Meta Pixel
CNR: --
PENDING

VISHAKHA BIST vs OASIS LANDMARKS LLP

Case NumberRERA-GRG-1707-2019
Date of Filing--
Case TypeRERA-GRG
Last Hearing18 Mar 2025
StateHaryana
CityGurgaon
Year of Filing2019

Party Details

Petitioner
  • VISHAKHA BIST
Respondent
  • OASIS LANDMARKS LLP

Case Summary

VISHAKHA BIST filed Case No. RERA-GRG-1707-2019 in the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) against OASIS LANDMARKS LLP. The case has undergone 27 hearings over 5 years and 3 months. The case is currently pending. 28 orders have been issued in this matter.

Hearing History (27)

  • 18MAR 2025
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    Detailed order will follow. Matter stands disposed off.

    Stage: DISPOSED

  • 11FEB 2025
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    Matter to come up on 18.03.2025 for pronouncement of order.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 19NOV 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    The complainant has filed an application dated 16.09.2024, for rectification of proceeding of the day dated 09.07.2024, stating that the order does not reflect true proceedings of the day and incorporating it in any way whatsoever in the final order to be pronounced on 17.09.2024 and needs to be amended/corrected in order to reflect the true proceedings of the day, in order to be coherent with the principles of natural justice that ought to guide this Authority as per Section 38(2) of the Act. That, further the said order of 09.07.2024 though signed by Sh. Vijay Kumar Goyal as a member of the Authority was instead attended by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Arora and does not carry the signature of the latter rather the former and therefore merits to be struck of for not being signed by the correct bench member on that date, which would place the signed members of the Authority in Contempt of their own Court, leading to multifarious litigations and further action unless duly rescinded and corrected in terms of the correct proceedings of the day. The complainant has filed another application dated 01.10.2024, for audio-video recording for final argument/order under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with section 38(2) of the Act of 2016, and as per model rule for live streaming and recording of court proceeding published by the E-committee of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. On the last date of hearing i.e., 08.10.2024, the counsel for the respondent wished to file the reply of the application filed by the complainant. Till date no reply filed by the respondent.      The applicant was heard. So far as the issue of recording proceedings is concerned, the Authority is of the view that proceeding are recorded by the Authority to capture in brief, the relevant details and events that take place on a particular date of hearing and brief arguments which may be helpful to the presiding bench for maintaining continuity in the proceedings. They do not in any manner whatsoever express any final view of the Authority in the matter. The complaints are heard in the summary manner as provided under the Act of 2016 and are decided on the basis of pleadings on record as well as oral arguments of the respective parties. The complainant has filed the application under Section 39 of the Act of 2016 and it would be relevant to court the provisions contained thereunder: The Authority may, at any time within a period of two years from the date of the order made under this Act, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it, and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the parties: Provided that no such amendment shall be made in respect of any order against which an appeal has been preferred under this Act: Provided further that the Authority shall not, while rectifying any mistake apparent from record, amend substantive part of its order passed under the provisions of this Act. It is observed by the Authority, that no ‘order’ as such has been passed by it and the proceedings in the present complaint are still continuing. Moreover, there is no error apparent from record which needs rectification of the proceedings. Rather, the applicant wishes the Authority to incorporate certain statements about the merits of the case statedly made by him during the course of hearing. The Authority is of the view that the parties are free to incorporate any or all such facts and averments in their written submissions which are taken on record of the complaint and duly considered while passing the final order in the matter. The parties are free to request filing of written submissions in addition to the complaint/ reply already placed on record, by serving advance copy to each other. So far as the presence members of the coram present on that day is concerned, as per record the cases were heard by the full bench headed by the Hon’ble Chairman and two members and the apprehension of the applicant that the record of proceedings has been signed by another member other than the one present is misplaced. In view of the above, there is no merit in the application submitted by the applicant under Section 39 of the Act, 2016 and the same is dismissed. So far, the application filed under Section 38(2) for audio-video recording of proceedings is concerned, it would be relevant to reproduce the provisions of Section 38(2),which are as under: 38(2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear that the same empowers the Authority to regulate its own procedure to carry out the purposes of the Act. As the complaint is being heard in open court, the Authority does not deem it necessary to allow audio and video recording of the proceedings as they are already being held in the presence of the parties as well as all persons present in the court. There are no restrictions on entry into the courtroom during the course of proceedings. In view of the above, the application filed under Section 151 of the CPC read with Section 38(2) of the Act of 2016 is hereby dismissed. Matter to come upon 11.02.2025 for further proceeding.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 8OCT 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR ASHOK SANGWAN

    The complainant has filed an application dated 16.09.2024, for rectification of proceeding of the day dated 09.07.2024, with regard to that the order does not reflect true proceedings of the day and incorporating it in any way whatsoever in the final order to be pronounced on 17.09.2024 would be miscarriage of justice. Further  the daily order of 09.07.2024 needs to be amended/corrected in order to reflect the true proceedings of the day, in order to be coherent with the principles of natural justice that ought to guide this Authority as per Section 38(2) of the Act. The counsel for the respondent wishes to file reply within a period of 15 days with an advance copy to the complainant. Matter to come up on 19.11.2024 for pronouncement of order.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 17SEP 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    Due to lack of Coram,  the matter is adjourned to 08.10.2024 for the purpose already fixed.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 9JUL 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    The present complaint was filed on 29.04.2019. The reply and objection were filed by the respondent on 17.02.2023. Rejoinder to the reply and objections was filed by the complainant on 25.07.2023. On 02.04.2024, the Authority was of the view that the complainant may be heard in person on the next date of hearing. Thereafter the complainant has filed an application on 26.04.2024, under section 39 of the Act for rectification of order dated 02.04.2024 and the said application was listed on 14.05.2024, the complainant i.e., Smt. Vishakha Bist was appeared in person.  She stated that she does not wish to proceed with mediation in the matter and the case may be decided on merits.  She further requested that Shri Ashish Sardana to whom she has granted special power of attorney may be allowed to appear on her behalf to plead the complaint. Request was allowed. The AR of the complainant states that the complainant wishes to withdraw from the project as the respondent/promoter has misrepresented about the project from the date of booking. It is further, alleged by the complainants that initially the booking was made under the payment plan 20:20:60. Post singing of application form it was informed to the complainant that booking would be under 20:20:40:20 which was not acceptable to the complainant and after lot of request was able to get it changed to 10:10:20:40:20. But no material has been placed on record to substantiate the above allegation made by the complainant. However, the payment plan which was annexed with the application form and the buyer’s agreement is 10:10:20:40:20 (Annexure- B of Application form, page 37 of complaint & Schedule VII of BBA, page 87 of complaint). The payment plan is reproduced below for ready reference: S.no. Payment due on Value 1 On booking 5 Lakh (Booking amount) 2 Within 60 days of booking   10% of COP* less booking amount 3 Within 5 months from booking 10% of COP* 4 On completion of superstructure 20% of COP* 5 On completion of finishing (Completion of brickwork and internal plaster) 40% of COP* 6 On intimation of possession 20% of COP*   The complainant is alleging that the respondent has raised every demand in a premature manner in an arbitrary manner which is in derogation with the payment plan agreed between the parties in the application form and the BBA.  It is a matter of fact that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.9,34,872/- on 28.07.2015 (payable within 60 days of booking) and Rs.14,42,135/- i.e., 10% of the cost of property (payable within 5 months of booking) was paid on 13.10.2015. Further she received a demand on 11.04.2016 for an amount of Rs.28,29,229/- towards 20% of cost of property (payable on completion of super structure). It is alleged by the complainant that as when the project has just been launched, how the super structure could be completed within such short span. On 11.04.2016, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.52,06,237.60/- (i.e., almost 37.92% of the sale consideration) towards the total sale consideration of the subject unit. As per the statement of account dated 01.07.2021, (Page 303 of reply) she has made payment of Rs.57,71,105/- in total and has paid last installment on 11.04.2016. The complainant has made certain allegations regarding the contradictions and inconsistencies within the documents that are in public domain. They are as under: i.              Project land disclosed in BBA is 9.358 acres whereas as per the RERA registration certificate issued by the interim authority is 6.459375 acres. ii.            The dwelling unit has been increased from 358 to 662 which has in turn increased the density of flats from 40 flats per acre. Number of towers had been increased from 9 towers to 13 towers.  [The respondent has marketed and advertised a lot about the density of the project in the public domain which can be substantiated by the materials placed on record as annexure 1 of the complaint] iii.         The complainant further submitted that they found out that the respondent had changed the sanction plan sometime in May-June 2018 and had not even informed the complainant about the same.   On this point the respondent has submitted that initially, the complainant has request for withdrawal of the project due to financial difficulties (at page 8 & 9 of the complaint) and the allottees are speculative investors and invest the money to earn the profit. In serial no.25. 26 and 28 to 34, Shri Rohit Obreoi, Advocate appeared on behalf  of the allottees and states that he is representing 9 allottees.  Out of which, 5 and 6 allottees have already paid the full consideration amount to the respondent and they are not investors.  The counsel for the respondent states that  a license bearing no. 85 of 2013 was obtained for a land parcel admeasuring 13.759 acres by Oasis Build Home Private Limited. Thereafter, zoning plans and building plans were approved from the competent authority. However, the said land was to be developed in phases namely ‘Phase Oasis’ and ‘Phase Icon’. Accordingly, the developer first launched the phase Oasis on land admeasuring 4.40 acres in 2014. Thereafter, Phase Icon was launched in 2015 and that was to be developed on land admeasuring 9.359 acres. Further in the meantime, the Oasis Build Home Private Limited obtained a license bearing no. 151 of 2014 dated 05.09.2014 for an additional area of 0.925 acres. DTCP granting in-principal approval for revision of building plan on 12.04.2018. Accordingly, a letter dated 28.05.2018 was issued to all the allottees wherein the respondent has summarized the proposed changes regarding revision of building plans for the ease of reference to the allottees. Thereafter, a meeting was held in the office of STP, Gurugram, Department of Town and Country Planning on 17.07.2018 wherein the objections from the allottees were heard in length. Subsequently, after following due process of law, the Department of Town and Country Planning had granted approval for revision of building plans on 03.10.2018.   Upon in corporation of the additional license land, the respondents was entitled to additional FAR and as such the entire development of the project is carried out strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and approvals. There is no reduction of land for ICON and neither the land that was meant for ICON has been used for any other project as contained by the complainant. Arguments heard. Order reserved. Both the parties may file brief written submissions (not more than 5-6 pages) within a period of 4 weeks with an advance copy to each other. Matter to come up on 17.09.2024 for pronouncement of order.

    Stage: RESERVED

  • 14MAY 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    The  present complaint was filed on 29.04.2019. The reply and objection were filed by the respondent on 17.02.2023. Rejoinder to the reply and objections was filed by the complainant on 25.07.2023. The complainant has filed an application on 26.04.2024, under section 39 of the Act for rectification of order dated 02.04.2024, stating that it does not reflect the true proceeding of the day as was duly attended by POA of the complainant Mr. Ashish Sardana. It is stated in this application that court upon request of the respondent asked AR if he would concede to mediation upon which AR declined. The AR of the complainant has further contended that during proceeding on 02.04.2024, he was not permitted to represent the complainant under section 56 of the Act and the Authority has already delve upon this issue vide order dated 14.03.2023, and 25.07.2023 whereby the AR was allowed to represent the complaint. It is further apposite to suggest that the court was aware that the complainant is a married woman and a teacher with a school going daughter and placed in remote town of Kashipur and was still directed to appear at the request of the respondent. The complainant up till 22.02.2023, was duly represent was another advocate Sh. Rohit Oberoi and there was appropriate process adopted for changing of representation. Further, even at the stage of appeal before Appellate Tribunal, the same AR had duly represented the complainant herein without any objection raised from any of the parties. Thus, it is pleaded by the AR of the complainant that order dated 02.04.2024, does not reflect the true proceeding of the day and vide this application is seeking rectification as in absence of the same he may lose the opportunity to appeal the same on merit or avail of due legal remedy. The complainant Smt. Vishakha Bist has appeared in person today.  She states that she does not wish to proceed with mediation in the matter and the case may be decided on merits.  She further requests that Shri Ashish Sardana to whom she has granted special power of attorney may be allowed to appear on her behalf to plead the complaint. Request is allowed. Matter to come up on 09.07.2024 the date already fixed in this case.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 2APR 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The present complaint was filed on 23.02.2021. The reply and objection were filed by the respondent on 17.02.2023. Rejoinder to the reply and objections was filed by the complainant on 25.07.2023. Vide order dated 13.09.2021, the present complaint was disposed of by the adjudicating officer with the following directions: - As stated earlier, learned counsel for complainant submitted categorically that his client simply wants withdrawal from the project and refund of her amount, in view of said notification. The complaint, in hands, is thus allowed.  Respondent is directed to refund amount paid by complainant till now. The same may deduct upto 10% of total sale consideration, according to notification mentioned above. As respondent failed to adhere to the directions of Harera, Gurugram, the same is directed to pay interest on said amount, @ 9.50% p.a. from the date of said notification i.e., 05.12.2018, till its realization of amount. The respondent is also burdened with cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the complainant.   Thereafter, the complainant/applicant filed an appeal against the order dated 13.09.2021, before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2022 with a direction to the authority for fresh decision of the compliant in accordance with law. The parties are also directed to appear before the authority, Gurugram on 13.10.2022. The counsel for the respondent states that  on instructions from the respondent,  it is submitted that the respondent is ready to explore settlement of the matter through mediation.  The respondent may file an application to this effect within a period of 2 weeks  with a requisite fee and advance copy to the complainant.  The authority is of the view that the complainant may be heard in person  on the next date of hearing. Matter to come up on 09.07.2024  for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 27FEB 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    Due to administrative  reasons, the case is adjourned to 02.04.2024 for the purpose already fixed.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 9JAN 2024
    Hearing

    Judge: ARUN KUMAR VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN

    The present complaint was filed on 23.02.2021. The reply and objection were filed by the respondent on 17.02.2023. Rejoinder to the reply and objections was filed by the complainant on 25.07.2023. Vide order dated 13.09.2021, the present complaint was disposed of by the adjudicating officer passed the following directions: - As stated earlier, learned counsel for complainant submitted categorically that his client simply wants withdrawal from the project and refund of her amount, in view of said notification. The complaint, in hands, is thus allowed.  Respondent is directed to refund amount paid by complainant till now. The same may deduct upto 10% of total sale consideration, according to notification mentioned above. As respondent failed to adhere to the directions of Harera, Gurugram, the same is directed to pay interest on said amount, @ 9.50% p.a. from the date of said notification i.e., 05.12.2018, till its realization of amount. The respondent is also burdened with cost of litigation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant/applicant filed an appeal against the order dated 13.09.2021, before the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 19.09.2022 with a direction to the authority for fresh decision of the compliant in accordance with law. The parties are also directed to appear before the authority, Gurugram on 13.10.2022. Matter is adjourned to 27.02.2024 for final arguments.  Meanwhile the respondents are directed to explore the possibility of settlement by holding a meeting with the complainants.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 17OCT 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    Matter is adjourned to 09.01.2024.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 25JUL 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    Matter is adjourned to 17.10.2023.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 23MAY 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The present complaint was filed on 29.04.2019 and the reply on behalf of respondent has been received on 17.02.2021. The counsel for the respondent states that Shri Ashish Sardana appearing on behalf of complainant is neither the allottee nor the counsel for the complainant. However,  Shri Ashish Sardana clarifies that  he is authorized representative of the complainant and an application for change of AR has been filed in the authority on 21.03.2023 duly signed by the complainant and a copy has been supplied to the counsel for the complainant. Shri Ashish Sardana states that he is covered under section 56 of the Act,  2016 and has been duly authorized by the complainant vide application dated 14.03.2023 received in the registry on 21.03.2023.   However,  the counsel for the respondent states that Shri Sardana is not covered under any of the provisions of section 56 of the Act which states as under:- The applicant or appellant may either appear in person or authorize one or more chartered  accountants or  company secretaries or cost accountants or legal practitioners or any of its officers to present his or its case before the Appellate Tribunal or the Regulatory Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be. Shri Ashish Sardana states that even the counsel for the respondent does not have proper authorization to appear  before the authority as he does not carry a proper board resolution of the company authorizing him to appear  in the matter.  Regarding the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent with respect to his appearance, he states that  the complainant shall be duly represented by an advocate in case the authority so decide. He has been given special power of attorney  dated 23.07.2022 by the complainant to represent her. The counsel for the respondent  states that he will file the Board of resolution of the company on the next date of hearing.  Matter to come up on 25.07.2023   for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 14MAR 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: VIJAY KUMAR GOYAL ASHOK SANGWAN SANJEEV KUMAR ARORA

    The counsel for the respondent states at bar that the complainant has already moved an application before State Consumer Commission at Delhi in CR No.88 of 2021  and also filed a civil writ petition No.17120 of 2020 before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court  wherein this authority has also been impleaded as one of the party. In view of the same,  it is prudent to wait outcome of the Civil writ petition pending before the Hon’ble High Court and further the complainant may not be allowed to avail this remedy before authority as he has filed the complaint before the State Consumer Commission at Delhi.   Shri Aashish Sardana authorized representative of the complainant requests for filing objections to the reply  of the respondent  as well as application for change of authority letter alongwith special power of attorney of complainants. Request is allowed. The AR is directed to file the same in the registry of the authority after supplying a copy of the same to the respondent. The AR of the complainant clarifies that in Consumer complaint before State Commission, the complainant is seeking compensation and not refund and hence,  the complaint before this authority seeking refund is maintainable  and Hon’ble NCDRC has also passed directions in this regard advising the respondent to approach the State Commission.   Further,  the civil petition before Hon’ble High Court pertains to the issue of registration and other violations made by the respondent  and the same does not pertain to refund and hence, requests to proceed to above complaint before this authority. Matter to come up on 23.05.2023  for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 8FEB 2023
    Hearing

    Judge: ASHOK SANGWAN

    Case has been remanded back from the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal on the ground of jurisdiction.  The counsel for the respondent seeks a short adjournment to argue the case.  One last opportunity is provided.               Matter to come up on 14.03.2023 for further proceedings.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 13SEP 2021
    Hearing

    Judge: RAJINDER KUMAR

    RE-OPENED

    Stage: RE-OPEN/PENDING

  • 1SEP 2021
    Hearing

    Judge: RAJINDER KUMAR

    Order is not ready. 2.                         To come on 13.09.2021 for order.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 12AUG 2021
    Hearing

    Judge: RAJINDER KUMAR

    Arguments heard on preliminary objections raised by the learner counsel for respondents stating that matter has already been seized by Hon. High Court. 2.          To come on 01.09.2021 for order.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 3MAY 2021
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    Due to increase in the Covid-19 cases in and around the area of the Authority, the case is not being taken up for hearing. Hence, as per directions of the Hon’ble Authority, it is being adjourned to 12.08.2021 for the proceedings already fixed. 2.         Both the parties be informed accordingly through e-mail.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 18FEB 2021
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    In pursuance to notice, both the parties put in appearance through their respective counsel. 2.           This complaint relates to refund and was filed in form CRA before the Hon’ble Authority. Let it be filed in form CAO before this forum within 10 days with a copy to the other side. 3.          Written reply, if any, be field 2 weeks prior to the date fixed with an advance copy to the other side and the matter be put up on 03.05.2021 for arguments.

    Stage: PENDING

  • 19NOV 2020
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 18.02.2021

    Stage: PENDING

  • 30SEP 2020
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    DUE TO PREVAILING COVID-19 PANDEMIC, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 19.11.2020

    Stage: PENDING

  • 6AUG 2020
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    DUE TO PANDEMIC, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 30.09.2020

    Stage: PENDING

  • 14MAY 2020
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    DUE TO LOCKDOWN, THE MATTER IS ADJOURNED TO 06.08.2020

    Stage: PENDING

  • 24MAR 2020
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHAND GOYAL

    Due to lockdown, the matter is adjourned to 14.05.2020

    Stage: PENDING

  • 5FEB 2020
    Hearing

    Judge: SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH SAMIR KUMAR

    Case is adjourned to 24.03.2020.                                                                              By Order of the Authority

    Stage: PENDING

  • 5DEC 2019
    Hearing

    Judge: K K KHANDELWAL SAMIR KUMAR SUBHASH CHANDER KUSH

    THE CASE IS ADJOURNED TO 05.02.2020

    Stage: FIRST HEARING

Orders (28)

Judgement DetailsView full order PDF ↗

* HARERA IiXLIUREALESTATERE.ULAT.RYAUTH,RTTY S!- e,rnucnnv adrq+tu BEFORE TTAJENDER XUMAR, ADJUDICATING OFFICER, HARYANA REAI, ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY CURUGRAM Complaint No. | 7707 /2019 Date ofDecision | 13.09.2021 Smt Vishakha Bist R/o House No.935, Secror-3 Rohtak, Haryana-12+001 v/s M/s oasis Landmarks LLP c/oand/or M/s God.e, Prope.ti€s Ltd.

Godtei Bhawan,4th FIoor,4A, Home Street Fort.

Mumbai-4OOOO'l Also at 3"d Floor, Ulll House, plot No.35.p Sector 44, Ourugram, Ha ryana-1220|2 Complainant Complaint under Section 31 of the Real Estate(Regulation Mr.

Rohit Oberoi, Advocate Mr.Kapil Madan, Advocate ORDIR Thjs js a complaint filed by Smt Vishakha Eisr I also called as buyerl under Section 31 olThe Real [state(Regulation and DevelopnrenO Act, 2016 lhereinafter referred as Ac! ol 2016) read with ru]e 29 of Tbe Iq Haryana Real Estare(Regularion and Development) Rul the Rules of 2017)aSainst tvlls Oasjs Landmarks L developerl seeking d,rections ro the respondent to Rs.57,71,105/, alongwirh interest @ 15% p.a. from the tillits realisation. es, 2077 LP.[also rcfund ( in briel 2.

According to complainant, on 01.0S.201S, after going through brochure ol respondent about its project ,,Codrej 1con,, and atso payment plan, she booked a residenrjal unjt bcaring No.DO503 in said projecr, located in Sectors 88A and 89A, CurLrgram, Haryana.

She initia y paid an amount oi Rs.5,00,000/- as booking amount and turther made payment of Rs.9,34,872.60p. on 28.07.2015.

She received an a otmenr tcrter darpd 28.10.2015, wherein the respondent mentioned totalsate consideration of booked unit as Rs.1,37,27,4361-.

Builder Buyer,s Agreement was to be signed wirhin 4s days.

She(complainant) signed and executed BBA on 11.12.2015, where the project land was mentioned as 9.359 acres and it was also clearly menrioned that Haryana Aparrment Owners Act shall be applicablc ro this agreenrent Ir was agreed by the respondent that const. hat const.uction shall be completed wirhin 46 monrhs, with grace period ofsix 3.

On 11.04.2016, she .eceived a demand notic€ of 20olo of amount to be paid at the tihe olcomplerion of super shucture without gerting query as to when the project was launched.

Fjnding no option, she made another payment of Rs.28,89,229.20p. as demanded.

On 01.08.2016, within 4 months olhavjng made earlie. payments, she received another deman.l for the next 40%, which was acrualty to be paid at the time when tinishing i{ork was completed.

The.eatier from Augusr, 2016 to August 2017.

She was contlnuously harassed and threatened by respondenr sayirg that, jn case, she fails to make payments, as per their demand, earnest money apart l..r \- A0' from other charges shal] be forfeited and the unit shall be cancelled.

In order to arrange funds, she requested the respondent to add name ofher husband as co-allottee, so as to arrange loan from financial institutjon(sl.

4.

Failing to get any positive response from rhe respondenr, she was forced to send an email on 04.08.2017, with request to cancel her allotment and sought refund of deposited amounL From August, 2017 to Jan.2019, she wrote nany emails with request ro relund her money and even permitted the respondent to forfeit 10% of the BsP, but the respond€nt apart from threatening and blackmailing the complainant, intormed her that an amount of Rs.45,00,000/, shall be deducted and balance money shall only be refunded only when the unit in question is resold.

She sent legal notice on 08.03.2019, which ultimately lead to fiting ofpresent complaint.

5.

It is further the case olcomplainanr rhat she came to know from RERA documents that project land as per BBA is 9.359 acres whereas the actualland was6.459375 acres i.e.31yo less land.

Even the number ofunits wer€ increased trom 358 units to 662 units and number of towers ar€ also increased lrom 9 to 13.

All this is material alteration, adversely affecting the rights ol complainant on the project. e project.

Without informing her, rh€ respondent, has changed sanctioned plan and thus violated the terms of 6.

Citing allth's, the complainant has sought.efund ofentire amount paid by her to the respondent with jnterest, compensation and litrganon charges as described above.

7.

Details ofthe complainants' case in tabular form are reproduced as {.q_ t\14\ Proje.t rclatcd d.tails 'coDREIlcoN " ll Locatjon ofthe proiect Sectors 8a.A, & 89A, Curug.am l IV Tower No. / Block No.

Size ofthe unit [super area] Measurins 1779 sq ft \4t Size ofthe unit [.a.petarea] VIII Rdtiu "tLarpe( area and super area )i Category ofthe unit/ plot x Date or booki ns(origina l) 01 05 2015 \ Dare olAllonnent(onerDall 28 r020r5 x Date ofexecution of BBA (copy of BBA tt.t2.20t5 xll Due date oiposse\siun a! perABA within 45 months fron the date ol issuan.e oi allotment lette. with six months grace period i.e. xtv Delay in handing over possession tiu Penalty to be paid by the respondent in case oi delay of handinS over Possession as perthe said BBA XVI Tolalsaleconsideration Rs.L.J7 27 43b/. \! ll Iural rmounr prrd by rhe romph ,LJnts Rs.57,88,368/- t,; l\4.>l 8.

Contesting the claim ol complainant, the respondent rajsed prelimlnary objection.

It is averrod thar rhe complainant has not approdched this forum with clean hands She(complainantl alongwith some other persons, subsequent to filing oIpresent complaint has atso hled a civil writ petition belore the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana tiigh Courr bearing No.17120 of 2020,tided Mrs Anita Sardana & Ors Vs State ot Haryana & Ors, where idenrical rssues have been raised. lt is a settled 1aw that a litigant cannot be allowed to pursue two remedies seeknrg sirnilar relief, on the same cause of acrion.

It is prayed that present proceedings may be stayed till the disposal olwrir petirion.

8.

1t is not disputed by learned counsel for complainant that his clienr alongwith some other allottees has til. s has til.d a writ petition belore the tlon ble Punjab and Haryana High Cou.lmentioned above 8ut acco.dutg to hinr, cause of action as well as reUef claun.d are difaerent.

The petitioners in aforesaid writ petition have prayed for issuance ofmandamus or any other writ as the Hon'ble High Court 16 may deem it fit, s.eking directions agajnst respondent no.

1(State of Haryana) and 2 (HAREM Curusr.rml lrom issuing ol occupat,on certificate and new registration to respondent no 3 (M/s Codrej Prop.rticr.

Furthcr, all licensees and resistrations granted to respondent no 3 to 5 []V/s.

Codrel Properties Ltd, M/s Oasis Landnrrrks LLP and I4/s.

Orsrs Bujldhonre Pvt.

Ltd.) with respect to project 'codrej Icon' etc. be revoked or cancelled and further that during pendency of this pctirion, thc issuancc ol any ncw certificate etc be stayed.

But in case ir hands, his client has s'nrply prayed for directions to reiund the amount As per learned counsel for complainant, the.e is no need to keep the matter in abeyance.

9.

From the complaint, it is apparent that the complainant has blamed respondent lor change ot sanction€d plan.

As per BBA, the project was lrs t\1.1-\ comprising 9.359 acres of land but actually the land is 6.459375 acres i-e.

310/0 less, Even the number o[ units and also the towers have increased without informing her i.e. complainant.

All these facts are mentioned in writ petition belore the High Court. it is urged by counset tor complaioant that his cli€nt does not insist on any of said plea except that she wants directions to respondent to refund her amount.

She has requested several times to respondent to refund her amount commencing from 04.08.2017.

She has no objection, ,f 10% ofbasic sale price is deduded, but respondent despite refunding the amount, threatened her to deduct Rs.

45,00,000/- and to pay back balance amount only when unitin question is resold.

10.

Sending of emails dated 04.08.2017 as well as other emails from August 2010 to Ian.

10 to Ian.

2019 by complainant is not denied on behalf of respondent.

Through these mails, complainant had asked tor withdrawal from the projectand also to refund her mooey.

11.

Exercis,ng powers conterred under section a5 of the Ad of 2016 and other powers in that behali Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Gurugram issued Notification dated 05.12.2018 bearing No.1\IRERA GC[.1 Regulations 2018.

Noticing that several frauds were carried, without any f€ar as there was no law regarding earnest money and again considering the judgement of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, this autho.ity was ofthe view that forfeiture ofamount ofearnest money shall not exceed more than 10% oftotal sale consideration amount ofreal estate i.e. apartment/plot/building as the case may be.

It is directed that in all cases where the cancellation of flat/unit/building is made by the builder in unilateral manner or the buyer intends to withdrawfrom the proiect and the agreement containing any clause contrary to the aforesaid regulations shdil be vord dnd not binding on the buyer.

I \4 -'rl 1? ln view of aforesaid notification, the respondent was bound to .efund the amount of complainant at most after deducring nor more thanl0yo oF sale consideration amount of unit in question.

As mentioned above, the complainant requested several times ior withdrawat tomthe prolect and lor refund of amounr starring trom 04.07.2017 t,lt lanuary, 2019 bur despite reluoding the amount, respondent thr.rrered rhe complainant to deducr Rs.45,00,000/- and to refund the balance amount o nly aiie. the unit in qu esrjon i s resold.

Alt th is was contrary to n otification 12.

As stated edrlier, Iearned counsel for complainant submitted categorically that his clicot simply wants withdrawat irom rhe project and refund of her amount, in vi.w olsaid notiftcarion.

The complaint, in hands, is thus allowe.l.

Respondcnr is directed ro refund amount paid by compllinant till now. till now.

The same rnay deduct upro 100/o of nn.l sal. co n sideralio g accord i ng to norificarion mentioned above.

As respondenr fajled to adhere to rhe direcnons ol Harera, Curugram, the same rs dj.ected to pay interest on said amount, @ 9.5% p.a. from the dare oi said notjfication i.e.05.12.2018, till its realisarion ofamount.

The respondenr js also burdcned with cosr oi lltigation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the 13.

File be consigned ro Resistry. ,*,u"o.**!fi*, Adludlcating Orlicer, Haryana Real Estat€ Regulatory Aurhority Gurugram 13.O9.2021 Judgement uploaded on 25.09.2021.