MR MEWA SINGH SAHOTA AND MRS KALWINDER SAHOTA vs OASIS LANDMARKS LLP

HARERA GURUGRA[/ complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and I others BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Date of decision: 14.02,2025 NAME OF THE BUILDER Oasis Landmarks LLP.

PROJECT NAME Godrej ICON, Sector- BBA & B9A, Gurugram, Haryana S, No.

Case No, Case title Appearance 1. cR/2384/2022 Praful Chander Agarwal and Sanj:rna Agarwal Vs.

M/s Oasis Landmarl( LLP [R1] M/s Codrej Properties IR2) M/s Oasis Buildhome Private Limited [R3.) Adv.

Rohit Oberoi (Complainantsl Adv, Saurabh Guaba (Respondents] 2. cRl7s26 /2022 Lt.

Col.

Rippon Bhalla t/c M/s 0asis Landmark LLP IR1) M/s Godrej Properties IR2) M/s 0asis Buildhome Private Limited (R3) Adv.

Rohit Oberoi (Complainant) Adv.

Saurabh Guaba (RespondentsJ 3. cR/1737/2022 Ravi Gulgulla and Chandral<antha GulSulia Vs' M/s oasis LanCmark LLP (R1J M/s Godrej Propefties (R2) M/s oasis Buildhome Private Limired (R3) Adv.

Rohit Oberoi (Complainantsl Adv.

Saurabh Guaba (Respondents) cR/LL87 /2022 4. s.

I cR/1165/2022 Meva Singh Sahota and Kulwinder Sairota *..

M/s Oasis Landmark LLP IR1) M/s Codrej Properties (R2) M/s Oasis Buildhome Private .

Limited (R3) Sadhna Maheshwari Vs.

M/s Oasis l.andmark LLP (R1) M/s Godrej Properlies (R2) M/s Oasis Iluildhome Private l.imited IR3) Adv.

Rohit 0beroi IComplainants) Adv.

Saurabh Guaba (Respondents) Adv.

Rohit oberoi IComplainant) Adv.

Saurabh Guaba (Respondentsl Page 1 of 35 I ffiHARERA ffi eunuenRru,t CORAM: Shri Arun Kumar Shri Vijay Kumar Goyal Shri Ashok Sangwan 1.

This order shall dispose of 9 ORDER complaints titled Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others Chairman Member Member above filed before this authority under section 31 ofthe Real Egtate (f,egulation and DevelopmentJ Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "the A{') reaf with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Developmentl $utes, fotz [hereinafter referred as "the rules"] for violation of section 11. ection 11. (4)(aJ ff the lAct wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be resPonsfle fof all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to the allottees as per !he agfeement for sale executed inter se parties.

6. cR/7734/2022 Arch4a lain N4/s Oatis Landmark LLP [RlJ M/s Gddrej P+operties (R2) M/s oaFis Builphome Private Limitdd [R3) Adv.

Saurabh Guaba (Respondents] 7. cR/ss 3 /2027 Raiatfrora [4/s oafis Landmark LLP [Rr) N4 /s Cddrej Ptoperties (R2) M/s oabis Builhhome Private Limitdd (R3) Adv.

Rohit Oberoi (ComplainantJ Adv.

Saurabh Guaba (Respondents) 8. cR I 27 44 / 2020 Ajay Vohra Vs.

M/s Oasis Landmark LLP IR1) M/s Godrej Properties IR2] M/s 0asis Buitrdhome Private Limitqd IR3] Adv.

Saurabh Guaba (Respondents) cR/3069/2020 sachin Mittal Vs.

M/s 0asis Landmark LLP IR1) M/s Godrej Properties IR2] M/s Oasis Bu jldhome Private Limited (R3l Adv.

Saurabh Guaba IRespondents) Page 2 of 35 HARERA P*GURUGRAI/ Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others 2.

3.

The core issues emanating {om fem are similar in nature and the complainant(sJ in the above refelred mftters are allottees ofthe pro,ecg namely, "Godrej ICON", Sector- 88A and 8[A, GtruSram, Haryana being developed by the respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Oisis Llndmarks LLP and others.

The terms and conditlons of the allotment le$r, bfVer's agreements, fulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases perttins tl failure on the part of the promoter to deliver timely possession ofthe {nits i4 question thus seeking refund ofthe unit along with interest. date of agreement, possession clause, due ation, total paid amount, and relief sought The details of the complaints, unirt no., date of possession, total sale conFider are siven in the table below: l are given in the table below: Proiect Name and Location "Godrei ICOI{", Sector- 8BA and B9A, GuruBram, Haryana.

Proiect area t'litu.-e of tlr. proiect 9. proiect 9.359 acres Cro{rp houslng colony DTCP license no. and other details 85 of2013 dated 10.10.2013 151 of 2014 dated 05.09.201-4 License valid up to 09.10.2024 04.09.2024 Licensed area 13.76 acres 0.925 acres Nam€!oflicensee 0asis Buildhome Pvt.

Ltd.

IRERA Registered/ 4ot iregistered negistered l,ide no.

5+ af2077 dated 17.08.2017 valid up ro 80.04.2020 Occupation certificate 29.032019 for towers no.

A to E and Community Buildin8 2, and Convenicnt Shopping 2.

18.09.2020 lor towers no.

6 to 10 and EWS block.

Possession clause buyer's agreement per 4.2 Thc Developer sholl endeovour to complele the construction of the Aportlnent wlthin 4B ,nonths Uor lconic tower's opqrtmen$11 lt ^onths lJor othPr tower's oportmenLs) fiom the date ollissuonce of Allotment Letter, olong with a grace period ol b months over ond above this 4g'nonth pcriod lTentauve Eomplelion Tine"l.

Upon thp Aportm?nt being reody for possesslon ond occupation thP Developer sholl issue lhe Poslession Notice to the Buyer of the ApartmenL Page 3 of 35 Total sale I .onsideration and Totalamount paid by the complainant(s) in Rs, Date of surender requestmade by the complainant s.

No.

Complaint no., Case title.

Date offiling of complaintand reply status unitno. and slze Allotme Letter And BBA Due date ol possession cRl2384 /2022 Praful Chander Agarwal and SanjanaAgarwal Oasis Landmark LLP and others DOr:31.05.2022 RRr 18.0A.2022 2.

I cRl1sz6l20z2 I LT Col.

RiPPon I en,tt, luuoasts I I-anamarkLLP I and others I I Dor:12.04.2022 RR: Lr.os.rozs c-0601,6ih c, lPage 188 of complaintl AL:.

01 12 2C lPage n 138 o complai (Note: - 48 months from date of allotment hfter i.e., 03.12.2015 + ntl --f{rrn",roro I rsc, I 07.042022 15 1,16,75,580/' I ] (Pae'e no' 268 (As per I ofthe paymentplan romPlaintl page no.

1q2 of I the Lomplaint) I 1,23,76,OO8L I tAs per SoA I dated L 25.06.2021at I page no.

I page no.2oS of I the complaint) L L6 the in0 lc0Nlc3001, 3orh floor, Tower-lconic IPage 134 of complaintl ALI 22.71.2 IPage oi compl; tsBr 18.01.i (Page 129 ol conlpl ', \ 22.03.202r \ 016 I L [Note.46 I ootu or I tutt". i."., 22.71-2016 + I u *,n,n' I grace periodl 25 intl 016 I the aintl TSC: |,65,56,60 / - (As perBBAon page 180 oi complainr) 35,37,SO7 /- [As per S0A dated 30.06.2018 at page 192 of the complain0 07 .o7 2018 (pase 307 of reply) : Icn^r:r/zozz lcoN tco902 I Rav Cultsulir 9s floor I .",1 lro\atr-lconit Chandrakantha I cutertra ] [Pace 163 or L vl.

I (omplaintl I oesrt r-",a,n"'r I t.l.P.{nd u!her!

1 nnr' ,, u-,.ror, I Loo,L 31.05 202 3 pagfrsz or complainq BgA - hs.o;.zozo Tsc: ols ] \ z,+o'st,+tz1' 19.0212016 1r,$ no.

1s8 df the .o.fhintl [Nore: 46 I ] months from L [As Per BBA on I rlare of I paee zo9 ot I ,,*,*" "r I complainu I atlotment I lertcr l.c, AP: 18I I Z0l5 + I, z,ss,os,ls'l1' 6 months L srace period] l(As Per soA dated I oa.tt.2ozt at I naee z3o or ttre conrPlarnt) ALr- r8.11.2 08.03.2u21 Page ra 292 complaintl ELIABEIA #* eunuenavt Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others Page 4 of 35 ll HABEBA GURUGRAI/ m;;; I and B others I 4.

I cRlrt87t2o22 | I Meva singrr I Sahota and I | *r,*'na".

I sahota I lur'l oasis Landmark I t.lp,na others I DoF:06.04.2022 | **, 03.03.2023 cj'lot,7rr floor, Tower- c {Page !49 of complaint) AL:- t8.10.20 lPage 1: of :omplair BBA ,6.O1.24 [Page n 145 oft complai 9 rl 76 ltl 2a,04.2020 lNoter - 48 months from date of issuance of allotment letter i.e., 28.10.2015 + 6 months grace period) I TSC: I |,oe,2s,o821- | (As perBBA on L pase r93 of I .onrplarnt)/' 1,75 ,t1,537 t (As per S0A dated 20.71-2021al page 206 ofthe complain0 03.12.2021 lPage 263 of complaintl 5. cR/116s/2022 Sadhna Maheshwari V/s 0ASIS Landmark LLP and others DOf:28.03.2023 RR: 31.05.2023 ICONIC21O2, 21.'floor, (Pase 142 of complaintl AL:. t4.12.21 lPage 1 oI compla BBT 74_12_Z IPage 137 ol 15 t4 ntl )15 hc nl) 't4.04.2020 TSC: I z.oe .ze . z.oe .ze .+zot- (Note - 46 monlhs trom {A5 Per BBAon date ol Page 188 of rssuance oi ] tomPlaint) allotment letter i e..

AP: 74-12.2015 + 2,24,41^,195/' 0'""",n' I grace periodl {As Per S0A I aatea oq r)7.2021 at I nrs" 2or or ttrr comPlaintl 09.71-2021 (Page no.261 ofthe complaintl i Tcp./ttt+/zozz I lcoNIC14o2, l4 ,floor AiLhna larn I I ur. ]Tower'lconrc J oAsls Landmark L 0,,. ,0. n, l-LP rnd olher\ romPLalntl DOF | 25.A3 ZA22 RR: 31.05.2023 AL: t+.12.2 IPage BB 15.12.

IPag( 138o t15 .34 inq 015 the rintl 14.04-2020 (Notei 46 allotment lelter i.e., 15.12 2015 + grace period) TSC: l z,+o,sl,+lz/- \ tAs per BBA on I pase 190 ol I complaint) AP: 2 ,61,O2,7 39 / - llAs per soA dared 02.12 2020 at prge 204 of the I -,"e',i.t) 09.11.2021 (Page no.264 ofthe complaint) 7. cR/ss3 /2021 RajatArora A0701,7ih floor, tower- AI 18.11 lPage t015 ]6 of aintl 18.05.2020 [Note: 48 TSC: r,r0,60,160 / - !1.02.2020 Page 5 of 35 ffiL1ARERA *eP* eunuonaru4 Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others GURUGRAM 0ASIS Landmark LLP and others DOF:28.01.2021 RR: 09.05.2023 lPage 9a or complarntl BBA ] 1e.02 20 fPaBe no. oithe contplail date of | (et p", iscuanceof allotmentletter attotment I on page 88 ot lener i.e..

I complaintl 18.11.2015 + I 6 munths I AP: sraceperrodl 92,21,924/' (As per S0A dated 1-8.06.2021 at page 301ofthe reply) (Page no.217 of the complaint) 8.

I CR1274412020 I Aray Vohra I oAsls Landmark LLP and others I nno,,r',n.roro I **, Lo.os.zor. c.t102,lI' AL: floor, Tower' 20.01 2C c l[asperp nn 80 [as pel page I complal no 90 of conplaintl I BBA 15 01.2( I t**" ' 153 o reply )16 asc ntl )16 t 20.0- 2020 TSC I t,44,37 ,g50 /' (Nute:- 48 I I months trom I lpage no.

303 of date or I rePlYl allotment AP:_ lett.rLe., 1,1436,A24/' 20.01 201b + I o months (PaBe no.303o[ grace periodJ rePlYl 10.02.2020 [Page no.

173 ofcomplaintJ cR/306912020 Sachin Mittal V/s oASIS Landmark LLP and others DOfr05.10.2020 RR: 17.02.2023 D-0301,3'd block'D, ll,age 105 ot complaintl AL; 05.11.

AL; 05.11.2 IPage n( 14.72-2 (Page 100 ol complz compla 15 94 05.05.2020 (Noter 48 allotment letter i.e., 05.11.2015 + 6 months gracs periodl Int] i 015 rh." tinr) TSC: I 1,t4,41,675/- | (A' per paymentl nlan page no.

148 otthe I €omplaintJ 96,7 0,44A /- [As per S0A dated 22.02.20l.A at page no.176 & 177 of the complaint) 04.02.2020 (Page rc.272 complaintl Relicl'Sought by tho complainant(s):' i.

To refund rhe entire principalamouirtalleady paid to the respondents along with monthly compounded interest @ 150/o per annum or as per RERA guidelines' ,, Co Note:lnthetablereierredubove."rtainuub.ffisfollo*'.

Abbreviation Full form D0 t' Datc oinling of comPlalnt Page 6 of 35 HARERA ffi,GURUGRAI\I Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and I others ItR ,IC BBA Reply received by the relponden Toial.onsrderation Amount paid by the allo+ee/s Bu ilder Buyer's Agreem9nt Allormenr Letter 4.

The facts ofall the complaints filed by tlie complainant(s)/allottee(s) are similar.

0ut of the above-mentioned case, the particulars of lead case CR/z384/2022 titled, as Praful Chander Agat'wql andSanjana Agarwal V/s Oasis Landmark LLP and others. are being taken into cqnsideration for determining the rights oF the allottee(sl.

Proiect and unit related details The particulars of the project, thP deta A, 5. by the complainant(s), date of proposed handing over the possession, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: CR/2384/2022 titled as Prsful Chander Agarwal qnd Sanjana Agatwal V/s Oasis Lo dma LLP and others.

S.

No Particulars Det rils 1.

Name ofthe Droiect "Go lrei Icon" Sectors- BBA & B9A, Gurugram 2.

Proiect area 9.3 9 acres 3.

Nature of Droiect Gro rD housins colonv 4.

RERA reglstered/nd registered t ReE stered vide no.

54 of 2017 d,ated 77.08.2077 Valid uD to 30.

4.2020 5.

D'l PC License no.

85 10. of 2013 dated 0.2 013 151 of 2014 dated 05.09.2014 License valid uD to 09.

0.2024 04.09.2024 Licensed area 13.

6 acres 0.925 acres Name of licensee Oas Lrd. e Oas Lrd. [s Buildhome Pvt.

Oasis Buildhome Pvt.

6.

Unit no. c-0 lPar Fo1.

6s floor, rower/block- c, Ee 188 of comDlaintl 7. llnit measuring 749 105 lPar B sq. ft. (super area) 8 sq. ft. (carpet areal re 1BB ofcomDlaintl 8.

Allotment letter issued iln favour of the complainanfs bv resDondent no.2 0 3.12.2 015 lPirge no.

138 ofcomplaintl 9.

Date of execution of buyerfs agreement between ttie 07.b4.2076 tPaEe no.

144 ofthe complaintl Page 7 of 35 ffi HARERA S- eunrnqArr,l Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others B.

Facts of the complaint The complainants have made tht follotvinB submissions in the complaint: - l.

That in June 2015, the comflainafts came to know about the proiect titled as'GqDREJ ICqN'at Sectofaae lnd 89A, Gurugram, Haryana.

The proiect plan appended with the Pfoiect brochure was being marketed with the name of Godrei Propertifs; th[ officials propounding themselves as employees of Godrej Propfrties showed the complainants the brochure, complainants and thf respondenIno.2&3 10.

Possession clause 4.2 The Developer shall endeovour to complete the construction of the Apartment within 48 months (Jor lconic tower's apartments)/ 46 months (for other tower's apartments) Jrom the date of issugnce of Allotment Letter, along with q grqce perlod of 6 months over and above this 4q-month peripd (Tentative Completion Time").

Upon the Apaftment being ready for possession and occqpation the Developer shall issue the Possession Notke to the Buyer ofthe Apartment . fPase no.

160 ofthe comPlaintl.

11.

Due date of possession of issuance of 6 months grace 03.06.2020 (Nole: - 48 nronths lrom date allotment letler i.e., 03.12.2015 + periodl 72.

Total sale consideration Rs.r],16,75,580/- (As per payment plan page no.

192 of the Lompldrnl) 13.

Total anoLrnf paid by the conrplainants Rs.1,2 3,7 6,008/" fns per SOA dated 25.06.2021at page no.

205 of the complaintl 14. offer of possession 37.10.2020 lPage 259 of reply by R1 & R3l 15.

0ccupation certificate 18.09. ate 18.09.2020 lPage 244 ofreply by R1 & R3l l" Legal notice sent by tile complainants seekinlS refund of the entire amount oaid alons with inlerest complaint) 07.q4.2022 (PaFe no.

268 ofthe Page B of 35 Complaint No.

2384 of2022 and 8 others & HARERA *drb. eunuonnHir r'vhich also has the Logo of Godrel Properties, thus, luring the complainants to bool( the property offering huge discounts and a payment plan of 2i0;20 r60, Godrej Properties lured the complainants to grab the promotional offers into purchasing of the properties. !"hat the amcnities offered and other luxurious services as were committed by the respondents included but not limited to a Skywalk @ Rs.130 ft, star gazinB platform, party deck, barbeque counter, reflexology court, Zen 6Jarden, a kilometer long jogging track and yoga and meditation area all at a hcightof 130 ft. also includin8 a32 slorey lconic'fower with Helipad lt is submitted that alongside the above, the respondents had offered a luxury living with international standard amenities such as 'CIub Concierge, Spo Ltnd Hotyfietd 6ym" along with a club aqua and an infinity pool.

It is further submitted that one amongst the aforementioned amenities also being the rnost promirent one was lts lorv density development with a density of lcss ':han 40 units/acre [356 units in - 9 359 acresJ, as was committed to the lomplainants at the time ofbooking. '[hat the comp]ainants booked a 2BHK + Study (Type G) the carpet area of [he unit measuring 98 square meters and the super built up area of 139 square meters unit bearing No.

C0601 in the Icon project by paying an III, II, amount of 11s.5 Lacs as booking amount on 30.06.2015.

The booking was under l0:10:20:40:20, plan with 20% to be paid at possession as per the commitment of the officials of the respondents. spondents.'[he proiect was sold by officials propounding themselves as employees of M/s Godrej Properties and suggesting that the said project is a Godrej proiect The complainants at the tlme of signing the application form, for the first time got to know that the project is being made by 0asis Landmarks LLP, however the application form was received by officials of the respondent no.

2 on 30.06.2015 the Page 9 of 35 ffi I]AREIA #"GURUGRAN/ Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others IV, officials propounding to be the part of the respondent no.

2 Company, to allay the fears of the complainants, assured them that the respondent no.

1 is a subsidiary company of Godrej Properties and they have nothing to fear off as it is Godrej Properties with whom they shall be dealing with.

That the respondent no.2 has conspicuously absent,/hid themselves, however as per the development agreement dated 22.O9.201'4, initially, the respondent no I and 3, declared that development rights of oBPL existed in favor of Godrej l)roperties before the deed of cancellation dated 22.09.20L4.

Thvs, respolldent no.2 did not disclose that they were not the project developers. 'lhe complainants who expressed their anguish that they were being misled and were informed that the rqspondent no. t has been created by Iespondent no.

2 to construct the project and the project will always be the prolect of the respondent no.

2. 'lhat the complainants believing the representations made by respondents relented and signed the said form.

The 2"d installment was to be made r/r'ithin 60 days, till Septemtier 2015, the complainants had made payment of 200lo of the cost of the flat, without receiving an allotment letter or the BBA having been executed.

However, the respondents were obligated to provide the allotlnent letter within 45 days of the booking and the BBA 'within 45 days, thereafter; same were the terms of the application form. tion form. 'Ihus the respondents were in breach of their own terms from day one 'Ihat the complainants, received an allotment letter on 03.12.2015, whcrcin lhe total sale consideration was mentioned as Rs,1,16,75,580/-.

The BSP of thc apartment was Rs.97,37,000/- and the PLC was Rs 1,87,250/- and the respondents were charging an amount of Rs 3,75,000/- for car parking which rs not only illegal brrl ,rlso usurious.

Page 10 of 35 ffi HARER^. #"eunuennl,l VI.

VII, VIII. 'l'hat the buyer's agreement was executed between the parties on 07.04.201,6, although many of the terms as agreed upon and represented/assured by respondents at the time of booking were changed without giving any intimation to the complainants.

By this time, the complainants have paid huge amounts being approximately Rs.24 Lacs, and lvere forced to continue with the project inspite of the various misrepresentations and blatant violations of the terms as agreed upon by Lhc respondents. ]'hat the respondents raised a demand to the complainants, in June 2016, for payment of 20Vo of the amount which was payable at the time of completion of superstructure.

Thq complainants raised a query as to when the project has just been launched then how could the superstructure be completed at the given point of time, the respondents instead of giving a proper reply, threatened the complainants that in case they wish to retain their apartment they would have to pay the amounts as and when they are demanded otherwise they shall be burdened with interest @15% lt was categorically put to the respondents that if the complction of superstructtl re milestone is achieved by it in fune 2016 then fbr what reasons the possession of the unit was sched uled to be handed over after a span of two- Lhree years thereafter, to which the officials of the respondents had no answer, whatsoever. hatsoever. 'fhat the complainant's relatives/associates upon visiting the project were l'urther taken aback by what lay in front ofthem as the tower in which their l'lat u,as booked was not at the stage of completion of superstructure and t:hat the respondents had raised such frivolous demands.

The complainants rhereafter again approached the respondents and stated their dismay at the conduct of the respondents, however, their officials stated that since some Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others Page 11of35 Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others IX.

W HARERA #"eunuennrr,r x. towers are at the stage, the payment is being raised and the next payment shall be raised only after a period of around two years i.e. around 2-3 rnonths before actual possession being handed over.

It was further stated that the buyer's agreement represented that the construction shall be comp)eted within a period of 46 months with a grace period of 6 months thereafter albeit this was in gross contradiction ol their commitment that the said period was to be from date of booking whereas in the buyer's agreement it was stated that it was from the date of allotment. 'lhat a brief encapsulation of the entire chain of events would be that the r:omplainants booked in June, 2015, the construction did not start till r\ugust, 2 015 and in June 2076,lhe entire superstructure consisting of the llroject was ready. lt is submitted what can be deduced from the entire sequence of events is that either the construction was done at a super-fast :;peed such that the qualily of construction was not paid heed to, or the payments were demanded when the milestones were not reached, thus, :ihowing the malafide ofthe respondents. '[hat the respondents thereafter on 06.01.2017 u,ithin 7 months of having raised the invoice for paynent tlwards the completion of superstructure rlemanded the payment for the nekt 400/0 which was to be made at the time 'when the finishing was co!-npleted i.e. leted i.e., when the brickwork and internal plaster work was completed in thc entire building.

XIl.

That thereafter the complainants demanded the status update on the construction ofthe properql,, howpver the respondents provided vague and absurd construction updat$s whith in itself depicted that the construction was not being done at th[ nacf at which the payments/ installments demands were being raised by it.

The exact same updates were sent to the owners of other flats, thus ]howiJg the falsity of their stand and their mala xt.

Page 12 of35 & HARERA S- 6unuennHlr Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others fide intentions.

Respondents were sending construction updates from rvhich it became evident that the milestone for which they had taken money had not even been completed and the payment had not become due, XIII.

That to the further shock and amazement of the complainants, they were informed by the other allottees that the respondents had unilaterally changed the sanctioned plan.

They received a letter stating that there was a change in builder which was also done without intimating the complainants.

The complainants thereafter kept on inquiring about the status of the project and why when 80% of the cost of property was demanded in 2017 than for 2-3 years the project has not been completed.

It seemed apparent as to why the 40% invoice towards internal Finishing was laised an entire year in advance while work was still under progress thereby either lorcing the complainants to withdraw as they would not be able to arrange the funds and the respondents could benefit from their \^/ithdrawal and illegally usurp their money in the name of forfeiture, although they were not entitled for the same or forcing the complainants to XIV. pay and thus enjoying their money well in advancc.'lhe complainants also Ibund out that the respqndenls were demanding payment in clear abrogation and derogation ofthe terms ofthe Act of 2016. t of 2016. 'Ihat the respondents thereafter demanded the final amount of 20%o which ,Nas to be paid at the time of handing over of possession on 31.10.2020, claiming that the said flat was ready for possession.

Vide possession letter, ir demand of Rs.25,17,886/-, was made and an amount of Rs.10,486/- was rlisclosed as compensation.

Thus, the respondents had admitted that the ,rroject was delayed and hence compensation was being paid to the i:ornplainants.

It would be pertinent to submit that a bare perusal of the letter would evince that the complainants would only be permitted to visit Page 13 of 35 ffi HARERA Complaint No.

2384 of2022 and I others xv.

XVI.

GURUGRANI the apartment in case they made the payment and in case they did not make the payment, the complainants would not even get to see as to what is being handed over to them.

Thus, amply displaying the high handedness of the respondents and their malafide intention. 'lhat the complainants thereafter requested for an additional time of 12 days, which was duly granted by the respondents.

They made the payments qua the last installment on 30.11.2020 and thereafter kept on requesting lhe respondents to provide the occupation certificate and the comp]etion certificate as wcll as when the sale deed shall be executed, so that the {romplainants could take possession of the property however till ',27 .1,0.2021, the respondents kept on avoiding this query and in fact till date have not provided the completion certificate to the complainants. 'lhat the complainants had been overcharged an amount of Rs.6 Lakhs approximately, without informing the complainants and as on date as per lrhe statement of account provided by the respondents have paid an irggregate amount of Rs.1,,23,7 6,0081- to the respondents.

That the complainants having not received any response for almost a year and in fact l:ill date not having received the dgcuments as requested by them got fed up ,:f the boorish attitude of the rebpondents. bpondents.

The respondents have made .material changes to the project wherein they have reduced the size of the project, increased the number of dwelling units apart from demanding payment in total violation of the terms of their RERA License, thereby not cnly being deficient in the customer service as was promised to be provided but also misseling the project and changing the livability in the project to lhe adversity of the complainants, Ihat the complainants along with other homebuyers filed certain RTI's with RERA and Director Town and Country Planning, Haryana IDTCP) to find out XVII.

Page 14 of 35 Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others ffi}IARERA ffi"GURUGRANI about the actual facts as to the actual status of the project.

Through RTI Iiled by the other home-buyers before this Authority, which had granted the License to the respondents for tlie project titled as Godrei lcon and had soughl documents as filed ]tone fitn the application for grant of license.

The following contradictiorls and inconsistencies emerged from the said procured documents: Ibllowing submissions: .

Fraudulent mir."r."."rr[raron ofproiect land size in the BBA-That as per the attached builder buy{r agre]ement provided to other allottees, declared o The respondents in the blryer's agreement as provided in Aprit, 2016 had disclosed the fact that the tirolectlis being built on project land which measure 9.359 acres, whereas in tt|e REdA declaration, they have disclosed that the project is being built on project lalnd ad-measuring 6.459375 acres.

This leads to reduction in the declarqd prolfct lancl from 9.359 acres to 6.459375 acres [by 310lo approx.) for GPdrej [con Project in contravention of buyer's agreement [the proiect ladds under H RERA Registration 50 & 54 of 2077 are collectively Godrej tcon pilject I{nds).

Ttrat the complainants, thereafter, got hands on the registration certifilcate of the proiect OASIS (Regd.

53 of 2017) dated 1,7.08. ed 1,7.08.20L7 islsued bb/ this Authority, from wherein it was learnt that evidently the request for th{ registration of the Proiect as was made by the respondents vide theif applfcation dated 28.07.2017 was made for 6.8 acres ofland.

It is stated thft the (hange in proiect land size has nowhere been disclosed to either the complainants or any other allonees and the respondent have been *lt-..iif,g the proiect io hapless customers while leading them to believe thpt thej shall be staying in a project built on larger lands and shall have more open dreas than what is actually there. .

The respondents had furt[rer faifed to disclose that in their submission for getting the environment ciearan{e, they have disclosed an increased number of dwelling units fr om 66410 7 47 (by 73% approx.) on the total project Iands fof which the Godrej lcon lrojeci and Godrej Oasis were a part).

This was in furtherance of their afo{emenlioned lies wherein the respondents hdd committed that there shall be lolV density ot flats being less than 40 flats per acre, thus more open arels tor fodrej ICON, whereas currently taking into account the reduced projfct lan! size anci increase in number of flats, the density of flats per Acre hap crosled more than 55 flats per acre.

Thus, causing grave prejudice to the rights qf the complainants along with the other aliottees. 'fhat the various additional illegal aspects of the complaint comprise of the Page 15 of 35 XVIII.

HARERI GURUGRANI in paragraph D of page no.

5. theif sanction plans, permissions and approvals for development, wherei$, claufe 'i', discloses the Letter of Intent dated 26.03.2013, from the Stite of [taryana vide memo No.

LC-2751-JE(VA)- Z0l3/34765, in which it is cleaily stated that the demarcation plan dated 18.05.2013 as provided b1,] Oasis Buildhome Private Limited, the total area of the site laid out to be 11.0! acres put of which only 6. ch only 6.65 acres was granted for 'GOIIREI LCON', The lette{ of infent has disclosed the fact that out of this allotted land of 11.05 acrqs for Qodrej Icon only 6.65 acres were to be used for construction only and frea m{asuring 1,629 acres comes under 60 m wide sector road; 0.199 acres lomes jLrnder 24 m wide internal circulation road, area measuring [0.325 + 0J325] i 0.650 comes under 12 m wide service road.

Therefore, the fraud cornmittqd by the respondents arose when they submitted a site plan including the above 60 m wide road having killa no, 2212 and 2, measuring 0.694 acrles and 0.983 acres, respectively; 12 m wide service road which was a{ded t{ the killa no.2lf2, measurir,g 0.524 Acres; 24 m wide road bearing {illa nQ.7/1, rneasuring 0.500 acres in the Godrej lcon , The demarcation p$n on lthich the Letter of Intent was approved and the Site plan which was laSr sub{nitted to the RERA Authorities are different, the roads which were acduired from Oasis Build Home Pvt.

Ltd had been included in the project l[nds r,lvithout the permission of Government of Haryana and to deceive thf complainants.

That as per the attacbed $ry"r'{ "gr""Irr"nt while declared project lands in BBA is 9.3 59 acres - the rdspondbnts assured that no part ofthe project land is to be transferred to the poverr'{ment and the respondent no.2 has rights to market/develop the entirq projeft lands and that there are no encumbrances on the project lands.

Furttler in sfhedule ll of this buyer's agreemen! project lands when compared witti the rQvised s{nctioned proiect plan showcase only parcel A as part of the pro]ect larids.

The said factum was also verified by the complainants and the oth(r allo$ees by paying a visit to inspect the ongoing project development work.

It is lstated that the same is the situation in the Patwari's office wherein pfrcels ffland which forms part ofthe project lands have been acquired way fack in 20L4, but till date are being included in the proiect lands. ect lands.

It is further lvery dfsheartening that respondents are including lands which have been shqwn to Fe a part ofthe roads/expressway as is being developed and is to be tra4sferreF to the Government.

Thus are selling public lands as part of project l[nds, ivhich is not only illegal but also does not behove a company having a 100 year legacy.

Project Land as per the 4ERA lFdgment is not more than 6.959 acres - It is an admitted fact that as] per Iqdgment of REIIA dated 24.04.2019 the land in Codrej Oasis is 6.8 aNres. '!'he said judgment available on HRERA - Gurugram Website, has n(t been] challenged till date and hence, has attained finality.

Therefore, net la+d avallable for Godrej Icon cannot be more than [13.759 acres - 6.8 acres] 6.959 acres, unless there is double-selling of land Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others Page 16 ol35 HARER GURUGRA[/] across the two projects.

Hence, it is submitted that an evident mis-selling and fraud has been played upon the customer as 9.359 acres of land was never available for sale under Godrej Iqon.

The respondents in the June 2019 and 2020, Iiled a six months compliance report, therein, the developer is not respondent no.

2 and land which is claimed to bE increased is same and hence, mis- represented the facts-the developer as per the report is respondent no.

3, also thereby in the former report disclosing their project details in which the environmental clearance was gi\ven for net plot area +9448.74 sq. meter or L2.219 acres, wherein the gree! area has to be 35.270/o of the net plot but same has not been complied by the respondents.

They in their part B of Form Rep-1, has fraudulently wfittcn the licensed area of 14.684 acres as obtained by the license no.

151 ol 2014.

The respondent no. l and I are having principal and subsidiary com pany relationship but the IILP company (respondent No. ondent No.1 claims not to be the part of Godreil mis-tepresdhtation - That the registered office, Email address and Phone humbef are same for both the companies, even the call ccntre number for Oa$is Lanpmark LLP is same as for Godrej Properties Ltd., fu rther the respondent no.

2 has a 67% stake as well as 67010 voting share in the respondent no.

1.

The respondent no.

3, ltl/s.

Oapis Build Home Pvt.

Ltd. is missing- That the registered office addrqss of the respondent no.

3 is 6, fwala f,leri Market, Pasch im Vihar, West Delhi as per its own various declarations.

The said entity has the existing title owndrship Ofproject lands and also the original project developer on record.

T{at thQ respondents havc not only misled the complainants and the oth]er allqttees but also this Authority as the project lands disclosed to RERA also is dot available with the respondents/builders for transfer to the allotteqs of tl1e project, thus, misleading the Government Authority as well.

XIX.

1, i[ theif application for revised environmental clearance dated 05.12.P018, themselves disclosed to the Ministry of En v r ro n me nt, Forests and Clima qe Change that the net land available for hoth the projects, i.e.

Godrei Oa$is an( lcon is I 2.219 Acres.

Thus their lies have in their own documents surfhced, Which they cannot deny. 'l'hat the complainants, got tP knot that the respondents have made further changes and have in fact no( only lncreased the n u m ber of flats but has also merged a license for ptay sfloot fn tn" grorp housing society license and thereafter, transferred the land Jf the group housing society to the play school, which thereby redu$ed thtBreen area and the commercial areas so rhat they can benefit at the cost {f the allottees.

These unilateral changes Complaint No, 2384 of 2022 | and 8 others I Page 17 of 35 HARERA *@"GURUGRAII Complaint No. plaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others done by the respondents lnd th[ willful concealment of the same has caused immense change in Jhe nrfiect and has altered the livability of the project altogether and in fa{t the project is nowhere as was committed to be provided.

Xx.

That after further follow-ufs fro{ the other allottees, it was learnt by the complainants that the reshondeirts received sanction of the amended 1U i.e. after almost 4-5 months of having received the not only nlanifestly against the principles of natural justice the provisions enshrined under the Act of 2016 wliich sanction plan in January, 2 018 andlsought objections from the allottees only in May-fune, 20 sanction.

This is but also against stipulates that any change sought to be done to the sanction pian has to be done only after getting prior approval from 7 SVo of the allottees in the project, whereas the respondents have gravely failed to do so while the Act 'tf ?01,6, was already in effect and in contravention of its existing registration certificate.

The respondents have nowhere in their submissions ro DTCP or the environmental authorities disclosed that two separatc and distinct projects are being developed but have shown that one project is being developed on 13.759 *Acres, XXl. 'fhat the complaillants having failbd to get any redressal of their grievances from the respondents lost all their Faith in the commitments of the respondents, were constrained to send a legal notice by their Iegal counsel Thereafter, a legal notice dated, q7.04.2022 was sent on the complainants behalf to the respondents which was duly delivered.

That the respondents are in total breach ofall the terms and conditions that were committed or agreed in writing or verbally prior to or after the said booking by the complainants.

The respondents have not only mentally harassed the complainants but by delaying the project and mis-selling the XXII. the XXII.

Page 18 of35 ffiuaRERA SS" eunuennu same, have even harassed the complainants purposely so that they frustrated into cancelling their booking and so that the respondents can illegally withhold their life savings on the pretext ofcancellations and other charges although the same were never agreed upon.'fhe respondents had taken 80% of the cost of property almost three years prior to when they r"vould have been due as also portrayed in the construction updates, further the respondents had kept the said money on false promises ofhanding over possession by end of financial year 2017-18 trut failed to do so, thus showing their mala fides. lt is submitted that the respondents offered possession without receiving the occupancy certificate and the completion certificate, took the money and when the complainants found out that the property is incomplete, the respondents for almost a period of l ycar stopped responding to the complainants queries and in fact till date have not provided the complainants with the OC and CC. :l'hat it is a settled law where the complainants is entitled to either the residential unit so booked by then as was also committed to be delivered to them or in case the builder/respondents are unwilling/unable to provide person rvho had bo oked/p u rch ased the flat has becn deprived ofthe benefit of escalation.

Relief sought by the complainants: - l'he complainants have sought following relief(sJ: l. 'lo refund the entire principal amount already paid to the respondents along n,ith monthly compounded interest @ 15% per annum or as per REI{A guidelines.

II. llirect the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.z,00,000/- to the r:omplainants as litigation costs/legal expenses.

Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others XXIII. the same then for the refund of the principal amount and interest, in such cases the compensation should necessarily havc to be higher becausc the C.

7.

Page 19 of 35 I t].

HARER' Complaint No. plaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others P*GURUGRAI/I On the date of hearing, the authority explained to the respondent/ promoter about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to sectic,n 11(4) [a) of the act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

Reply by the respondent nos.

1 and 3 The respondents no.

1 and 3 are contesting the complaint on the following gro unds:- i. llhat by way of background, jt is submitted that the complainants booked an apartment with Oasis Landmark LLP in its project namely "Godrej ICON" situated at Sector 88 A and 89 A, Gurgaon, Ha rya na vide an application form rlated 30.06,2015.

Pursuant to the said application, the Complainants were allotted an apartment bearing no.C0601 on 61' floor, in Tower C, in the respondent's project namely "Godrej Icon" by way of an allotment letter dated 03.12.2015.

It is submitted that the complainants received the r\llotment letter where the total sale consideration of the said unit was Its.1,16,75,5U0/-.'l'hereafter, an apartment buyer aBreement/builder br.ryer agreenlent was also executed between both the parties on 07.04.2016. ii. 'lhat the complainants opted for a construction linked plan and the tentative date ol delivery was 46 + 6 months (as per clause 4.2 of the buyer's ;rgreement) from the date of allotment lettcr dated 03.12.2015.

Therelore the tentative date of possession comes out to be 03.04.2 020. iii. 'Ihat the application form (clause 15J, and the buyer's agreement (Clause iZ.5 J clearly stipulated and defined earnest money to be 200/o of the basic r;irle price["liarnest Moncy") rvhich ',vas nleant to ensure perfornlance, ,rompliance and fLrlfilment of obligations and res po n sib ilities of the buyer. iv.

Further, as per clause 5.4 of the buyer's agreement categorically stipulated lhat if the complainants fails to take the possession of the apartment, the same shall be construed as the complainant's dcfault.

D.

9.

Page 20 of 35 & HARERI #"eunuennrvr Complaint No. plaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others 1'hat despite completing the construction of the apartment along with the basic amenities and offering the possession within the promised timelines, the complainants have failed to clear it's outstanding and take possession of the apartment and is now arbitrarily seeking refund without there being any default on the part of the respondent.

That Oasis Buildhome Private Limited ('OBPL') i.e., respondent no.3, initially obtained licence no, B5 of 20'13 dated 10.10.2013 on a contiguous Iand parcel admeasuring 13.759 acres in order to develop a group housing residential society in sector B8A/89A, Village Harsaru, Gurugram, Haryana. 'lhereafter vide a development agreement dated 22.09.2014, the development rights in the said 13.759 acres land rvas transferred by OBPI- in favour of 0asis Landmarks LLP (respondent no.1) ('developer'J.

That the Developer accordingly got the zoning plan on 09.04.2014 and building plans on 04.09.2015 approved from the competent authority i.e.

DTCP. vii. 'Ihe said Iand was to be developed in phases namely phase 0asis and lcon, ,\ccordingly, the developer first launched the phase Oasis that was to be rleveloped on the land admeasuri4g 4.40 acres in the year 2014.

Thereafter, phase Icon was launched that was to be developed oll the land admeasuring '1.359 acres in the year 2 015. viii. 'Ihat, in meantime, OBPL obtained an additional license for an additional land parcel admeasuring 0.925 acres from DTCP vide license no.

151 of 2 014 dated 0 5.09.2014 and a second development agreement was executed on 23.05.2018.

Thereafter the D'tCl'] Sranted in-principle approval for the revision of the building plan on 12.04.2018. ix.

Accordingly, a letter dated 28.05.2018 was issued to all the allottees and summarized the proposed changes which are enumerated below for ease of rcference:- Page 21 of 35 & HARER, #"eunuennrr,r complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others .

B others .

Instead ofthe Tower 4-5, qnly toi,ier 5 was to be constructed; r Tower l l and l2 were distardedl Location of Nursery schoof was $hifted ftom parcel D.

It is now proposed to be dcveloped in place of ldwer t 1 -1 2 in pa rcel C.

A new tower-4 would be fonstr,]rct"a in parcel D, a conveniert shopping-3, community building-3 is pfopos!d for tower 5. .

Revisionswere made inthe EWS block.

It is submjtted that the changes were carried out fbllowing the due process of the law applicable at the relcvant tinre.

Iire respondent reservcs its right to place on record the said letter dated 28.05.2018 as arld when the sarlo is clirectcd by this Authority. x.

That the developer also applied fbr a change of developer as per the policy dated 18.02.2015.

The additional license required the developer to revise the building plans to incorporate the addirional tands and accordingly an application for revision of building plan was filed on 2 l .09,2016. xi. 'lhereafter, after following the due process of the law, DTCP Sranted approval regarding revision of the building plans on 03.10.2018 1t is :;ubmitted that the building plans were revised after following the due process of the law applicable at the relevant time. xii. 'Ihat upon incorporation ofthe additional licenscd Iand, the developer rvas entitled to additional FAR a4d as such the entire development ofthe project is carried out strictly in consonance with the sanctioned plans and approvals.

As per applicable laws, the additional FAII can be utilized on the ,lntire land for whicll licence is granted by DTCP.

That there is no reductiotr ,:f the land for ICON neither the land that was meant for ICON has been used lor any other project as wrongly contended by the complainants. xiii. tt may not be out of place to mention here that the said revision was donc prior to thc enactment of relevant provisions of the RERA IT is further submitted that while revising the building plans, the respondent had duly complied with all the ap all the applicable provisions and the changes were carried out after following the due process of the law.

Page 22 of 35 &HARER H-eunuennt'l Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and I others xiv.

That the revision in the buil{ing pfans is as per the environment norms and the respondent has duly takpn the requisite approval for the same. xv.

That the respondent carried out the construction of the project at a considerable speed and achieved the initial construction milestones.

The Iespondent could complete the construction and the occupancy certificate dated 18.09.2 020. xvi.

That thc minor delay in thc completion of the project was occasioned due to the force majeure arising out of the Covid 19 Pandemic.

It is submitted that immediately thereafter the respondent issued a possession intimation letter dated 31.1 0.202 0.

Even rhis Au thority has cons idered the outbreak of C0VID-19 as a 1,ORCE MAItiURE event and has extcnded the completion date or revised completion date or extended completion date automatically by 6 rnonths. xvii. 'lhat immediately after completion of the apartment and receiving the OC, t.he respondent r'ro.1 issued a possession intirnation letter dated 31.10.2020. llowever, it is the complainants who have failed to take the possession of the apartment despite the s4me bEing completed in all aspects.

It is evident that the complainants have no intention of taking possession of the flat on account of fall in the market prices and is now raising frivolous issues in the instant complaint in order to seek refund without there being any default on the part of the answering respondent. xviii. 'fhus, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of {roncealment of nlaterial facts and documents, besides being vitiatcd on account of the false, vexatious and unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the complainants. plainants.

It is submitted that there is no misrepresentation or ,/iolations of any rules of RERA nor that the complainants have suffered any loss attributable to the respondent/promoter.'Iherefbre, this Authority, Page 23 of 35 HARERI, GURUGRAN/ Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others after taking due cognizance of the preliminary submissions, are taken in alternative and without prejudice to each other.

That the preliminary submissions are stating clearly and unequivocally the grounds for dismissal of the instant complaint, thus this Authority may dismiss the present complaint forthwith with exemplary costs.

Without preiudice to the aforesaid, respondent denies each and every allegation raised in the instant complaint unless specifically admitted hereinafter.

Without prejudice to the generality of the aforesaid denial, the respondent hereby seeks to submit a para-wise response to the averments made in the complaint.

10.

Copie,s of all the relevant documents have been filed ancl placed on the record.

Thcir authenticity is not in disputc.

Hence, the complaint can be decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submission made by the parties.

11. 'lhe respondent has filed an objection and the reply of the same and written subnrissions along lvith the documcnts for kind consideration of the authoriry, thL. same have been taken on record and has been considered by the authority n,hile adjudicating upon the relief sought by the complainants.

E.

L2.

13. lurisdiction of the authority l'hc authority observcs that it has territoriarl as rvcll as subject matter julisdiction to adludicate the present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.l Territorialiurisdiction As 1re r notification no.

7/92/2077-1TCP dated 14.12.2017 issued by Town and Country I'lanning l)epartment, the jurisdiction ol Real Estate Regulatory Auth,}'ity, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose rvith ofiicers situated in Gurugram.

Gurugram.

In the present case, the project in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram District.

Therefore, this authority has conrplete terr-itorial jurisdiction to dcal with the present complaint.

E.ll Subiect matter iurisdiction Page 24 of 35 ffi HARERT S"eunuennl,r Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others 14, Section 11[4] (a) ofthe Act, 2 016 provides that the promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 11(4)(a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 11 (1) 'l he promoter shall' (a) be responsible for oll obligations, responsibilities and functions uncler the prcvisions of Lhis AcL or the rules ond tegulations made Lhereundcr or Lo the allotLees as per the agreement Jor sole, or to the Lissociotion ofallottees, as the case may be, tillthe conveyance ofallthe opartments, plots or buildings, di the case may be, to the allottees, or the common arees to the qssoc iation of allottees or the competent authority, os the case may be; Section 34-Functions of the At)thorityl - 34[f) ofthe Act provides to etlsure complhnce oJ Lhe obligations cost ' upon the promoters, the allottees and the reol csloLe ogents under this Act and the rules ond reg,ulotions nade thereunder.

15.

So, in view, of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliance ofobligations by the promoter leaving aside compcnsation which is to be decided by thc adjuclicating officer ifpursued by the complainants at a later stage.

1 6.

I.'urttrer, the Authority has no hitch in proceeding with the complaint and to grant a r-ciief of refund in the present mattqr in view of the judgment passed by the I Ion'ble Apex Courtin Newtech Prometers qnd Developers Private Limited Vs Stote of U.P. and Ors.

2027-2022 (1) RCR (Civil), 357 and reiterated in case of M/s ,Sana Realtors Private Lirnited &. other Vs Union of lndia & others SLP (Civil) No.

13005 of2020 decided on 12.05. on 12.05.2022 wherein it has been laid down as under: "u6. |rotn the sclleme oJ the Act aJ which a detoiled rcference has been nacle and toking note of power of odjudicqtion delineated with the regulatory authority ond qdjudicqting offcer, what Jinqlly culls out is that olthough the Act indicates Lhe distinct expressions like'refund','interest','penalty' ond'compensation', a cotljoinL rcoding of Sections 1B ontl 19 cleqrly maniJests that when it comes to refuncl of the atnount, and intcrest on the refund atnounL, or directing poyttlenl oJ nterest Jbr delayed (lelivety ol possession, ar penolLy and interest thereon, tt is the regulatoty authority \,rhich hos the power to examine and determine tlle Page 25 of 35 HARTRA GURUGRAN/ Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others F'. outcome ofa comploint.

At dle somP tine, when it comes to o question of seeking the relief of adjudging comAensati4n ond interest thereon under Sections 12,14, 18 and 19, the odjudicori\g officlr exclusively hos the power to determine, keeping in view the cotlectile reodlng of Section 71 read with Section 72 of the Act. lf the adjudication undef Sectiolts 12, 14, 1B ond 19 other than compensation as envisoged, ifextended to the odjldicoting oJlicer os proyed thot, in our view, may intend to expand the 4nbit abd scope of the powers and functions of the adjudicating olfrcer under 5€ction l1 and thatwould be aoainstthe mandote of the Act 2016." 17.

Hence, in view of the authoritdtive fronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned abov!, the authority has the iurisdiction to entertain a complaint seeking re[und {f the amount and interest on the refund authority upon liability of respondent no.

1 and 3 or respondent no.

2 under section 18 of the Act, 2016.

18.

0n 18.08.2022, respondent no.2 (M/s Godrej Properties Limited) filed an apl)li,ration for deletion for its name stating that the development and construction of the said proiect i/l/as tq be carried out by respondent no.

1 & 3. no.

1 & 3. and by rcspondent no.

1 only.

Further, the buyer's agreement was executed between the complainants and the respondent no.

1&3, and the complainant(sJ in their complaint failed to justily theil claiTs against respondent no.2 specifically.

Accordingly, respondent no.

2 should be deleted from the array of party not bcinB the necessary party.

19.

Aftcr considering the documents available on record, it is determined that the respcndent no.2 has not only advertised the said project but also all conlmunications with the complainant(sl have been made by it and thus the rL.spcndent no.2 has acted as a promoter and falls under the definition of promoter under Section2[zkJ(vJ of the Acl,2016. 'l'he relevant portion of this section reads as under:- amount.

Observations of Moreover, respondent no.

1 issued the allotment letter to the complainant(sJ also, all the payment receipts have been issued to the complainant(s) Page 26 of 35 Complaint No.

2384 of2022 and B others "2.

Defnitions. - ln this Act, unless the context otherwse requires - (zk) "promoter" means, - [i) a person who constructs or causes to be constructed an independent building at a builcling consisting ofaportments, or convetts on existing building or a part thereof into apdrtments, for the purpose ofselling all or some ofthe apartments to other persons and includes his assignees; or (ii) xxx (iii) xxx (iv)xxx (v) any other person wha acts hinself os ct builder, coloniser, contractor, deveLoper, estate cleveloper or by any other name or claims to be acting as the holcler of o power ofattorney from the owner oJ the land on which the building or apartment is constructed or plolis devetoped for sole;" 20.

As per aforesaid provisions of law, respondent no.1 to 3 will be iointly and severally liable for the compqtition of the project. e project.

Whereas the primary responsibility to discharge the rlsponsfbilities of promoter lies with respondent ffiHARERA s"eunuennnr no 1 and respondent no, 3 who have ln vie!\/ of the same, the contentio received the n/objection payments from the allottees. of respondent no.

2 stands rcjec:ecl.

F.ll The Authority has iurisdiction to decide the said complaints when the Cwl> is pending before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh wherein the Authority is alqo a party?

21.

1'hc respondent raised preliminary objection that the complainants have not approached this Iorum with clean hands.

The counsel for the respondent during procr:eding dated 14.01.2025 stated that the complainants along with some of the allottees, subsequent to filing of present complaint, have also filed a civil u,rit petitjon before the Hon'ble Puniab & Haryana High Court bearing no.

17120 of 2020 titled zts Mrs.

Anito Sardana & Ors.

V/s State of Haryana & Ors., where identical issues havt beet raised. lt is a settled law that a litigant cannot be allowed to pursue twf rem{dies seeking similar relief, on the same cause of action.

It is prayed th4t preqent proceedings may be stayed till the disposal of writ petition.

22. 'l'hc counsel for the complainant stated that his client along with some other allottees have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Page 27 of 35 complaint No.

2384 of2022 and B others ffi HARERI. *e" eirnuennM Court mentioned above. [n the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners have I.'urther, the counsel for the complainants states that no stay orders have been passed by the Hon'ble High Court and the plea of the counsel for the respondent prayed for issuance of mandamus or any other writ as the Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, seeking directions against respondent no.

1 [State of Haryana) and 2l (HARIRA Gurugram] from issuing of occupation certificate and new rcgisl.ration to respondent no.

3 (M/s Godrej Properties). operties).

Further, all licensees and registrations granted to respondent no.3 to 5 (M/s.

Godrej Properties Ltd, M/s Oasis Landmarks LLP and M/s.

Ltd.) with respect to project'Godrej Icon' etc. be revoked or cancelled and further that during pendency of this petition, the issuance of any new certificate etc. be stayed.

While through the present complaint, the complainants-aliottees are seeking relund of the entire amount paid by them along with compensation. [n view of thc above, the authority is of the view that the cause of action as well as relief claimed in the Writ Petition and the present complaint are completely differcnt and as far as relief of refund is concerned, the authority has complete julisdiction to decide the present complaint regarding non-compliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to be decided by the adiudicating officer if pursued by the complainants at Iater sta8e. is not applicable in this case and respondent is deliberately delaying the matter and request that the Authority may pronounce the ordcr.

23. 'l hc r\uthority is of the view that any 'aggrieved person' may file a complaint with the authority or the adjudicating officer.

Section 31 empowers an aggrieved person to file a complaint before the authority or the adiudicating oflicer on account ofany violation or contravention of the provisions ofthe Act or rules and regulations.

Page 28 of 35 ffi HARERA S* eunuennl,r Complaint No.

2384 of2022 and 8 others 24. lrurther, the Authority relies upon the Judgment dated 30.01.2025, passed by thc Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh in CWP bearing no.

2459L of 2024 in case titled as M/s Ramprastha Developers Private Limited atul Ors, Vs State of Haryana and Ors., and the relevant portion is reproduced for ready reference:- 2.3. nce:- 2.3.

Consequently, if Lhe suprc ittryartecl statutary de[initions, to the suprc sLatutory words, are read alongwith the endowment ofa stotutory privilege vis- a-vis qn oggrieved, from ant violations, os become stated in Section 31 supra.

As such when thereby any aggrieved, thus becomes bestowed with the right, to in the event of any promoter. allottee or real estctte agent, as the cose moy be rothet making violations vis-o-vis any ofthe statutory provisions.

Resultantly, when the moking of such violcttions by supta vis"it"vis, thus ony of Llle statutory provisions as occur in the REM Act or quq ony of the rules as become formuhlec! thereun(leL when thus conJers a right in the hone buyer(s) to agitate his gtievance betore the REPl.

Authorily.

25. hr the present matter, the allottees have approached the Authority under the statutory provisions of The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 for relief ol refund, while in the matter pending belore the Hon'ble High Court, the relief pertains to grant of various approvals to the respondents by thc lcspective competent authorities.

The relief sought before the Authority is distinct and fully covered under the provisions of thc Act, 2016.

26.

In view of the above, there is no merit in the plea raised by the respondent seeking stay of the present complaint till the disposal of writ petition and the prcliminary objection raised by the respondent w.r.t. maintainability of comprlaint before the Authority. c.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainant(s).

G.l To refund the entire princfpal ari-rount already paid to the respondents along with monthly compo[rndeq interest @ 15yo per annum or as per RERA Buidelines.

27. ln brief, the case of the comnlafnantf is that the respondent in its brochure specifically mentioned that ttle prt)ect namely, "Godrej lcon" is being developed by Godrej Properties Ltd. t[nder this impression as also the name Page 29 of 35 IIARERA *@*GURUGRANI Complaint No. plaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others suggests, that the said proiect is a Golrej Proiect, the complainants invested their money in the said proiect.

It fs onlil upon signing rhe application form, they got to know that the project is be]ng defeloned by M/s Oasis landmark LLP i.e., respondent no. t hereinafter.

Of 30.96.2015, after going through brochure, they booked a residential unit fearin[ no.

C0601 in the said proiect.

They initially paid an amount of Rs.5,0f,000{- as booking amount and further made payment of Rs.7,16,903/- on 2L.p9.20!5.

Thereafter, respondent no.

1 issued an allotment letter dated 03.L2.20LF to the complainants, wherein the respondent mentioned total sale iconsideration of booked unit as lls.1 ,16,75,5U0/-.

The buyer's agreement was executed between the parties on 07.04.20L6 and as per clause E of the said BBA, the said project was to be dcvclrped on project land admeasuring 9.359 acres.

As per clause 4.2 of the IJIIA, the respondent irgreed that construction shali bc completed within a pcriorl of 48 months, from the date of issLlance oF allotmcnt letter along with grace period of six months.

It is also alleged that the respondent has raised cvcry demand prematurely in an arbitrary manner which is in derogation rvith the payment plan agreed betwe(n the parties in the application form and the BI}4.

2tl.

Further, as per the maildated 17.04.2015 the respondent advertised the project as 1or'v-density development and specifically mentioned that the density shall be lesis than 40 units per acre.

The respondents have unilaterally changed the sarctioned plan sometime in May-fune 2018 without informing the complainants.

It is also alleged that as per BBA, the project was to be corstructed on 9.359 acres of land but actually the land is 6.459375 acres i.e.

31% ,ess.

I].ven the nunlber of units were increased from 3 5U units to 662 units and also the towers have increased from 9 to 13 without informing the complainants. plainants.

All these facts are mentioned in writ petition before the High Page 30 of 35 29.

30. @HARERA ffiGURUGRAN/ Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and B others Court.

It is urged by counsel for cqmplainants that their client is not insisting on any of the plea raised before High Court.

The complainants have approached this Authority seeking refund of the entire amount paid by the complainants as they wish to withdraw from the project.

I'he unit in question was allotted in his favour by thc rcspondent/promoter on 0 3.12.2015 vide provisional allotment letter, Thereafter, the buyer's agreement executed between the parties on 07.04.2 016.

As per clause 4.2 ofthe apartment buyer's agreement executed befween the parties on 07.04.2016, the possession of the booked unit was to be deljvered by 03.04.20 2 0. 'l'he occupation certilicate fol the tou,er/block in question was obtained on 1U.09.2020.

The complainants havc surrender their unit through legal notice dated 07,04.2 022, seeking refund of thr: paid-up amount with interest on grounds reiterated in the present co n)plaint.

1'hc A,uthority observes that as per brochure at page 45 to 66 (annexure - 3J of the complaint, Oasis Build Home Pvt.

Ltd. is a joint venture partner with Godrel Properties.

By virtue of the said brochure, the project was being marketed in thc narre oi Godrej Properties and it has the logo ol Godrej Properties thus, Iuring the complainants to book the property.

It is also pertinent to mention here ftat logo of Godrej Properties also appears on the first page ofthe Buyer's agrcement.

By mentioning the name and logo ol Godrej Properties on the br-ochure & IlllA and the name of Godrej in the namc of the project, the respcndents have tried to make an impression upon the public at large that the said project is being marketed and developed by Godrej Properties.

Further, it is ofplave importance that the respondent through email sated 17.04. ted 17.04.2015, the respcndent has advertised the project as low-dcnsity development and specificalll, mentioned that the density shall be less than 4 0 units per acre (3 5 6 units in 9.1 AcreJ.

Not only this, the Godrej Properties have also issued a press Page 31 of 35 HARERA ffi-GURUGRAII Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others release on 21.05.2015 stating that the "Godrej Properties sells entire launched inventoty at Godrej IQon in Gurgaon" and the same also states for further information please contact; Mr.

Ajay Pawar, Sr, General Manager (Corporate Communications), Gpdrei Iroperties Limited.

Through aforesaid false:;tatements, the respondents influenced the allottees decision to purchase a unit in the afbresaid project.

31. llcre, the Authority refer to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Newtech Promoters and Developers Private Limited Vs State of U,P and Ors. lvherein it has been held as under:- "53 That even the tetms of the ogrcement to sole or home buyers agreenent invariqbly inclicqtes the intention of the developer thqt any subsequent legislatian, rules and regulations etc. issued by competent authorities will be btncling on the pqrties.

The clquses have imposed t:he opplicabiliq) of st.tbsequent legisLations to be applicqble ond binding on the Jlat buyer/allottee an(l eithet of the parties, pramoters/home buyers or ollotLees, connot shirk Jiotn tlrcir responsibilities/liabilities under the Act ond implies their challenge to the violation of the provisions of the Act and it negates the contention advanced by the appellants tegarding contrqctu q I terms having an overriding eJlbct to the retrospective appticability of the Authotity uncler the provisions oJ the Act which is completely nisploced ond deserves rejecLion.

54. l rcm the scheme ofthe Act 2016, its applicqtion is retrooctive in chqrocter antl it cttn sofely be observed thoL the prcjects alrcody catnpleted or to which the completion certiJicate has been grantetl are not under its under its fold and therefore, vested or accrueQ rights, if ony, in no manner are alfected.

At the seme time, itwill qpply ofte+ gettinb the ongoing projects and future projects registered under Section 3 to prolpectively [ollow the mondote of the Act 2 016." 32.

Accoldingly, the Authority observes that the said representation of marketing thc proiect by R2 in the brochure, BBA, email dated 17.04.2015 and press relcar;e amounts to mis-representation on part of respondents.

Since, in the present matter, the complainanfs are seeking refund being affected by such incorrect, false statement con[ainet in the advertisement or brochure, therefore the complainants are etltitled] for full refund along with interest under PaEe 32 af 35 Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and I others this Act." 33. tt is further revealed that the building plans ofthe proiect ofthe allottees were got revised by the respondents on 0 3.10.2 018, after thc coming into operation &HARER& GURUGRAM proviso to section 12 ofthe Act, 2016 at such rate as may be prescribed.

Section 12 of the Act, 2016 is reproduced as under for ready reference: "72, Obligotions oJ promqter re4arding veracity of the ddvertisement or prospectus: - Where ony person mqkes an ay'vance or o deposit on the bqsis of the information contained in tle notiie advertisement or prospectus, or on the bosis ofony model aportmeilt, plot pr building, as the case may bq ond sustoins ony loss or domoge by reosol oforyt incorrect, folse statement included thereia he shall be compensoted by the prolnoter in the monner os provided under this Act: Provided rhot ifthe person ofkcted b)) such incorrect,false statement contoined in the notice, aclvertisemefit or ptPspectus, or the model aportment, plot or bwldmg, os the cose moy be. inten+ to withdraw from the proposed project, he shqll be returnedhis e4tire inlestmentqlong with interest at such rate qs may be prescribed ond the colnpenmlion in Lhe monner provided under of Act, 2016, The Authority is of the is of the view that the respondent as violated the provisions of Section 1a(21[ii) of the Act, 2016 which prohibits a ltcrati ons/ad ditions in the sanctioned plans, layout plans and specifications of thc buildings or the common areas within the project without the previous written consent of at least two-th,irds of the allottees. 'l'here is nothing on record to corroborate that the respondent/promoter sought the consent of the colnplainants-allottees for such revision in the building plan.

34.

Ir1 view of the submissions made by the parties and fact on record as well ils argurnents of thc respective parties, the Authority holds the respondents responsible for violations under Sections 12 and 1a [2](ii) ofthe Act, 2016 and lrcleby directs the respondents-promoters to return the entire amount received by it with interest at the rate of 11.10% [the State I]ank of India highest marginal cost of lending rate (Mf LR) alpplicable as on date r2%J as prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development] Rules, Page 33 of 35 &EABInr S- euRuenRn Complaint No.

2384 of 2022 and 8 others 2017 from the date of each payfnent till the actual realization of the amount within the timelines provided in [ule 1[ of the Haryana Rules 2017 ibid. c.ll Direct the respondents aJ ,r, ,n .lnoun, o, Rs,2,O0,0OO/- to the complainants as litigation cqsts/lqgal expenses.

35.

The complainants are also see[<ing rplief w.r.t litigation expenses.

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in civit fppea] nos.6745-6749 of 2O2i titled as M/s Newtech Promoters and Devet)per, [r, ,*. v/s State oI UP &ors. (supra), has held that an allottee is entitlfd to {lri, co.pensation & litigation charges under sections 12,14,1,8 and $ectiorl 19 which is to be decided by the adjudicating officer as per section 71 and the quantum of compensation & litigation expense shall be adluf8ed fl theadiudicatlng officer having due regard to the factors mentione+ in sfction 72. fction 72.

The adjudicating officer has exclusive iurisdiction to deal witf the fomplaints in respect of compensation & legal expenses.

Directions of the authority H.

36. llenc:, the authority hereby passes this order and issues the following dir-ections under section 3T of thc Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authority under section 3a (Q; i. 'lhe res p o ndent/p romoter is directed to refund the amount received by it from each ol'the complainant(s) along with interest at the rate of 11.10% p.a. as prescribed under rule L5 ofthe Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of each payment till the actual date of refund of the deposited amount. ii. r\ period of 90 days is givcr to the respondert to comply with the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would lbllon'.

Page 34 ol35 lll.

37. .to.

39.

40.

Haryana l{eal L8.02.2025 k ffiHARERA, ffi. eunuennvr The respondent/promoter i rights against the subiect un along with interest thereon is initiated with respect utilized for clearing dues of l his decision shall mutatis mula order wherein details of allo possession, total sale considera allottee(sl is mentioned in each Complaint as well as application 1'rue certified copies of this Files be consigned to registry.

Dated: fu tbe complaint No.

2384 of2022 and I others directed not to create any third-party full realization ofthe paid-up amount omplainant(s) and even if, any transfer ct unit, the receivables shall be first lott -complainants. dis a ply to cases mentioned in para 3 ofthis ent r, buyer's agreement, due date of lon d amount paid by the complainant(s)- the su b1 f the mplaints. ifa ', stand disposed off accordingly. rced on the case file of each matter. bep Member w. r) ory Authority, Curugram vt-P (Viiay Kurffr Goyal) Page 35 of 35 tvteflber