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.

MAHAREAT -When the Allottees asked the promoters to enter into an agreement for sale but the Promoters did not reply and did not enter into an agreement for sale thereupon Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply and also when the project is ongoing Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will be applied being continuing breach of contract.

When the Allottees asked the promoters to enter into an agreement for sale but the Promoters did not reply and did not enter into an agreement for sale thereupon Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 will not apply and also when the project is ongoing  Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will be applied being continuing breach of contract

M/s, Reddy Builders & Developers & ors V/s Hari Shankar Kankani & ors.

Appeal No, AT00600000053249/2021 in Complaint No. CC006000000195966 BEFORE THE MAHARASHTRA REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

Fact of the main Complaint CC006000000195966:-

• Somewhere in the year 2005, The Respondents Allottees had booked a 3BHK flat under a pre-launched scheme in the project "Oregon" in Goregaon ,Mumbai undertaken by Appellants for a total consideration of Rs.38,99,740/-
• The Respondents Allottees paid an amount of Rs.6,90,000/- as booking amount which is more than 10% of the total consideration.
• The Appellant Company Reddy Builders issued allotment letter-cum-receipts to Allottees.
• The Allottees were continuously insisting the Promoters to execute the agreement for sale. Despite continuous follow-up of Allottees the Promoters conveniently avoided to execute the agreement for sale.
• The Appellant Company Reddy Builders agreed to handover the possession of the said flat to Allottees by 2012.
• However Till 2009, the Construction was not commenced due to some issue with slum dwellers.
• somewhere in the year 2021 ,being dissatisfied with the conduct of the Promoters, the Allottees filed Complaint No.CC006000000195966 and sought relief under Section 13 of the RERA Act,2016.
• The Appellant Company Reddy Builders appeared in the Complaint and remonstrated the Complaint by filing written submissions contending therein that the Complaint is liable to be dismissed primarily on following grounds viz; 
• (i) there ls no cause of action 
• (ii) the alleged transaction took place prior to RERA coming into force 
• (iii) the Complaint is not maintainable for want of proper pleadings 
• (iv) the Allottees are guilty of delay and latches 
• (v) the Complaint is hopelessly barred by the law of limitation.
• On 19/04/2021 After hearing the parties learned Authority disposed of the Complaint by directing the parties as under:
• a. If the Complainants are willing to seek refund of their money, the Respondent No.1 is directed to refund the entire money paid by the Complainants along with interest as prescribed under RERA and relevant rules made thereunder.
• b. If the Complainants are willing to be in the project the Respondent is directed to allot the flat having equivalent area as booked by the Complainants. An agreement for sale may be executed in accordance with the provisions of RERA and the relevant rules."
• Being aggrieved by the Order of  MahaRERA  the Appellants, who are Promoters, have preferred the captioned Appeal

The Authority Framed the following Question(s) for consideration:-

            Whether the Complaint is barred by the law of limitation?

Observations made by the Hon’ble Court:-

• It is not in dispute that after 2006 there was no correspondence between the parties till 2019.
• By the letters in 2019 & 2020 the Allottees asked the Promoters to enter into an agreement for sale.
• It is not in dispute that the Promoters have not replied the said letters.
• Article 54 of Limitation Act, 1963 speaks about the period of limitation for seeking specific performance of contract.
• There is limitation of three years for seeking relief of specific performance of contract.
• The period of limitation begins to run when the date fixed for performance, or, if no such date is fixed it begins when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused.
• In the instant case, there is no date fixed for performance of contract,
• As indicated above, by the letters, the Allottees have asked the promoters to enter into an agreement for sale. Promoters did not reply the said letters nor entered into an agreement for sale, It means the Allottees have noticed that performance of contract is refused by the promoters.
• it is not in dispute that the Promoters have commenced construction of the subject project somewhere in 2015-2016.
• Since it was an ongoing project, the Promoters have registered the project with MahaRERA and declared the date of completion of project as 31.07.2027,It means there is continuous cause of action.
• Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides for the computation of limitation in the case of continuing breach of contract or tort. It provides that in case of a continuing breach of contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach continues.
• it relied on  Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Limited. Vs. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Private Limited  Civil Appeal No 4000 of 2019 before the Supreme Court of India.

Court’s Order:-

Complaint is not barred by the law of limitation

Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides for the computation of limitation in the case of a continuing breach of contract or tort.

Supreme court of india in the matter of Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan AIR 1959 SC 798 held that Section 22 of the Limitation Act 1963 provides for the computation of limitation in the case of a continuing breach of contract or tort. It provides that in case of a continuing breach of contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach continues. 

Supreme Court of India:here is no bar on limitation for filing of the corruption cases in India

  Supreme Court of India : P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that there is no bar on limitation for filing of the corruption cases in India as Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not have such scheme of limitations

Madras High Court : The private rights of an individual to acquire title by adverse possession cannot be upheld when the same is put up against the public rights of the beneficial owners

 Thankappan Vs The State of Tamil Nadu S.A.(MD)No.252 of 2005 JUDGMENT PRONOUNDED ON : 10.02.2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

The occupier can plead and prove title by adverse possession only as long as the Government property remains as a Government Poramboke, not being reserved for any public purposes. Only in those cases,the occupier can invoke Article 112 of the Limitation Act and claim title by adverse possession. In all other cases, where the properties are being classified and reserved for public purposes, since he cannot have anyanimus as against all the beneficial owners, the occupier cannot acquire title by adverse possession.The private rights of an individual to acquire title by adverse possession cannot be upheld when the same is put up against the public rights of the beneficial owners. Hence, no occupier can acquire title by adverse possession over a water body or any other land reserved for public purposes despite being in possession beyond the statutory period of 30 years

Punjab RERA - Long unexplained delay in pursuing the matter would obviously be hit by the bar of limitation.

 In the Matter of Indra Duggal V/s Chandigarh Overseas Pvt ltd. Case no. 1769 of 2020 decided on 07.07.2021 Before The Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab

Fact of the Case 

• Unit was allotted on 26.09.2014
• Date of Builder buyer agreement was on 26.09.2014
• Entire payment has also been received by the Respondent.
• Date of Possession was 30.06.2016
• Possession has not been provided

It was held by the Authority That 

• There has been a complete inaction on the part of complainant for a period of nearly 6 years till the present complaint is filed on Aug 2020.
• Such a long unexplained delay in pursuing the matter would obviously be hit by the bar of limitation.
• The Entry at Serial no. 113 of the schedule of the limitation act,1963 provides that the limitation for any proceedings for which no separate period of limitation is provided would be 3 years from the time the right to sue accrues.
• The complaint is being dismissed as being barred by limitation.