PRATIBHA KHARE vs REGIONAL CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.

ffiHARERA. #* eunuennll BEFORE THE Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others HARYANA REAT ESTATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY, GURUGRAM Order pronounced on: 73.72.2023 on PYt.

Ltd.

Attendance lain and Caurav Rawat or Complainant u,Singh for Respondent ain and Caurav Rawat or Complainant nshu Singh for Responclcnl ish Jain and Caur'.rv Il,rr,r'.rt for Complilnilnt nshu singh for llospondcnt ish Jain and Caurav Rawat tbr Complalnant nshu Si4gb for Rcspondcnt ish lain and Caurav Rawat lor Complainant nshu Singh lbr Rcspondcnt sh lain and Gaurav Raw,rt lor Compla rnant nshu Singh lirr llcspondr:rrl ish Jain and Caurav R;rw. fbr Complarn.int nshu Singh for Ilcspontir,nr Mtrnr bc r ORDER This order shall dispose of all the 7 complaints titled as above filed bcforc this authority in form CRA under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regul:ition and Development) Act,2016 (hereinafter referred as "the Acf') rcad with rule 28 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) lLulcs, 2 017 (hereinafter referred as "the rules") for violation ofsection 11(4)[a) of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall bc gwan I coRAM: Ashok San 1.

Name of the Builder -negi,o-naconstiuciioi Proiect Name Ekam S.no.

Complaint No.

Complaint title -H;rhl n Himansh 1. cR/s930/2022 Priyanshu Ahlawat V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

2. cR/5937/2022 Vandana Agarwal V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

Harish J ti Himansh 3. cR/s933/2022 M.K.

Malik & Sons (llUF) V/s Regional Construction PvL Ltd.

Harish J f Himansh 4. cR/s934 /2022 Renu Jain V/s Regional Construction P!t.

Harish J t Himansh 5. cR/5938/2022 Sarthak Saxena V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

Harish l f, Himansh IJarish j Himansh t{arish J fl IIima n sh 6. cR/5939/2022 Pratibha Khare V/s Regional Construction Pvt. l,td.

7. cR/s940/2022 Pankaj Agarwal V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

Pvt.

PaBe 1 of 20 ffiHARERA # eUnUenn111 F"'d*t""=t""t'0"""d6';"" responsible for all its obligations, responsibilities and functions to thc 2.

3. allottees as per the agreement for sale executed inter se between parties. 'Ihe core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and thc complainant(s) in the above referred matters are allottees of the project, namely, "Ekam" being developed by the same respondent/promoter i.c., Regional Construction Pvt.

The terms and conditions ofthc buildcr- buyer's agreements fulcrum ofthe issue involved in all these cases pertains to refund of unjust/arbitrary amount taken by the respondent/promoter under various heads.

The details of the complaints, reply status, unit no., date of agrecmcnt, possession clause, due date of possession, offer of possession, total sale below: llqieqllt4mllertqrqElsu4.qllq&! t!4crqB 8.

POSSESSION OF THE PLOT 8.1.1 The promoter agree and understand that timely handover /delivery ol possession of the Plot to the Allottee and the handover of common Areas to thc Association of Allottees of the Competent Authority, as the case may be, is thc essence of the Agreement.

Subject to Force Majeure Event, the Promoter shall handover possession of the Plot and the Common areas/services/facilities wh ich are part of the Project on or before as per the date mentioned in the RIiRA Certificate. consideration, amount paid up, and reliefs sought are given in the tablc 1, Completion certrlcate- Not obtained 2.

DTCP License no.

55 of 2079 dated 08.09.2019 valid upto 07.03.2024- llegional Construction Pvt.

Ltd. is the licensee for the proiect as mentioncd in land schedule of the project.

3, Nature oI Project- Residential Plotted Colony 4.

RERA registration -18 of 2019 dated 08.072019, valid upto 08.03.2025 Page 2 of 20 ffiHARERA s*eunuennnr ief rght Rclu nri jt'st/ar ifaty {en by ysjLal it:rflcr ler rds. t lr. /sical the u nrq ed.

Relunilr,l ust/arbi ry ien bi Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others Sr. others Sr.

No Complaint no./title/ date of complaint Reply status Unit No. and area admeasur ing Date of execution of agreement for sale Due date of possession & Offer of possession Total s,ale In.tt consideration Sou and amount paid by the ] Complalnant I (s) ' l cR/5930 /2o2 2 Priyanshu Regional Construction Pvt.

DOF, 06.09.2022 Reply received on 21.12.20 22 l-s, admeasurin g 157 sq. yds lpg.

39 of complaintl 21.02.2022 (Page 33 complaint) Due date- 08.03.2025 offerof possession- 21.07.2022 (Page 71 complain0 TSC: Rs.44,7 4,500 / - (page 66 of complaint) Rs.40,82,000/- (page 43 of reply) 1, R of unju bitrt take the resp nt heac 2_ Hanr ol phvs poss unit of deed 2. cR/s931/202 2 Regional Construction Pvt.

DOF- 07.o9.2022 Reply rcceived on 21.r2.20 22 l-1s, admeasurin g 157 sq. yds. lpg.

3a ol complaintl 09.02.2022 (Page 32 of complain0 Due date 08.03.2025 offer of 27.07 _2022 [Page 73 of complain0 TSC: Rs.40,03,500/- (pg.

64 ol complaintJ Rs.36,58,100/. llR€ luntu ln: | ,r'" | .".n l,rnat l*.u I ru,a lz I Hanr t,,r I pnv, lorr l,*' l.f ldecd (page 41 reply) Page 3 of 20 *HARERA # eunuennl,r ;i tht thc t /ar the responde thc Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others 3. cR/s933/202 2 M.X Malik & Sons(HuF) Vs.

Regional Construction Pvt.

DOF, 06.09.2022 Reply received 21.12.20 22 l-t6, admeasurin g 157 sq. yds. lpg.

34 ol complaintl ,& 14.02.2021 lPage 32 complaintl Due date- 08.03.202s offer ol 2t.07.2022 (Page 69 of complaint) TSC: Rs.34,54,000/- IPage 63 olthc complaintl Rs.31,63,550/ (Pase 43 ol reply) 1.

Retun, of bitrary uken h thc nt u ndr 2_ of th physical dccd.

1.

Rclu n uniust/ar bitrary the und 2.

Handovc of th physi.al dccd 4_ cR/s934 /202 2 Renu Jain v/s Regional Construction Pvt.

DOF.

06.09.2022 Reply received 27.72.20 22 j-18, admeasurin g 157 sq. vds. \(L\\a HA ,'1 lir "": r l1i 0a.03.2022 (Page 33 complaintl RE Due date- 08.03.2025 orer of 21.07.2022 (Pase 59 complaint) TSCI Rs.54,16,500/- (PaBe 39 oithe complaint) Rs. laint) Rs.49,29 ,aoo /- (Pase 44 ol reply) Page 4 of 20 MHARERA SeunuenRv n-iry kcn hy physic!l unil rttcr 1.

Rcftrnd oI unjust/ar bitrary taken by the heads.

2_ of the physical n ol the Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others cR/s93A/202 2 Sarthak Saxena V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

DOF, 06.09.2022 Reply received on 2t.12.20 22 K- 11, admeasurin g 156 sq. yds lpg.

34 of complaintl ./-{') o4.o3.2022 [Page 32 ol complaint) Due date.

08.03.202s offer of possession- 2t.07.2027 (Page 75 of complaint) TSC: Rs.35,10,000/- (Page 65 of the complaintl API Rs.32,13,600/- (Page 42 ol reply) IR bin-i takcr the t 2 Hanc phvs un il deed 6_ cR/5939/202 2 Pratibha Khare V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

07 _09.2022 Reply received 21.12.20 22 rin I I rUl {-!-J F nr.( rrr nl'I- UG Due date- 08.03.2025 offer of 21.O? _2022 lPaEe 72 of complaint) TSCI Rs.36,66,000/- Page 65 ofthe complaint) Rs.33,54,000/- (Page 45 ol reply) 1.

R oI unjul bitra taket the resp( I head 2_ Hanc phvs of dccd Page 5 of 20 74_02_2022 (Page 32 of complaint) trHARERA S,eunuennHr c.R/ 5940 /2O2 2 Pankaj Agarwal V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

07.09.2022 Note: ln the table referred above certain abbreviations have been used.

They are etaborated as l.

Rchrn(l ol bitrary the heads.

2_ Handovcr ol Lhe physicil dccd Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others Reply received on 21.12.20 22 09.02.2022 (Page 33 complaint) 1'17, admeasurin I 157 sq. yds. lps.

3s ol complainq Due date- 08.03.2025 0fferof 2t-07.2022 {Page 70 ol complaintl rsd-'-- Rs.40,03,500/- (Page 63 ol the complain0 Rs.36,58,100/ (Page 44 ol replyl Abbreviations Full form D0F- Date offiling complaint TSC Total Sale consideration AP- Amount paid by the allottee(sJ 4.

5.

6.

The aforesaid complaints were filed by the complainants against thc promoter on account of contraventions alleged to have been committcd by the promoter in relation to Section 1.l.(4) (a) of rhe Act, 2016.

Act, 2016.

It has been decided to treat the said complaints as an application lbr non- compliance of statutory obligations on the part of thc promoters/respondent in terms ofsection 34(0 ofthe Act which mandatcs the authority to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon thc promoter, the allottee(s) and the real estate agents under the Act, the rulcs and the regulations made thereunder.

The facts of all the complaints filed by the complainant(s)/allotteefsJ arc also similar.

Out of the above-mentioned case, the particulars of lcad case CR/5930/2022 titled as Priyonshu Ahlawat V/s Regional Constuction Pvt.

Ltd, arebeing taken into consideration for determining the rights of thc Page 6 ot 20 7_ 1 u A.

7.

IIARERA GURUGRAI/ allottee(s) qua refund of the unjust/arbitrary amount taken by the respondent under various heads.

Proiect and unit related details The particulars of the project, the details of sale consideration, thc amou nl paid by the complainant(sJ, date of proposed handing over the possesslon, delay period, if any, have been detailed in the following tabular form: CR/5930/2022 titled as Priyanshu Ahlawot V/s Regional Construction Pvt.

Details "Ekam" Sector- 05, Village Sohna, iehsit Sohn3, District Gurugrqm,llqryan?.

B9tq9!!!4lpl9$ed col ony 55 of2019 dated 08.09.2019 valid upto 07.03.2024 ReEional Construction Pvt. l,td.

38 of 2019 datcd Registered vide no.

08.07.2019 08.03.202 5 J-9, admeasuring 157 sq. yds.

3? of complain_t] 27.O2.2022 Page 33 of com laint 07 .02.2022 age 29 of complaint'l 8.

POSSESSION OF THE PLOT 8.1.1 The promoter agree and understand that timely handover /delivery of possession of the Plot to the Allottee and the handover of common Areas to thc Association of Allottees of the Competent Authority, as the case may be, is thc essence ofthe Agreement.

Agreement.

Subiect to l,'orce Majeure Event, the Promoter shall handover possession of the Plot and the Common areas /services /facilities which are part of the Pfqiect on or before as Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others Particulars Name of the project Nature of the proiect DTCP Iicense no. and validity status Name of licensee RERA Registered/ not resistered RERA registration yqltd ugo _ _ Plot no.

Date of execution of reement for sale Date of allotment letter Possession clause PaBe 7 of 20 trHARERA *&-eunuennHl per the date mentioned in tl Certificate. (Pape 44 of co 11.

Due date of possession 08.03.2025 [As per registration certificate i this authoritvl 1.2.

Total sale consideration IBasic sale pricel Rs.44,7 4,500 /- (As per payment plan pag comolaint) 13.

Total amount paid by the complainant Rs.40,82,000/- (As per receipt information pa reolvl 1,4.

Offer ofpossession 27.07.2022 (Page 71 of complaint) 15.

Completion certificate L8.07 .2022 (Page no.

39 of the reply) he RERA rnr plain t ). issued by e66of ge 43 of B.

8.

Facts ofthe complaint The complainant has made the following submissions : - l.

That the complainant was allotted a residential plot bearing No.

I 09, admeasuring 157 sq. yds. in the project of respondent namcd "Ekanr", Sohna, Gurugram under the deen dayal Jan Awas Yoina, 2016 vidc allotment Ietter d ated 07.02.2022.Thereafter, a buyer's agreement dated 21.02.2022 was executed between the parties for a total snle consideration of Rs.39,25,000/- and the respondent has alrcady takc.n 100%o payment from the complainant and has offered possession ol the plot vide "offer for possession" Ietter dated 21.07.2022.

II.

That the complainant was shocked to find out that the respondcur company vide its letter dated 21.07.2022 titled as "offer of possession" raised unjust/ illegal/ arbitrary demand for Rs8,22,795/- under various heads and a demand of Rs.73,394/- under the head of "maintcnancc charges" without signing of the BBA.

Complaint no. plaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others PaSe 8 of 20 *HARERA #- eunuennvr Complaint no.5930 of2022 and 6 others III.

That the complainants tried to raise this issue of arbitrary demand with the executives of respondent company telephonically and informed thc respondent that they can't raise such demands without singing of thc BBA, but the response of the respondent was evasive and unsatisfactory. lV.

That the demand of Rs.5,49,500/- raised by rhe respondcnt rowards "EDC" and "lDC" is totally unlawful and the same is also in violation ol RERA Act by the respondent while creating the clause of the agrecmcnt dated 21.02.2022.

That IDC was also waived off vide memo dated I)F- 27 A/2700 dated08.02.2016 as issued by the DTCP, Chandigarh, Haryan;r.

Furthermore, there is no clause as per the allotment letter datcd 07.02.2022, which entitles the respondent company to charge any tit)(l whatsoever, V.

That the respondent company has further took a demand for Rs.14,160/ towards "prepaid electrical charges" which is also unlawful, arbitrary.

VL That the respondent company has failed to discharge its contracru.rl obligations and failed on the assurances and promises made by its representatives.

Further, the respondent has failed to provide the complainant a copy of OC/completion Certificate and has made an offer of possession without necessary NoC/clearance from concerned Govt. departments as per Section 11(a)(b) of the RERA Act. 't'hat rhc respondent company has also breached its contractual obligations and not complied with Clause 2.11 of the agreement dated21.0Z.ZOZ2.

VIL That the respondent company has also failed in providing to thc complainant, a copy of maintenance agreement, whereby the respondent is demanding Rs.73,364/- under the head "maintenance charges" to bc paid to one "Paras RE Facilities Management Pvt.

Ltd." without showing the agreement/documentary proof to the complainant. mplainant.

Thereforc, thc complainant is seeking refund the unlawful and arbitrary demand tool< bv PaBe 9 of 20 HARERA W-GURUGRAM the respondent along with the interest @180/o till the realization of thc amount.

Reliefsought by the complainant: The complainant has sought following relief(sJ: i.

Direct the respondent to refund the uniust/arbitrary amount taken by it from the complainant under various heads against the unit/llestrain thc respondent from raising any unjust/arbitrary demands. ii.

Direct the respondent to execute conveyance deed in favour of complainant.

On the date ofhearing, the authority explained to the respondent/ promorcr about the contraventions as alleged to have been committed in relation to ll. section 11(4) [a) ofthe act to plead guilty or not to plead guilty.

Reply by the respondent The respondent has contested the complaint on the following grounds. l'hat the complainant has suppressed the vital facts of non-payment of entire consideration in terms of offer of possession letter dated 21..07.2022 and on this ground alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

That the complainant is not a genuine plot purchaser or consumer and has purchased the said plot for commercial and investment purposes for which the jurisdiction of this Authority cannot he invoked, since the object of the RERA Act and Rules is to protect thc interests of the consumers and not the investors.

It is further submitted that the complainant himself has been guilty of not adhering to the payment schedule and has made most of the payment after passing of the respective due dates, Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others C.

9.

10.

D.

11. i.

I ll.

PaSe 10 of 20 ffiHARERA ffi eunuennvr lv.

That the present complaint is filled prematurely as the due date of the completion ofthe project is still not arrived.

Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. dismissed.

That the complainant is liable to pay EDC, IDC and other statutory charges like any other allottee(sJ as the said amount goes to the government.

Similarly, the respondent is entitled to pay one time additional charge, maintenance charges etc. in terms of agreement as these are service charges which are charges' for the services availed/to be availed by the complainant presently or in near futurc.

That the respondent has received completion certificate for thc plotted colony vide letter dated 18.07.2022 from the competent VI. authority and the project is already complete in all rcspcct.

Accordingly, the physical possession of the plot is already offered to the complainant on 21.07.2022. vii.

That the complainant has not been able to point out a single provision of either the Act of 2015 or the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 which has been violatcd by the respondent.

Thus, the complainant is not entitled to any rclicf at all. viii.

That the respondent even as on date is ready and willing to deliver the physical possession of the plot to the complainant provided, the complainant clearing his dues in terms of letter dated 2-\.0? .2022 and the respondent is even ready to execute the conveyance deed in his favour on payment of stamp duty, registration charges etc. in this regard.

12.

Copies of all the relevant documents have been filed and placed on record.

Their authenticity is not in dispute.

Hence, the complaint can thc bc Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 othe15 PaSe 11of 20 ffiHARERA #eunuennnl decided on the basis of these undisputed documents and submission madc by the parties.

E, Jurisdiction of the authority 13.

The respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction ot authority to entertain the present complaint.

The authority observes that ir has territorial as well as subject matter iurisdiction to adjudicatc thc present complaint for the reasons given below.

E.

I Territorial iurisdiction 14. iction 14.

As per notification no.

7/92/20L7-ITCP dated 14.12.2017 issued by'fown and Country Planning Department, the jurisdiction of Real l.lstatc Regulatory Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Gurugram District for all purpose with offices situated in Gurugram. ln the present case, thc projoct in question is situated within the planning area of Gurugram District.

Therefore, this authority has complete territorial iurisdiction to deal with the present complaint.

II Subiect matter iurisdiction 15.

Section 11(a)(al of the Act, 2016 provides that the promorcr shall lrt, responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale.

Section 1l(4)[a) is reproduced as hereunder: Section 71 (4) The promoter shall- (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities ond functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulotions mode thereunder or to the ollottees as per the ogreement for sale, or to the ossociotion of allottees, os the case may be, tillthe conveyonce ofoll the opartments, plots or buildings, os the cqse may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the ossociotion of qllottees or Lhe competent outhority, os the case moy be; Section 34-Functions of the Authoriay: 344 of the Act provides to ensure complionce of the obligotions cast upon the promoters, the qllottees oncl the real estote agents under this Act and the rules ond regulations made thereunder.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others Page 12 of 20 *HARERA S*eunuennl,t Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others 16.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted above, the authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding non-compliancc of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation which is to bc decided by the adiudicating officer if pursued by the complainant at a later stage.

F.

Findings on the obiections raised by the respondent: F.l Obiection regarding the complainant being investor.

17. estor.

17.

The respondent has taken a stand that the complainant is an investor and not a consumer and therefore, she is not entitled to the protection of thc Act and thereby not entitled to file the complaint under section 31 of thc n ct 'Ihe respondent also submitted that the preamble of the Act states that thc Act is enacted to protect the interest of consumers of the real estate sccto r The authority observes that the respondent is correct in stating that thc Act is enacted to protect the interest of consumer of the real estate sector.

It is settled principle of interpretation that the preamble is an introduction ol a statute and states main aims and objects of enacting a statute but at thc same time, the preamble cannot be used to defeat the enacting provisions ol the Act.

Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that any aggrieved person can file a complaint against the promoter if he contravenes or violatcs any provisions ofthe Act or rules or regulations madc thcrcundcr. [Jpon curctrrl perusal of all the terms and conditions of the buyer's agreement, it is revealed that the complainant is a buyer and paid total pricc ol' Rs.40,82,000/- to the promoter towards purchase of a plot in the project ol' the promoter.

At this stage, it is important to stress upon thc dcfinition of term allottee under the Act, the same is reproduced below for rcadv reference: "Z(d) "ollottee" in relotion to o real estate project meons the person to whom o plo, apartment or building, os the cose may be, hos been ollotted, sold (whether as freehold or leasehold) or otherwise transkrred by the promoter, ond Page 13 of 20 MHARERA HF* eunuenRvr includes the person rrho subsequently acquires the soid allotment through sale, tronsfer or otherwise but does noL include a person to whom such plot, apartment or building, os the case may be, is given on rent;,, 18. ent;,, 18. ln view of above-mentioned definition of "allottee,, as well as all the rcrms and conditions of the unit application for allotment, it is crystal clear that the complainant is an allottee as the subject unit was allotted to hcr by thc promoter.

The concept of investor is not deFined or referred in the n ct A\ per the definition given under section 2 of the Act, there will be ,,promotcr,, and "allottee" and there cannot be a party having a status of ,,investor,,. ,l'hc Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 29.01.201 9 in appeal no.

0006000000010557 titled as M/s Srushti Sangam Developers PvL Ltd, Vs.

Sarvapriya Leasing (P) Lts.

And anr. has also held that rhc concept of investor is not defined or referred in the Act.

Thus, the contcntio tl of promoter that the allottee being investor is not entitled to protcction oI this Act also stands rejected.

Findings on the reliefsought by the complainant: G.

I Direct the respondent to refund the uniust/arbitrary amount taken by it from the complainant under various heads against the unit/Restrain the respondent from raising any uniust/arbitrary demands.

In the present mattet the respondent has obtained completion certificatc ot the project in question from the competent authority on 18.07.202t.

Thereafte4 possession of the unit was offered to the complainant vide offcr of possession letter dated 21.07.2022.

The complainant has submitted that the respondent company vide its letter dated 21.07.2022 titled as "offer of possession" has illegally/arbitrarilv charged an amount of Rs.8,22 ,795 /- under various heads and a demand of Rs.73,364 /- was charged under the head of"maintenance charges" front rhc complainant.

The complainant is seeking refund of the unjust/arbitrary G.

19.

20.

5930 of 2022 and 6 othe15 Page 14 of 20 v ffiHARERA #i eunuennvr 22.

23.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others amount taken by the respondent from him under various heads against thc unit in question vide offer of possession letter dated 21.07.2022.

21.

Clause 2.1 ofthe buyer's agreement dated ZZ.O2.2OZ2, deals with torat salc consideration of the subject plot and the same is reproduce as under: _ Terms 2.1 "Subject to the terms and conditions as detoiled in this Agreement, the Promoter hereby agrees to sell, tronsfer and convey to the Aliottee onrl the Allottee ogrees to purchdse from the prompter, plot No.

J-9, odmeasurjng t 57 square yards ("Plot") for a total price of Rs.44,74,500/- (Rupees Forty t,okh Seventy Four Thousand Five Hundred Onty) (,,Totol ptice,'), ot the Rore o1 k28,500 Per squareyords, which comprises oJ: 2,1,1 Base price of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty f.ive .l'housond Only) per square yards: 2.7.2 EDC and tDC The findings ofthe authority on charges levied by the respondent vide offcr of possession letter dared 27.07 .2022 are as follows: EDC/IDC: The complainant has submined that the respondent has illegally charged an amount of Rs.5,49,500/- towards ,,EDC,, and .,lDC,, as the fees on account of IDC has already been waived off by the DTCp, Chandigarh, Haryana vide memoPF-27A/2700 dated 09.02.2016.

Furthermore, thcrc is no clause as per the allotment letter dated 07 -O2.ZOZ2, which entitles thc respondent company to charge any EDC whatsoever.

The policy parametcrs and provisions applicable under the Affordable plotted Housing l)olicy 20 I 6 vide memo PF-27A/2700 dated 08.02.2016 is reproduced as under tor ready reference: 6, APPLICABLE FEES & CHARGES: (i) Toking into occount the t'act that a limited number of projects sholl be ollowect under this policy, the licence fees shall be levied ot the following rotes: 1.

For medium potential towns: Rs.

1 lokh per acre 2.

For low potentialtowns: Rs.10 thousand per acre (ii) The scrutiny fees at prescribed rates sholl be tevied. be tevied. (iii) The Conversion Chqrges ond IDC sholl stand waived off, (iv) The bank guorantee to the tune of 2Sak on occount of tDW sha be sublr/ittc(t or the applicant has to mortgage 15a,6 soloble oreo. (v) EDC shall be payable at the rote of Rs,7O Locs per ocre Ior Mediuhl Potential Zone, Rs,7,5 Lacs per ocre Ior all the District Headquarters Iolling within Low Potential Zone dnd Rs.

S Lacs per acre for all othir towns lalling Page 15 of 20 trHARERA S*eunuennll Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others within Low Potential Zone.

The bqnk guqrantee to the tune account oI EDC shall be submitted by the qpplicant.

24.

However, the provision w.r.t.

EDC has been amended vide memo no. l)lL 27A/201.8/7 /22 /201.8-2TCP dated 05.12.2018.

The amendment in I)ccD Dayal Jan Awas Yojana Policy- Affordable Plotted I'lousing Policy, 2016 is reproduced as under: Nte o No.

F8-27Al2016/7/'22,'20rS :TCP Dated:,05.tl.l0lS Sutjed: , endmett in Deen Dryrl J.n -{w.6 Yorim Poli(1- Afford.ble Plott€d Housrng Policy 21X5.

Lr (cx'ltiiuation oi dre folicv instructiois issued f id€ [rerno rro.

PF ], .\ : nf .i,ir.

I 05.01.1016.

Dre:no flo.

PF-%/ PA(SN) ,2017i7 '112017 ITCP d.lled 0:.01lQl; me,no r,r PI' l7A,-,l.ll9 dated 2.1.01.201E and NteDro No.

Pf-27Ai l0l3 S,l,,]0IS-ITCP (tnte(t 0etr;.-101,\ r: ,. irtomEd dlat the eaid poliq'is iilrtller a$ended uidel tlr povr5ioln oi se.'bon .r-.{ .rt tl]i Hary.nLl DeveloprrEnt and Regdation of frrltlr.l,rt.lt A.1.

1975,!l.t .n1\' othE. .orri:PLr.i:f rtatrLte govenrilg developDrelt of fufordable Eotted Coloflv turder Dee[ Daval J.rr ir..r: ) ,.t:r., l0lb.

The p611"r}1 teDns oi E\temal De\.elopnElt Cllarges rEDCi ur v,rrrrrrr: poterrrrrl to\rs shnll be as 1mder:- Sr.

No.

Zoie R:ter ol EDC for DD|AY 1 Hichl Potmtial Zom: Faridabad Ba.llathgarh Urt al Courplex and Sohna 75"r ol the apglcable rates of Residmha.l Plotted Colonv lJl the sdre toh1l 25% re<overy belore 81mt ol keire and balnr€ m o hnll ye. o hnll ye.rly ulrtdlEtrts h'ldr urlere,i l Hirh-tr Pot ntial Zoner Panchtul4 Sqip.t-Krtrdli Urban Conglex .nd Pdfrat 75% of dte .ppl..ble rates o( Residenbal Plotted Colony in dle same to$"rt 25X recov€ry b.fore gri,\i oi Lcere urd balance m o hali ye. y urstalsrents r^'r dr uler e-. t Me&tun Potentinl Zolrei 50qi of the applnatle rates of R6idmLa.l Plotted Coldv m the s&re tokr 25% re<overv belore grut ri Iiceffe rnd Bnlari.e $ I IlnU vedlv inst.l!6t! hlth dter e. i I Loe'Potmti.l Zore: 25% oi the dpplcdble r.te5 ot R6ideftal Plotted C6lony 'n lhe sele toi{'n C omplete re(ovefl' txlo,e $ .nr oI hcqre. l. .{ll otlEr pot$ }rar.mrtert anLl ptovltiorrs .15 preserrth_ npfL(ai'li rrr,lrr -1. .rJore$enhoned poL._v dated 06.02.1016. dated 2t.01.201S. dated 09.07.1015 a d .ts ,lr[ende.l :rLlrl turre to blne, shnll coltinre to remafl afphcable.

25.

Therefore, the amount charged by the respondent on account of IDC, il'any, shall be refunded to the complainant in view of the aforesaid letter datcd 0A.02.2016.

Furthet the promoter shall charge EDC from thc PaBe 16 of 20 26.

27.

HARERA complainant/allottee as provided under memo dated 05.12.2018, on pro- rata basis in proportion to the super area of her plot to the total supcr arc;r ofthe project, subject to the respondent furnishing proofofhaving paid the same to the competent authority.

The calculation with regard to thc proportionate share of the complainant on pro rata basis to be supplicd to the complainant within a period of two weeks and the excess amount paid il any, shall be refunded to the complainant.

Electrilication Charges: - This issue has already been dealt by thc authority in complaint bearingno.

CR/40j7/2019 titled as Varun Gupta Vs.

Emoar MGF Land Limited wherein it is held that the promoter cannot chargc electrification charges from the allottees while issuing offer of posscssron Ietter of a unit even though there is any provision in the builder buycr's agreement to the contrary. contrary.

Maintenance charges: - This issue has already been dealt by the author,ty in complaint titled as Varun Gupto Vs.

Emaar MGF Lond Limited (supra), wherein, it is held that the respondent is right in demanding adv.rncc maintenance charges at the rates prescribed in the builder buycr's agreement at the time of offer of possession.

However, the respondcnt shall not demand the advance maintenance charges for more than one ycar fronr the allottees even in those cases wherein no specific clause has bccn prescribed in the agreement or where the AMC has been demandcd lor more than a year. ln the present complaint, the respondent is demanding a sum of I1s.73,3 64 / on account of advance maintenance charges for a period of two ycars. lr) view of the order in Varun Gupta I/s.

Emaar MGF Land Iimited (supra), the respondent is directed to charge the advance maintenance charges for ir period of one year only.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others PaBe 17 of 20 ffiH S-e ARERA URUGRAM 29.

Electric, water and sewerage connection charges: The promotcr is entitled to charge the actual charges paid to the concerned dcpartmcnts from the complainant/allottee on pro-rata basis on account of elcctricitv connection, sewerage connection and water connection, etc., i.e., depending upon the area of the plot allotted to the complainant vis-e-vis the area of thc project, subject to the respondent furnishing proof of having paid th e sanr c. to the competent authority.

The calculation with regard to thc proportionate share of the complainant on pro rata basis to be supplicd to the complainant within a period of two weeks and the excess amount paid if any, shall be refunded to the complainant.

G.

I Direct the respondent to execute conveyance deed in favour of the complainant, As per section 11(a)(f) and section 17[1) of rhe Act of 2016, rhe promorcr is under an obligation to get the conveyance deed executed in favour of the complainant. mplainant.

Whereas, as per section 19(111 of the Act of 2016, the allottcc is also obligated to participate towards registration of the conveyancc dccrl ofthe unit in question.

31.

The possession of the subiect unit has already been offered to thc complainant after obtaining completion certificate on 27.07.2020.

Therefore, the respondent/builder is directed to handover the possession ot the unit on payment of outstanding dues if any, within 30 days to thc complainant/allottee and to get the conveyance deed of the allotted unir executed in his favour in terms of section 17(1) of the Act of 2016 on payment of stamp duty and registration charges as applicable within thrcL. months from the date of this order.

Further, only administrative chargcs ol upto Rs.15000/- can be charged by the promoter-developer for any such expenses which it may have incurred for facilitating the said transfer as has been fixed by the DTP office in this regard vide circular dated 02.04.2018.

30.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others Page 18 of 20 HARERA M GURUGRAM H.

Directions ofthe authority 32.

Hence, the authority hereby passes this order and issue the following directions under section 37 of the Act to ensure compliance of obligations cast upon the promoter as per the function entrusted to the authoritv undcr section 34(fl: i.

The respondent/promoter is directed to refund the amount received by it from each of the complainant(s) on account of IDC, if any, to the complainant(sJ. ii.

The promoter shallcharge EDC from each ofthe complainant(s) as per memo dated 05.12.2019, on pro_rata basis in proportion to the super area of their plot(s) to the total super area of the project.

The excess amount paid if any, shall be refunded to thc complainant(s). iii.

The respondent/promoter shall not charge any amount from the complainant[s) on account of electrifi cation charges. iv.

The respondent is directed to charge the advance maintenance charges for a period of one year only. v. r only. v.

The respondent is directed to handover the possession of thc unit on payment of outstanding dues if any, within 30 days to the complainant(sJ and to get the conveyance deed of the allotted unit executed in his favour in terms ofsection 17(1) of the Act of 2016 on payment of stamp duty and registration charges as applicable.

The respondent shall not charge anything from thc complainant(s) which is not the part of the buyer,s agreement or provided under Affordable plotted Housing policy, 2 016.

Out of the amount so assessed, the respondent is directed to pay interest on the refundable amount at the rate of 10.75o/o p.a. as vl.

5930 of 2022 and 6 orhers vll.

PaBe 19 of 20 ,L.- ffiHARERA fS euRuennnr prescribed under rule 15 of the Haryana Real Dstate (Regulation and Development) Rules,2017 from the date of each payment till the actual date of refund of the deposited amount.

A period of 90 days is given to the respondent to comply wirh the directions given in this order and failing which legal consequences would follow.

33.

This decision shall mutatis mutandis apply to cases mentioned in para 3 ol. this order.

The complaints stand disposed of.

Files be consigned to registry. (As Haryana Real Estate ry Authority, Gurugram Dated: t3.12.2023 Complaint no.

5930 of 2022 and 6 others vlll.

34.

35.

PaBe 20 of 20