Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
Complaint No: Execution No. 2613 of 2022 in Complaint No. 941 of 2021
Haryana RERA, Panchkula Bench consisting of Adjudicating Officer Major Phalit Sharma (ADSJ Retd.) has issued arrest warrants against the directors of Parsvnath Developers for failing to comply with the Authority's order to pay Rs.8.6 lakh in compensation to a homebuyer and for evading service of the Authority's notice.
Authority observed that the directors failed to comply with directions issued under Order XXI Rule 41(2) CPC by not submitting the required affidavits and not appearing in person to respond to the show cause notices.
Authority noted that the judgment debtor company and its directors despite having sufficient funds had intentionally withheld payment of the decretal amount. The fact that they sought additional time to pay indicated that resources were available but they were deliberately delaying satisfaction of the decree to cause prejudice to the decree holder.
Case Title: Navneet Kumar & Anr Versus BPTP Limited & Countrywide Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No: Complaint No. 2400 of 2023
Adjudicating Officer (AO) Bench of the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority headed by Rajender Kumar clarified that homebuyers who choose to stay in the project after a delay and have accepted monthly interest for the delay are not entitled to claim any further compensation before the Adjudicating Officer.
Under the RERA, 2016 framework, the AO is appointed under Section 71 by the Authority in consultation with the State Government. The AO must be a person who is or has been a District Judge. The AO is empowered to conduct inquiries and adjudicate complaints seeking compensation under Sections 12, 14, 18, and 19 of the Act. Authority observed that under Rule 15(1) of the Haryana RERA Rules, this interest is calculated at the SBI's highest marginal cost of lending rate plus 2 percent. This interest is treated as compensation for the delay and the law does not allow for separate or additional compensation beyond this. Tribunal in that case clarified that the legislative intent under the RERA Act is to grant compensation only to those allottees who withdraw from the project and not to those who continue with it. Authority held that since the homebuyer had already been awarded delayed possession compensation for the same cause of action, there was no ground to allow additional or separate compensation for the delay in construction.
Haryana RERA Directs Imperia Structures To Pay Assured Returns To Complainant
Case Title: Amravati Devi versus M/s Imperia Structures Limited
Complaint No –Complaint No. 4136 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) directed Imperia Structures to pay assured returns to complainant who purchased an office in their IT Park.
While directing the builder, the Authority clarified that if an allottee is entitled to both assured return and delay possession charges, the allottee shall receive whichever is higher. Authority observed that the purpose of delay possession interest is to safeguard the allottee's money when the builder continues to use it beyond the promised date of possession. This ensures that the allottee is compensated for the time value of money which remains blocked due to the builder's delay.
Authority further clarified that when assured return is reasonable and continues even after the due date of possession, it adequately protects the allottee's interest. In such situations, the allottee will be entitled to either assured return or delay possession charges whichever is higher without prejudice to other remedies including compensation.
Haryana RERA Orders Vatika To Pay Delay Interest And Execute Conveyance Deed In Favour Of Homebuyer
Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Batra & Anr Versus Vatika Ltd.
Complaint No: Complaint No. 2410 of 2023
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench compromising of Arun Kumar (Chairperson) directed Vatika to pay interest for the delay in handing over possession and to execute the conveyance deed in favour of the homebuyer.
It observed that when assured returns are part of the builder buyer agreement, allotment terms or related documents then they will remain enforceable in law. The 2019 Act does not bar such payments, since they are treated as advances against the allotment of immovable property and are protected.
Authority while deciding whether a homebuyer can claim both assured returns and delayed possession interest held that if assured returns are payable even beyond the due date of possession until actual handover then the homebuyer is entitled to either assured returns or interest under Section 18, whichever amount is higher.
Therefore, the Authority directed the builder to pay delayed possession interest at the rate of 11.10% per annum from the due date of delivery until two months after the occupation certificate is granted or until actual handover, whichever happens first
Case Title: Ajai Pal Singh Gill & Others Versus M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd.
Complaint No: Complain No. 2340 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority) bench comprising of Ashok Sangwan (Member) directed Parsvnath Developers to pay assured returns, hand over possession of the commercial unit, execute the conveyance deed and enter into a buyer's agreement with the complainant. Authority observed that it was the builder's obligation to pay the assured return as agreed under the MoU. Authority noted that the builder failed to fulfil this obligation and had not yet offered possession of the unit since the occupation certificate for the project had not been obtained. Authority also directed the builder to execute a registered buyer's agreement, hand over possession of the unit and complete the conveyance deed in favour of the complainant within three months of obtaining the occupation certificate.
Case Title: Mahalingam Valleesan Versus M/S Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No: Complaint no 168 of 2025
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising of Arun Kumar (Chairperson) directed Neo Developers to pay assured returns of ₹26,000 per month to the homebuyer and to execute the conveyance deed in the homebuyer's favour.
homebuyer's interest when the builder continues to use their money beyond the agreed possession date. However, when the builder is already paying an assured return beyond that date, the same purpose stands fulfilled.
Authority therefore held that where the assured return is reasonable and comparable with the delayed possession charges, the homebuyer shall be entitled to either the assured return or the delayed possession charges, whichever is higher without affecting their right to claim other remedies including compensation. Authority also directed the builder to execute the conveyance deed of the apartment in favour of the homebuyer upon payment of stamp duty and registration charges. Lastly, the Authority directed the builder not to charge any amount from the homebuyer that is not part of the builder-buyer agreement.
Allottees Already Granted Delay Interest Not Entitled For Additional Compensation; Haryana RERA
Case Title: Sharad Bhargava HUF versus M/S Silver Glades Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No: Complaint No. 15-2023
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) Adjudicating Officer, Rajender Kumar, has held that an allottees who have already been awarded interest for delayed possession by the Authority are not entitled to claim any further compensation before the Adjudicating Officer. The Adjudicating Officer ( AO) held that since the complainant had already been granted interest for the delay in handing over possession by the Authority in an earlier proceeding, he is not entitled to any further compensation on the same ground. The AO relied on the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 70 of 2023, which held that allottees who exit the project are entitled to both interest and compensation, whereas allottees who continue in the project are entitled only to interest for every month of delay until possession.
Haryana RERA Directs Emaar MGF To Refund Homebuyers After Delayed Possession Of Nearly 4 Years
Case Title: Babulal Aggarwal & anr Versus Emaar MGF Land Limited
Complaint No: Complaint No. 4373 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising of Phool Singh Saini (Member) directed Emaar MGF to refund the amount paid by the homebuyers after the builder provided possession with a delay of about 3 years and 10 months.
Authority also allowed the builder to deduct 10 percent of the basic sale consideration of the flat, which was Rs 94.60 lakh, since the complaint was filed almost five years after the offer of possession was issued. Authority held that in view of the Supreme Court's rulings, the builder cannot retain more than ten percent of the sale consideration as earnest money.
Therefore, the Authority directed the builder to refund Rs 94.68 lakh after deducting 10% of the basic sale consideration of Rs 94.60 lakh along with interest at 10.85% per annum, calculated from the date of filing of the complaint until the actual date of refund.
Case Title: Sachin Kumar v. M/s Ocean Seven Buildtech Pvt. Ltd
Complaint No - Complaint No. 155 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (“Authority”) bench comprising of Phool Singh Saini (Member) clarified that when a homebuyer fails to comply with a payment demand in an Affordable Housing project, the builder may cancel the allotment only in accordance with clause 5(iii)(i) of the Affordable Group Housing Policy 2013. In such cases, the builder must refund the amount paid by the homebuyer after deducting Rs. 25,000.
Authority also observed that the builder was entitled to a six month extension granted through the Government notification dated 26 May 2020 issued in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. After applying this extension, the Authority held that the revised due date of possession stood extended to 30 May 2022.
Authority therefore directed the builder to refund Rs. 7,31,251 to the homebuyer after deducting Rs. 25,000 in terms of clause 5(iii)(i) of the policy, along with interest at 10.85 percent per annum.
Case Title: Meenakshi Sharma Through SPA Ghanshyam Sharma vs. M/s Vatika Ltd
Complaint No: Complaint No. 3675 of 2023
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority 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.
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.
Haryana RERA Dismisses Homebuyers' Complaint Against M3M, Orders Full Refund Of Booking Amount
Case Title: Vijul Arora v. M3M India Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No: Complaint No. 972 of 2025 and 1 other
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has dismissed a complaint filed by two homebuyers against M3M India, holding that they had no right to seek an allotment letter or execution of the builder-buyer agreement (BBA) since the booking never matured into a confirmed allotment.
A coram of Member Ashok Sangwan said the homebuyers had not complied with the required payment schedule, and therefore the transaction never progressed to a confirmed allotment, rendering their prayer for allotment and BBA execution unsustainable. The Authority also observed that the cancellation had not caused any actual loss to the builder and therefore directed it to refund the full booking amount of Rs 16 lakhs to homebuyers within 90 days.
The authority held that the homebuyers had not fulfilled the financial obligations necessary for confirmation of the booking and that, without a formal allotment, they had no enforceable right to seek these documents. Noting that the builder had not suffered any loss due to the cancellation, it directed M3M to refund Rs 16 lakh to each homebuyer within 90 days without any deductions.
Haryana RERA Directs Emaar MGF To Pay 10.85% Interest To Homebuyer For Six-Year Delay In Possession
Case Title: Rajeev Kar & Anr Vs. M/s Emaar MGF Land Limited
Complaint No: Complaint No - 6105 of 2024
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) has held that Emaar MGF Land failed to meet its contractual obligation to hand over a flat in its Emerald Floors Premier Phase III project in Gurugram on time, and directed the developer to pay delayed possession interest at 10.85% per annum from 28 May 2014 until the offer of possession plus two months or the actual handover, whichever is earlier.
A coram of Member Ashok Sangwan ruled that the builder had not complied with section 11(4)(a) read with section 18(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act.
The authority held that the developer had clearly missed the stipulated possession deadline and was liable to pay delayed possession interest at the prescribed rate. It rejected the buyer's plea for a refund of allegedly illegal or unreasonable charges, noting that such claims cannot be raised after execution of the conveyance deed because all financial liabilities are deemed to have been settled at that stag.
Haryana RERA Directs Ansal Builders To Hand Over Possession And Pay Interest For Delay
Case Title: Sanjeev Ganguly & Anr Versus M/s Ansal Townships Infrastructure Private Limited
Case No: Complaint No: 7354 of 2022
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench, comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has directed M/s Ansal Townships Infrastructure Private Limited to hand over possession within two months after obtaining the occupancy certificate and pay interest to the homebuyer for the delay in handing over possession.
Authority held that the homebuyer is entitled to receive interest due to the builder's failure to hand over possession within the stipulated time period.
Case Title: Sunil & Ritesh Versus M/s. Ansal Housing Limited & Anr
Complaint No: Complaint No: 4215 of 2024
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising Ashok Sangwan (Member) has held Ansal Housing Limited and Samyak Projects Pvt. Ltd. jointly liable for the delay in handing over the commercial unit to the complainants.
Authority observed that Samyak Projects being the landowner and Ansal Housing, the developer, both fall within the definition of 'promoter' under the RERA Act. Accordingly, it directed them to jointly pay interest to the complainants for the delay in possession.
The authority noted that the liability under Section 18(1) for delay in possession as well as the obligation to hand over the unit shall be borne jointly and severally by both respondents.
Case Title: Sanjiv Anand Versus M/s. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Complaint No: Complaint no. 2245 of 2025
Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (Authority) bench comprising of Ashok Sangwan (Member) denied refund to a homebuyer whose allotment was cancelled due to non-payment of instalments, holding that the homebuyer had paid less than 10% of the total sale consideration.
The general followed by Haryana RERA is that if a builder cancels the allotment due to non-payment of instalments, the homebuyer is entitled to a refund of the amount paid after deducting 10% of the total sale consideration as earnest money.