Gurugram RERA rejects objection on limitation and awards Rs 11.24 Lakh Compensation to Homebuyers

 

Gurugram RERA Awards Rs 11.24 Lakh Compensation to Homebuyers in S.S. Group Case

Gurugram: The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram has awarded Rs 11.24 lakh in compensation to homebuyers Shashi Rastogi and Colonel Rajendra Kumar Rastogi (Retd.) in a dispute involving S.S. Group Pvt. Ltd. and its The Leaf project in Gurugram.

The order was passed on September 11, 2026, in Complaint No. 2934 of 2025 by Adjudicating Officer Rajender Kumar. The case concerned the buyers' claim for compensation following the developer's failure to deliver their residential unit within the agreed period.

Possession was due in September 2016

The homebuyers had booked a unit in Tower-1 of The Leaf, located in Sectors 84-85, Gurugram, and paid approximately Rs 39.38 lakh to the developer.

Possession was contractually due on September 24, 2016, but was not delivered. The buyers subsequently sought cancellation and refund, citing, among other things, medical exigencies.

In an earlier proceeding, the HRERA Authority directed S.S. Group on October 4, 2022 to refund Rs 39.38 lakh along with 10% annual interest calculated from the respective dates of payment until refund.

RERA rejects limitation objection

The developer argued that the subsequent compensation complaint was time-barred because it was filed years after the original default and possession deadline.

The Adjudicating Officer rejected the contention that the complaint was automatically barred by limitation. The order observed that the RERA Act does not prescribe a specific period for filing a complaint seeking compensation and that the question of reasonable time must be examined in light of public policy.

The compensation proceedings were initiated in June 2025, when the homebuyers approached the Adjudicating Officer under Sections 31 and 71 of the RERA Act.

Refund and interest did not bar separate compensation claim

Another important issue was whether the earlier refund order prevented the buyers from subsequently seeking compensation.

The developer argued that compensation could not be awarded after the Authority had already ordered refund with interest.

The Adjudicating Officer rejected that argument, holding that an allottee's receipt of refund with interest does not, by itself, prevent a separate claim for compensation under Section 18 where the statutory conditions are met.

Rs 11.24 lakh compensation awarded

The Adjudicating Officer considered the buyers' claim relating to loss of property appreciation, while noting that the complainants had not produced conclusive evidence establishing a specific annual appreciation rate for the property.

The order nevertheless assessed the loss using available market-price information.

The compensation comprised:

• Rs 8.74 lakh towards loss of property appreciation;

• Rs 2 lakh for mental agony and harassment; and

• Rs 50,000 towards litigation expenses.

The total compensation therefore came to Rs 11.24 lakh.

The amount was directed to carry 11% annual interest from September 11, 2026 until realisation.

Broader significance

The ruling addresses two issues of interest to homebuyers: whether the RERA Act imposes a fixed limitation period for compensation claims and whether a previous order granting refund and interest prevents an allottee from seeking additional compensation.

The order indicates that, in the circumstances of this case, refund with interest and compensation were treated as distinct remedies, while the question of delay was examined through the requirement that proceedings be brought within a reasonable period.

The decision therefore adds to the developing body of RERA jurisprudence concerning delayed possession, refund, compensation and the rights of homebuyers after a project fails to meet its promised delivery timeline.

Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) RERA Is a Condition Precedent for Maintainability of Promoter’s Appeal: Haryana REAT

Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 43(5) RERA Is a Condition Precedent for Maintainability of Promoter’s Appeal: Haryana REAT

Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Switi Gupta & Anr. — Haryana REAT (H-REAT-31-2026)

 Date of Decision 14-Aug-2026

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (HREAT), by order dated 14 August 2026, dismissed two appeals filed by Elan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 43(5) of the RERA Act, 2016.

The appeals challenged a HRERA Gurugram order dated 8 July 2025, which directed the promoter to pay delayed possession charges at 11.10% p.a. on the amounts paid by the allottees from the contractual possession date of 30 April 2022 until the offer of possession plus two months. The Authority also directed revision of the account statement, payment of specified utility charges, execution of the conveyance deed, and prohibited the promoter from levying holding charges.

The promoter argued that the allottees themselves owed approximately ₹55.22 lakh, whereas the delayed-possession interest payable by the promoter was ₹5.53 lakh. It therefore contended that the outstanding amount payable by the allottees should be adjusted against the statutory pre-deposit.

HREAT rejected this contention, relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., holding that where a promoter challenges an order involving payment to an allottee, the promoter must make the requisite statutory pre-deposit before the appeal can be entertained. There is no provision for waiver or exemption from the pre-deposit requirement.

The Tribunal further observed that the pre-deposit is intended to secure the interest of the allottee. The amount is kept in a fixed deposit and carries interest, with disbursement being subject to the final outcome of the appeal. Therefore, the promoter's argument for adjustment could not dispense with the statutory requirement.

Held

Since the promoter had failed to make the required ₹5,53,544 pre-deposit, the appeals were held not maintainable and were dismissed without examination on merits. However, the promoter was given liberty to seek revival of the appeals if the requisite pre-deposit was made within one month.

Key takeaway: A promoter cannot avoid or seek adjustment of the mandatory Section 43(5) pre-deposit on the ground that the allottee owes money to the promoter. Compliance with the statutory pre-deposit is a condition precedent for maintainability of the promoter's appeal. 

HREAT = The Decree Holder is Entitled to Get the Interest for the period of Date of Expected Payment till the Actual Payment of Amount.

HREAT = The Decree Holder is Entitled to Get the Interest for the period of Date of Expected Payment till the Actual Payment of Amount.

Hari Ballabh Sharma V/s Pareena Infrastructure Private Limited

Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribual

Appeal No.133 of 2023

Date of Decision:  30.11.2023 

Fact of the Case :-

• In 2015 ,The appellant/allottee paid booking amount to the respondent/promoter for booking of a flat under Affordable Housing Policy” of Government of Haryana.
• on June 23, 2016 the appellant/allottee was allotted a flat in draw of lots.
• The total cost of the Flat was supposed to be Rs.17,49,330/- 
• on 19.07.2016 an ‘Apartment Buyer’s Agreement’ was executed between the parties.
• till May, 2018 The appellant/allottee made a total payment of Rs.15,70,537/-. 
• On 23.10.2018 The appellant/allottee through email and letter requested the respondent/promoter to cancel his booking after deduction of earnest money of Rs.25,000/- as per AH Policy and sought refund of the remaining amount.
• The respondent/promoter did not refund the money.

• Aggrieved with the above, the appellant/allottee filed the Original complaint number 26 of 2019 seeking relief of refund.

• On 02.04.2019 , the learned HRERA GURUGRAM Authority passed the Order of refund in favour of the appellant/allottee.

• the respondent/promoter paid the payment after 2 years in March 2021 did not pay any interest for the period it delayed the payment. 

• Aggrieved with the above, the appellant/allottee filed Execution complaint no.CR/3701/2021.

• On 05.01.2023 The said complaint was dismissed by Adjudicating Officer stating that the Decree is fully compiled.

Submissions by Appellant:-

• The appellant/allottee is aggrieved of the fact that the respondent/promoter did not make the payment to him as per the order of the Authority and forced him to file execution petition.
• The appellant contends that he is entitled to interest for the period of delay in payment of refund of Rs. 15,70,537/- from the date of the Authority's order (April 2, 2019) until March 2021, spanning two years @ 10% per annum which comes out to Rs. 3,14,107/-.

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• we deem it fit to grant interest to the appellant/allottee for the unjust delay in releasing the payment till March, 2021.
• the plea of the appellant/allottee for grant of interest of Rs. 3,14,107/- for the delay in payment beyond 90 days period till March, 2021 is legal and bonafide.

Court’s Order:-

• the said amount be paid to the appellant/allottee forthwith without any further delay.

Cases pending or ongoing with other tribunals will not be entertained by RERA

 The authority in Gurugram, Haryana in Sh. Sukhbir Singh Grewal Vs. M/s MVL Ltd (Complaint no. 48 of 2018) reiterated that it will not entertain any case which is already pending in another tribunal or court. 

In this particular case, the buyer had filed a case against the builder for delay in giving possession of property beyond the date mentioned in the agreement. The builder submitted that the delay was a result of the interim order passed by SEBI. The builder had moved the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) challenging SEBI’s decision.

 RERA stated that ‘As the matter is already with the SEBI/SAT, accordingly there is no case left for the present before this authority and to continue further proceedings in the matter. Let the issue be decided by the SEBI/SAT. Once the SAT set aside the order of the SEBI then the only allottee may come to us for proceedings under the RERA Act.’ 

Complaints can be instituted against promoters in relation to both projects which have been registered with the authority or which are not registered with the authority

Simmi Sikka V/s M/S EMAAR MGF LAND LTD Complaint number RERA-GRG-7-2018

Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gurugram 

The judgement contains the following conclusions

• The RERA Act, nowhere mentions anywhere that it is applicable only for the registered projects.

• The RERA Act, provides certain categories of projects which are not required to be registered but these are within the ambit of the Act. These projects mentioned in section 3(2) have been taken out of the registration requirement but not out of the purview of other provisions of the Act.

• The provisions regarding registration and obligation during registration are applicable only for the registered projects.

• The obligations of the promoter’s post expiry of the validity of the registration provided in the Act are applicable to even the real estate projects exempted from the registration.

• The projects which were completed and handed over during the last 5 years are 

covered for the purpose of workmanship and structural defect liability.  A complaint may be filed by the allottee in such matter in case the possession of the real estate was within 5 years prior to the date of the complaint.

• All real estate projects are covered for land title defect liability

• A complaint pertaining to violation of the provisions of RERA Act, Haryana RERA Rules, and regulations thereunder, may be filed by any aggrieved person in respect of any real estate project as per the definition given in section 2(zn) of RERA Act.

Based on the above judgment, it may be concluded that registration of project and filing RERA complaint, both are separate activities. A RERA case can be filed even against the non-registered projects.