RAJIV YADAV vs SAVYASACHI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

* db hARERA ComplaintNo.

5512 of 2022 GURUGRAIT/ EEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM orderdlsposed on 04.03.2025 NAMT OfTIIEBUITDER M/s SarAasachi lntrartru.rure P.ivate Linned "AMAYACREENS" ( D DIAY), Sector- 3, FarukhnaAar Sun'lxumarand Ashok Xumrr v/S savyasa(h' lnlrd.udure Pnvate & Sharma Confe.tion.6 Priv,i€ L'mited & Sharma Confed'onc.s P.iv:te l.imitpd UpenderVermaV/SSavyasachi lnfrastru.ture Private Lrn ed& Sharma confdion.x Priv:r.

I fr#d Su.ra kantV/S Savy?sa.nihfrastiu.tur.

Privat€ Limited & sharma confdioh.B Privste Lrmited c h.ndvee r s hgh v/s s avy2e.h i I nrEstructu !e Private Limited & Sh,rma confcdioneB Prie:i. l.imir..i Rav a.d RahuLKumarV/S SavFechi lnfrasuudure Privat.

Limired &Shama C.nt .non.E Priv2re Limit.d satya D€v and Ramesh Chand V/S Srvyaechi lnfranructure Private Limited & sharma conf..ion.6 Privrt.

Lim'ted Ch dver Sin3hV/S Saryaa.hi lnfrastucture Private l,imitsd & Sha16, conferti.ners Pnvab l.imtPd Ranesh (omarv/s salaasa.hr rnlrasxu.ture P.ivate l,imited & Sharma Conf.rtioners PnvaE Limt€d Ra,i!Yadav V/SSavyaschi lnf.stuctures Privaie Limit€d.nd sharma conrecii.ner Private l-imii.d Raiiv Yadav V/SSavyaechi lnfrastructu.es Pnvate Limited and sh,rmr aonf{rion.r Priv:t.

Limit.n Sher Singh V/S Savyasachi Infrasrucrure Private Linited & Sharda contu.honer Pnvat€ Linited Aj.et lGmarTiwari V/S Sa!ryasa.hi lnfrasru.tu.e Privare Limited 3 t- 10.

IL c R/\520 /ZO2Z cR/5662/2022 R!.h, ChaudhryV/S Savyasach,lnftasn\(ure Prjvate Lrmtred & sh,rm: fonredioi.rs Priv2rP . mn.d Neerai Cauran V/SSaraasa.hi lnfrastudure Private I-inited & lh:rm: a.nfedion.rs Phv:r. l. mn.d cR/6302/2022 AtulKumarV/S Savyasachi lnfrastru.ture Private Limir.d & Sharma Conf€dion€r Priv,te L,mted SJll-p"r I . ".yr\d.h inlrd' u, tr rp P.trra L'n pd & sh.'n r 11 | CR/6692t 2022 | 16.

I cq/22/202x cR/55t5 /2022 cR/55t7 /2022 cP /s\ le /2022 5 *HARERA d$- cunur,nnur cR/2004/2023 Complaint No.

5512 of 2022 Vinod ( u mar v/S Savyar.ch i tn fras.uciu. fras.uciu.e pnvate Linited& Sh3ro.

Confectione6 Private Limned Culshan RanrV/S Savlasachi Infrarudure p.ivat€ Limited & Sharmaconredioners Priv:r. r.,mnc.l coRAnl: CORAM: Shn vijay KumarCoyal I Chel.man Shn Ashok Sangwan APPEARANC[: Caurav Rawat (Advoca(e) None (Respondentl Sh-Arjun Parashar Advocate on behal Bhushan Yadav Ex-dire.tor 2 t.

ORDER This order shalldisposeof 18 complaints titled above filed before this authonty under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Acr, 2016 fhereinafter referred as "the Act") read with rule 28 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Rules,2017 (hereinafter referred as "rhe rules") forviolation ofsection 11(4)(a) oftheActwherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its obligations, responsibrlities and functions lo theallotteesas per th e agreement Ior sale exccured inter se parhes.

The co.c issues emanating from them are similar jn nature and rhe complainant(s) in the above refer.ed marters ar€ allottees of the proiect, namely, Amaya Greens", Sector 03, Gu rugram, Haryana beingdeveloped byrhe respondent/promoter i.€., 14ls SaB,asachi Inirasrructure Pvt.

Ltd.

The terms and conditlons ofthe allotment letter, buyer's agreements, fulcrum ofthe issue involved in all these cases pertains to aailure on the p3rt ol the promoter ro lofSh.

Bharat ARERA | .o.ou'",,.,.,,o,,0,, I UR.GRA[/ | 'nd 17 orhe6 | timely possession of the units in question seeking award of refund of the paidupamountalongwithinteresrandotherreliefs. tails of the complaints, unit no., date of agreemenf possession clause, due 'possession, total sal€ consideration, total paid amount, and reliet sought en in the table below: #l $-G 3.

Thede are giv Proie(t Name and Amaya C.eenl', Sector 03, Gurusram..

1 125 arcs 0rnl.enqdl Deen DayalJan Awaas Yolna DTCPliren\enu.andorherdcraik:\Jlobrrrredbv., CP RERA ReErst€red/ not Noi r.grsiered Possession .lause as perbuyer'saEreem. r'saEreem.nt S, xo, the h ond Potn \ll the une of po$es,aq at t hp ,a'd .ta pose$an ofthe soid SCO sholl be handed ovet within o periad ol Twelle nonths lron the tute oI nqnins ol thf Mou and if in ont @e First Pa.ty unobL to hadovet the SCo wthin Twelve nonths then fron the aonth offhnEen, the Ftrn PortJ ossures the S.contl Pdrtt thot it sho pa! interest of 24% of invested ohount po ta (omDlalnrtrr ComplaintNo.

5s12 or2022 I FARER GURUGRAl\/ compl.intNo.5512of 2022 cR/s5ta/2022 r& IARER..

GURUGRAl\/ ConplaintNo.5512ol2022 I cRE Eltr t* tDor 813 *r$ HARERA GURUGRAI\,4 complaiDtNo.

5512 of 2022 ConplaintNo.55l2of 2022 *T [k*"*J* 1.

The lacts ofallthe complaints liled by the complaina n(r/a ltottee(s) are simrtar.

Out of the above-mentioned case, the partrculars of tead case CR/5512/2022 titled as Suril (umar & , nr. ys Savyosochi Inlrastructure pvt" Ltit. & Shormo Con[ectioners PvL Ltd. ate being taken into consideration for determining the r,ghts oirhe allottee(sl.

Proiect and unitrelared detatls The particulars ofthe project, the details olunir, sale consideration, the amounr paid by the compla,nant, date of proposed handing ov€r the possession, have been detailed in the following tabularform: CR/5512/2022 titled as Sunil Kumar & Ant.

Vs Sovyasachl tnJrastucture Pvt.

Ltd. & Sharma Conledioners Pvt.

5. l 2.

F ''Amaya Creenr'.

Scctor 01.

GuruSram.

3.12s acres (unlicensed) Notobtain.d from DTaP RERArcgrstered or not MOU executed between respondent no.

1 and the I A-08 admeasuring s4.35 sq. yds. (tentativel I zs.ot:ozt Unr no. (sco tro.) *HARERA $- crhrcnnv Rs.19,00,000/- lNoterBSP is calculate @ Rs, 34952/' per sq. yds.

Any othe. cha.Be\ i e., EDC, lDC, IFMS, Electricityconnect'on, sewerage connecnon and wate. connection shallbe in addition to the BSP.I ComplaintNo,55l2of 2022 (Paee 31 ofcomplaintl Rs.1000. l Rs.1000.000/ as perclause 4 ofthe MoU "That the First Porry osures the Second Porty that the po$esion of the sdid Sco tha be handed over within a period of Twelve manths t'ron the date olsighihs ol this MOU ond if in onr cose First Party unable to hondo\er the SCo within Twelve months then lrcn the nonth of Thtrteen, the Fi$t Por7, asures the Second Party thot it shol pay interest of24% of ineested amolnt p.o- to the Seeon l PaO till the tine of po*e$ion of the said SCO." 6.

2i 0:t 2022 + 6 months in lieu of.ovid 29 23 09.2022 11.

12 B, Facts ofthe complaint The complainants have made the following submilslons in thecomplaint - That in 2017, the respondent issued an adveriisenent announcing a Deen Dayal Jan Awaas Yojna "Amaya Greens'at Sector -3, Farukh Nagar, curugram, underlicense no.3? of 2017 dated 24.06.2017, issued by DTCP, Haryana and thereby invited applications from prospective buyers for the purchase of unit in the said project.

The respondent confirmed that th€ project had sotbuildins plan app.ovalfrom theAuthority. t di) HARERA GURUGRAIV complainrNo.

55r2of 2022 II Relying on various representations and assurances given by the respond€nt and on belief of such assurances, complainant booked a SCO unit in the project by paying an amount ot Rs.

10,00,000/- towards the said unit bearing no.

SCO A-08, in Sector,3, Curugram. having super area admeasuring54.358sq.yards.totherespondentdated23.03.2021 and the same was acknowledged by the respondent.

That the respondent confirmed the book,ng of the said unir to the complainant providing the details ofthe proiec! confirming the booking of the unit dated 09.03.2021, allotting t unit no.

SCo No.

A-08 in rhe aforesaid project of the developer for a total sale consideration of the unit i.e., Rs.

19,00,000/- which includes basic price, EDC and lDC, car parking charges and other specifications of the allotted unit A MoU was executed between the complainant and respondent no.

1 dated 23.03.202 1. .03.202 1.

That at the time ofexecution ofthe said MOU, assurance was made to the complainant that the agreement will be erecuted within 2 months but till date respondent no.1 has hiled to executg the buyer's agreement and also failed to ofer/handover the possession the said unit even after delay of more than around 1 year.

That complainants vide booking appllcatiolt form dated 09.03.202 1, applied for booking ofthe said unit.

Thereafter, repeated reminders and follow ups only that the respondent provides the copy ofthe said MoU in year 2022.

Furthermore, when the complainants received said copy ofthe MoU it was very shocking to the complainants that respondent acting arbitrarily changed the agreed terms and conditions ofthe bookingin MoU.

Thereafter, complainants raised the objection to same and respondent provided false assurance to the complainants thatit isjust forthe tormality.

That as per the said MOU, the respo.de.t was liable to handover the possession of the said unit on or before 23.03.2022, therefore, the ?aae 9 ol 27 III IX VII.

VIII x HARERA Compl.int No.

5512 of 2022 GI]RUGRA[/ respondent was liable to pay interest as per rhe prescrib€d rate as laid under the RERA Act, 2015 .nd HRERA Rules, 2017 for delay in delivery of possessiontillthecompletionof theconstructionof unit.

That the respondent by talsely mis-represenring to the complainants and thereby makingthem to actinacco.dance ro its misrepresenration.

That the respondent not only failed ro adhere to the terms and conditions of booking but also illegally extracted money from the comptainants by making false promises and statements at the time of booking.

The respondent is unable to handovera possession even after a delay ofyear.

That by falsely ensuringwrongdeliverylines and falselyassuring the timety delivery of possession, the complainants has been subjected to unethical/unta,r trade practice as w€ll as 5ubiected to haraslment in the guise ol a biased alloEnent letter. nt letter.

The above said acts of rhe respondent clearly reveal that the respondents with pre,udice has been indulging in unfair trade praciic€ and has also been provldihg gross deficient services and thereby causingde8cielcyin sewices.Allsuc.h act and omissions on the part of the respondent has caused an immeasurable mental stress and agony to the complainants.

By having intentionally and knowingly induced and having falsely mis-represented tO the complalnants and thereby owing to all the deliberate lapses on the pa ofthe responden! the respondents are liabl€ to make as being requjsitioned/claimed by the complainants.

That durinS the period the complainants went to the ofiice of respondent several tines and requested then to allow them to visit rhe site and when the respondent will get buyers agr€ement executed but ir was never allowed saying that they do not permit any buyer ro visit the site during construction period, once complainantsvisited the sire but was not allowed to enter the site and eveD there was no proper approached road.

The complainants even after was no properapproached road.The compla,nants Pa8e 10o121 *0 HARERA ComplaintNo.

5512of 2022 GURUGRAN/ even after pay,ng amounts still received nothing in return but only loss of the time and money invested bythem.

That the complainants contacted the respondent on several occas,ons and !!ere regularly in touch with the respondents.

The respondents was never able to give any satislactory response to the complainants regarding thc slatus of the construction and were neverdefinite about the delivery ofthe That the complainants continuously asking the respondents about the status ofthe project,time bywhich the proiectis expect€d to be completed, \,! hen the respondents willgetbuyers agreement executed and the penalty amount that respondents is liable to pay but respondents were never able to givc any satisfactory response to ihe complainants response to the That as per the demands raised by th€ respondent, ba ondent, based on the payment plan, the complainants to buy th€ subjert unitalready paid a total sum ofRs.

10,00,000/- towards the said unit aga,nsi total sale consideration of Rs.

19,00,000/.

That allotment of the unit was made on 23.03.2021, after coming into force of the Act, 2016 and as per the Act, after corning into force of the Act the respondent can charge only on the carpet olthe unit not on the super area ofthe unit.

In the present case, respondent has charge the complainants on the super area i.e., 54.36 sq.yards @Rs.

34,592l-per sqJards which is against the provisions of the Act, 2016 and the rules, 2017 made thereof. llence, rn accordance to the provisions oftheAct, necessary penalaction to bc taken against the respondentand direction may kindly be passed to the respondent to charge on thecarpetarea instead ofthe superarea ofthe unit. lhat the respondents not only failed to adhere to the terms and conditions ol booking but also illegally extracted money from th€ complainants by Pagc 11 oi21 XI xIL xtv xt1.

XV rr db HARERA GURUGRAIV complaintNo.

5512of 2022 making false promises and statements at rhe time of booking.

The respondents is unable to handover a possession even afteradelay ot 1 year.

That the complainants continuously asking the respondenrs about the status ofthe project, time by which the proiect is expected ro be cohpleted, assured amount respondents required ro pay to the complainants and the penaltyamountthat respondents is Iiable ro pay but respondents was never ableto giveanysatisfactoryrespondenttothecomptainants.

That the complainants are the onewho has invested their life savings in the said project and are dreaming of a u4it for themselves and the respondents hav. not only cheated and betrayed tbem but also used their hard earned money ror their enjoyment.

Rellefsought by the complalnants: - On 04 03.2025, the counsel for the . for the .omplainants stared at the bar rhat the complainants requested to amend rhe relief in the complainr and now wishes to withdraw lrom the proiect.

The complainants are seeking a full refund ofthe amount deposited, along with interest from the dare oa each deposit, as the allotment of the unit has been made in an unregist€red and unsanctioned proiect.

An application lor the amendment ofrelieihas been submirred, and the samc lvas allowed in view ofthe facts and circumstances mentioned above.

The complainants through application dated 30-04.202+ for amendment in reliears seeking followinB reliet I.

Drrectthe respo ndent to .efu nd the entire amount paid bythe complainanr along w,th p.escribed rate of interest as per provisions ofsecrion 18 of thc Roal Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.

The Authonty issued a notice dated 26.09.2022 to the respondent by speed post and also sent it to the provided emailaddresses, [email protected], sa'[email protected], [email protected].

Delivery reports have been placed on record.

Despite th,s, a public norice for rhe app€arance ofrespondenr c.

7_ xvlt. ll 9_ *HARERA S,eunLnnal,r Complaint No.

5512 oI2022 and for filing a reply was published on 06.12.2023 in the newspapers, namely Dainik Bhaskar and Hindustan Times.

The respondents failed to appear before tbe Authority on 02.11.2022, t4.03.2023,31.08.2023,05.t0.2023, 12.t2.2023, '16.01.2024.

26-03 -2024, 09.07 -2024, Oa.lO.2024, 07.01.2025. and 04.03.2025.

None has app.ared on behalfofrhe respondent despite beinggiven sufficjent & multiple oppo.tunities , in view of rhe same, the defense ofthe respondent was struck off and matter was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.12.2023 and is being decjded on basis offacts and documents submitt€d with the complajnt which are undisputed.

It is imporrant to note rhat during the course ot proceeding dated 04.03.2025, Sh.

Arjun Parashar Advocate on behalf of Sh.

Bharat tshushan Yadav Ex.

Yadav Ex.

Directorand filed POA during proceedings and states that Sh.

Bha.at Bhushan Yadav is not any more associared with the respondent D.

Jurisdiction ofthe autho ty 10.

The Authority obseNes that it has te.rirorial as well as subject mattcr jurisdiction to adjudicate th e present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.l lerritorialjurisdiction 11.

As per notification no.1/92/2017-1rcP doted 14.12.2017 issuedby'to$tnand Country Plann,ng Department, the jurisdiction ol Real Estate Regulatory Autho.ity, Curugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with olfices situated in Gurugram. ln the present case, the project in question r situatod within the planninga.ea olGurugram Drstrict.

Therefore, this authority has complete territorial jurisdiction to dealwith the present cornpla,nt.

E.ll subie.t matter iurisdiction 12.

S.ction 11[4J(a) oftheAcl2016 provides that the promotershallbe responsiblc to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

S€ction 11(4)(al ,s r€produced as lrHARERA $-cunLr+nu Complaint No.

5512 oi2022 [4) The pronot rshdll- (a) be rcsponsible lot oll obligotions, raponnbilities and functions tn.ler th. ptovis,ont of this Act or th. rul6 ond reguhrions nad. the/eunde. or to the allott@s as per the ogleeaeht lor &le or b rh. astucidtioh ofallott 4, ot the cae hay be, ti th. conv.yoh.e ofdll the oportn ts, plots or buildings, os the cas. na! be, to the allotte$, or the conmon ar@s to the ossociotion ofallone$ ot the conpet ntouthtity, as the case nay bel S e cri on 3 1 - Fu nction s ol ah e Au thori ty : 344 of the Act ptovdes to enyre conplionce of the obligotions cost upon the pronoters, the ollottees ond the real estote agents undet this A.t ond the tules ond regulations node th.ruund.r, 13.

So,in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, theauthorityhas complete iurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance ofobligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer if officer ifpursued bythe complainant at a later stage.

14.

Further, theauthority hasirohitch in proce€dinSwith $e complaintand to grant a reliefofrefund in the pr€sent matter in view ofthejudgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mer.decft Promobrs ani Del,elopers Prlvate Llmlted Vs state ol U.P. ond Ors 2021-2022 (1) RcR (ctil), ls7 and reiterated in case ol M/s Sono Realrars Privae Llmraed & otll€r Vs Unlot ol lndla & others SLP (Civil) No, 13005 oJ 2020 dectuted on 1205,2022, whetein ir has been laid down 36 Frcn the schene ofthe Act ofwhich o deto cd r eference ho s bee n na.l e a n.1 toking rote of power oJ adjudication delineoted with the rcgulotory duthorirt ond odjudicating oJlcq. whatfnollt culs out is thot olthough the Act intli.ates he distinct expre$ions like 'refund , 'inte6t , 'p.nolry ond 'co pensotion , a conjaiht reading of Sections 10 and 19 clearly nonilests thot when it cones to telund ofthe onount, ond interest on the relund onount or .lirccting poynent ol interest lor deloyed delivery ol posvstion, ot pnalty and interesr theteon, it is the regulatory outhotitt which hos the powet to exonine and deternine the outcone oI o cohploint, At th. tuhe tine, when n con6 to o qu4tion ol seekin! the reliel oJ odludging conpenetion ond tntercst thereon uhdq sectiont 12, 14, 1a ond 19, the odjudicoring ollica exclusivel! hos the power ro detetnne, keepihg in view the.ollectite readiAg of Section 71 reod wth Secttan 72 of the Act il the odjudicotion undet Sections 1 2, 14, 18 and 19 othet rhon cotupehsdtion os .nvisoged, if ext nded ro the adjudkoting ollcer os proyed that, in our vitu, not ihtend to expond rhe a bit ond rope ol the *H A" ARERA L]RUGRAI\I Conplaint No.

5s12 or2022 poweB dnd furctiors oI the odiudicatins olie. under Section 71 ond thdt would beaqonn the ndndo@ ot the A,t 2olo 1 5.

2olo 1 5.

Hence, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon,bte Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above, the Aurhority has the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking refund ofrhe amount and interest on rhe refund 17 Findings on the.eliefsought by rhe complainants.

E,l Direct th. respoddent to refund the enrire amount paid by th€ complainant alonS with prescribed rate ofinreresr as per provisiols of section 18 ofthe Real Estate (Regulation & Devetopm.nD A.t,2Ol6i The complainants booked a SCO plot no.A 08 admeasuring 54.36 sq yds.

A MoU with rcgard to the subjecr unit was executed on 23.03.2021 berween rh€ parties.

The complainant has paid Rs.

10,00,000/- against rhebasicsale cons,deration of Rs.

19 00,000/ .

As per clause 6 of the MoU, it was agreed by the promorer respondent that the SCo plot shallbehanded overwirhin a period of 12 months trom the datc oaMoU.

As submrtted by thecomplainants thattheworkarthe sirewas not even started and see no hope of its completion.

To ascertain the situation, on 31.08.2023, the Autho ry appojnted an Enquiry Officer, namely, Shri.

Ramesh Kumar, retired DSP 18.

In pursuance to above-mentioned directions passed by the Aurhority, rhe EnquiryOff cersubminedthesralus reporton 23.12.2023 and has concluded as fhe site ol the prohct i.e., "A oyo creens", lncoted dt Secto.3, Fdrukhnogor, Curugtuh being dewloryd by M/s SovyNchi lnftosttucture PvL Ltd. hos been inspected on 12.12-2023 ontl it is (A) Colloborotion agrcenent dated 28.06.2015 hod been resistered between the londown r ie., Shotna ConfectioneB PyL Ld. in collobototion |'ith the developet i.e., sovtoso.hi lnfrostructurc PyL Ltd.

Ior the land odnasuing 97 Konal 6 notlo i.e.,12 1625 ocres.

HARERA ComplaintNo.

5512 of 2022 GURUGRAI\I (3) The ticens. had been snnted by DTC| vide license no 3? of201Z dozd 24.

Z dozd 24.462017 volid up to 27A62022lat lond odheosuring 90375 ocres anly and oftet thor the pralect hod been regBteretl with the intzrin RERA vide RC no 212 o12017 doted 1A.09 2A17 vatid up to t6A3 2023 (i n cl udi n s 6 non th s Cavi d ex te n son ). (c) Conpletion certif te ha.t beea qraated bt DAtCp, Horyono vide neno no.

LC-3257/lE(sl)-2o21 /51 0 dated 1 1.01.2027 Ior license no 37 ol2017lor ton.l adheasurino9.0375 dcres onty, (D) The botanee poft i,e,, 3.12 s o.res hos not beet qrontert on, ticense bt DTCP, Edryana ond not rcglstere.t with the Authority atso. [E) As pet the stotenent oflando\|ner SPA wos cancelled oh a3 012022 b! rhe londownerdLe toededsputesonse betueen then antl canploinLs rcqanting SCO vhich k ta be hohd.tl over by the pronoter t e, Mk Soryosochi lnJrdstructtrc ht Ltd- folts outytle the trense no 3T oJ 2017 ond the orea on wh'ch SCO s ote prcposed to build has notgronted onr llcene ltun DTCP Horlana (F) MoU\ wete sigred oA dillerent dotes os per nentioned n the toble heteeen the developer ie., Soeyosdchi lnJrcstructure Pvt.

Ltd ond .odplatnant i.e., Mr Vinod Kunar S/o sh.

Panchohder antl poynent haA been rcrcived ton develapet wthoLt tegistetihg the p.qectwnh theAuthoritJ. (c) t,ondowherLe.,Shat o ConlectioneB Nt.

Lttl-stoEd thotthey hove ho objecttan lor the oltoftees ||ho has b?en ofered pa$asion bt the develope. r.e, Sovloechi lnhostructue l\,t Ltd. in the lond pot.et aJ 9.4375 ones only ond will not .t@E on! obstruction to the otlotzes t'or toking the phlsicol po$e$ion and once the license and rcgistonon hos beeh gtunted fo. the balonce port i...,3.125 ocrct then they dll not hove dny oAedions for gieing passesion to the concerned ollortees oho (statenent ou4ched as Annd c)." 19. ln pursuance oa the above,menrioned conclusion, rhe Authority obserues that the tolal area oithe project is 12.1625 acres.

The DCTP, Haryana, has granted the license to develop th€ colony only for an area of 9.0375 acres only.

The remarning area, i.e.,3. a, i.e.,3.125 acres, has not been granted any license by DTCP, Haryana, nor it is registered with the Authority.

The unit booked by the complninant is partoiunlicensed and unregisrered ar€a measuring 3.125 acreas.

Herein, the complainant intends to wirhdraw from rhe project and is seeking return of the amount paid by her in .especr ofsubtect unit along w,th interesr at tdi ComplaintNo.5Sl2of 2022 as p,ovided under seclron 18( l) ol the Act.

Secnon lStl J of the Act rs reproduced below for ready reference: *HARERA S*eunucnnnt section 1A: - Rctum oIahounton.lconpen tion 130 ). lf the pronotet loils to cohptere or is uhoble to sNe po$esion ofan apottnena plot, or building.- (o) inocco ance with the terns olthe osrcedentlor sate ot, os the row no! be dutrcohpkkdbt thpdatp\penlten 'hpre'n.ol (b) dte tadiscohtiuane ofhts businesoso devetopet o. occouht of suspension or rev..otioh olthe r.sistrction undet thk Att or lot he sholl be liobl. oa dehand to the o ottees, in cose the otlottee wshes to withdrow fion the project, without prejtdice to ony othet rcnedy ovoiloble, to retum th. odomt receieed bt hin i, respect olthot apaftmena ploa btildlng, os the cose noy be, \|ith interest ot stch tute os not be prdcribed in this behalf indtding canpensotion in the donner as provlded underthisAct: P.ovt.led thot where on ollottee does not intend ta withdraw ltun the protecC he shall be paid, bt the prcnoteL intarest lor every onth oI deldy, till the handing over ol the possestian, ot slch rote os noy he 20.

Clause 6 of the memorandum of understanding dated 21.09.2020 provides tb. the time pcriod for handing over ofpossession and is reproduced below; "6) That the lnn Pony osutes the Second PorA thot the possession oJ the \otd sca shotl be honded over \|ithtn a period al Tw.lve months fron the dare oJ signing oI thts MOU ohd il in an! cay rnn Potr! unobte to hondover the 5C0 within fwelve nonths then froh the nonth al Thineen, the Firn Pottyasutesthe SeLond Po.tythartsholl por nte. l por nte.esr oJ24% of invened onount p o. b he Sdontl Porry till the tine ofpase$ton ofthe said Jao 21 Due date of handing over poss€ssion: As per clause 6 of the MOU, the possession ol the allotted SCO plot was supposed to be oifered within a stipulated timearame oi 12 months lrom the date of,signing of the MOU.

1n the present matter, the lvloU was executed on 23.03.2021 and hence the respondent was liable to handover possession by 23.03.2022 ,n terms oithe MolJ.

Further the Authority in view of notification no- 9/3-2020 dated 26.05.2020, allows g.a€c period of 6 months on account offorce majeure condtions due to outbreak of Covid 19 pandemic.

Thercforc, the due date oi handing over oi possession comes outto be 23.09.2022.

PaSe l7 ol21 *HARERA !1s-crrnrcnnll ComplaintNo,5512of 2022 22.

Admissibility of refirnd along with prescrlbed rate of lnterest The complainant is seeking retund the amount paid by him atthe prescrib€d rate of interest and intends to withdraw from the p.oiect.

The prescribed rate of interest as prov,ded under Rule 15 of the Rules, ibid.

Rule 15 has been reproduced as under; Rale 75.

PB..ib&t rct. ol interesr.

IPmvlso to ection 12, ection 18 ond sub-section @ dn t sLbgcnon 0) olilcti@ 191 (1) Fot the puryov ol proviso to section 12; ftcnon 18: ond sub-wtions (1) on.l (7) ol section 19, the'intetat at the tute prefiibed" sholl be the Stote Bonk ol lndio htghen noryinol cost oI knding rate +2%.: Provided that in .6e the StoE &oa\ ol lrdio noryirol cost ol lending mre (MCLR) i! not in !se, it shall be rudoird b! such benchtutk tdding mts which the State Bonk ol tndio nay fu lro tihe tn ti e lor tendins to the qenerot 23.

The legislature in its wisdom in thesubordinate leSislation under the prov,sion ofrule 15 ofthe rules, has determined the presciibed tate ofinterest.

The rate ol interest so determined by the l€Sislature, is reasonable and if the said rule is lollow€d to award the interest, itwill ensure uniform practice in all the cases. the cases.

24 Consequently, as per website ofthe State Bank oalndia i.e., marginal cost oi lending rate (in short, MCLR) as on date i.e., 04.03.2025 is 9.10ol0.

Accordingly, the presc.ibed raie of interest will be marginal .ost of lend,ns rate +2% i-e., 11.10%.

25.

Keeping in view the fact dlat tbe allottee/comdalnanB wishe to withdraw from the project and seeking refund of the amount received by the promoter in respect ofthe sco plor with interest on failure ofthe promoter to complete or inabilitytogive possession oftheunitinaccordance with thet€rmsofagreement for sale or duly completed by the date specified therein.

The matter is covered under Section 18(11 of the Act of 2016.

26.

The due date of possession as per MoU as mentioned in the table above is 23.09.2022.

TheAuthority has observed that even after a passage ofmore than 3.5 years till date neithertheconstruction is complete northe offerofpossession PaSe laofZl *HARERA $-cunLrc,nnu Cohplarnt No.

5512 oi2022 ofthe allottcd unit has been made to the allottee by the respondent/promoter.

TheAuthority is ofthe viewthat theallottee cannor be expected to wait endlesdy for taking possession ofthe unit which is allorted to it and for which rhey have paid more than 80% of sale consideration. lt is also pertinent to mention rhar complninant has paid the more than 800/0 amount on the date olenrering into the memorandum of understanding, Le., on 23.03.2021.

Further, the Authority obsenes that the total area of the project is 12.1625 acres.

The DCTP, Haryana, has granted the Occupation C€rtificate only for an area of 9.0375 acres The remarning area of 3.125 acres, which includes the complainant's SCO plot, has not been granted any license by the DTCP, Haryana, nor it is registered with the Authority and neither the promoter is makingany eiforts to complete the project or cven application lor grant of permission to develop the colony has been initiated. initiated. ln view of the above mentioned lacts, the allottee is well within ihe right to seek refund oi the paid up amount in terms of Section 18(1) oa thB Act, 2At6_ 27.

In the judgement ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia rn the cas€s o/,ryewter, Promoters ond Developers t'rivate Limited vs State ol U.P. and Ors. (supra) reiterated in case ol M/s Sana Realto6 Private Limi.ed & other Vs Union ol lndia & others SLP (Civll) No.

73005 ol2020 decided on 12.0s.2022, it was 25. the unquolifetl right olthe ollottu to t@k refun.l tqered Under section 18(1)(0) and section 1e(4) oJ the Act is not depqdent on ony co\tingencies or stipuladons thereol lt oppea6 thot tie legislature hos consciously provided thjs right ol reluhd on denond as an lnconditionol obsolute ight to the ollottee, il the prcnoEr loils to give posesnon of the oportnent, plot ot buiknng within the nne nipulated u^det the terns ol the asrenent rcsadhs oI unforesen everts ot stot orders ol the Court/fribunal, wh'ch is in either woy not otttibutoble to the allottee/hone buter, the prohoter is under an obligotion to rclund the o ount on denand with nterest ot the rote presctibed by the Stote Covemmentincludingconpen tion in the nonner prcvided undq the Act with the prcvso that iIthe ollottee does not wnh b wthdrcw lru the HARERA ComplrintNo,SSl2of 2022 GUl?UGRA[/ project, he sholt beentitteafurinretestfor the period otdetay tt hondno o\ot na nor at tnp ru@ /.t,bad 28.

The promoter is responsible for all obligations, responsibiliries, abd functions under the provisions of rhe Act o4 2016, or the rules and re8ulations made thereunder or to the allottee as per agreement for sale under Section tt(4)tal.

The promoter has failed to complete or unable to sive possession ofthe unit in acco.dance with the terms oiag.eement for sale or duly compteted by the date specified therein. d therein.

Accordingly, the promoter is tiabte to the allottee, as the allottee wishes to withdraw from the protect, without prejudice to any other rernedy available, to return the amountreceived by it in respectotthe untwith interest at such .ate as may be prescribed.

29.

Acco.dingly, the non-compuance of the mandate contained in Section 11(4)(al .ead M'ith Section 18(1) ofthe Act on the part ofthe.espondent ts established.

As such, the complainant is entitled to refund ofthe entire amount pajd by rhem at the prescribed rate of inte.est i.e., @ 11.10% p.a. (rhe Srate Bank of rndia highest nrarginal cost of lending rate IMCLR) appticable as on date +20lo) as prescribed under Rule 15 oi rhe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 lrom the date of each payment titl rhe actuat date oi r.fund of the amount within the timelines provided in Rule 16 of the ltaryana Rules 2017 ibid.

F.

Directions ofthe authority 30.

Hence, the autho.ity hereby passes thisorderand rssue the iollowingdirections under section 37 olthe Act to ensure compliance of obligarioDs casred upon the promoter as per the functions entrusted to the authority under section 34(f) ot i.

The respondent/promoter is directed to refund the entire paid-up amount recejved by it from the complainants along with interest at the rareof 11.10% p.a.as prescribed under Rule 15 ol the Haryana Real Estate ComplaintNo.55l2of 2022 (Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 from the date ofeach payment tillthe actual realization of the amount.

A period of90 days is given to the.espondent to complywith thedlrections given in this orderand failing which legal consequences would follow.

The planning branch of the Authority is directed to rake necessary action under the provision ofthe Act o12016 for violation ofproviso to Section 3(1) olthe Act by the respondent for sale ofunits without registration and 31.

Files be consrgned to regrstry.

31. rstry.

31.

This decision shallmutatis mutandis apply to cases mentioned in para 3 ofrhrs order whe.ein details olpaid up amounr is mentioned in each ofthe complainrs.

32.

Complaint as well as applications, ilany, stands disposed ofaccordingly. i}HARERA $- crnrrcnlvr (Ashok sa s \r-* (Viiay Kunar Goyal) Haryana R PaSe 21of21 {'i""