VED PARKASH vs SAVYASACHI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

5 nan ber ber Complainant Respondcnt Appearance Sh.

Dhruv Dutt Sharma (Advocate) None ORDER this Autho ritv ent) Act, 2016 1.

This order shall dispose of4 comnlatnts titled a]hove filed before under section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulatioln and Developm I I THARERA I ounueRRHr BEFORE THE HARYANA REAL ESTATE GURUGRAM Orde Complaint No.1206 of 202.1 and 3 others __ iGULATORY AUTHORITY, disposed oft 06.05.2021 NAME OF THE BUILDER M/s Saryasach Infrastructure Private Limited PROJECT NAME "AMAYA ( Farukhr REENS"(DDTAY), Sector- 3, agar Gurugram, Haryana S.

No.

Case No.

Case title 1. cR/ 1206 /2023 Saro Savyas & Yogender Sharma V/S rchi Infrastructure Private 2. cR/5285/2023 Su ren( Infra er Sharma V/S Savyasachi tructure Private Limited 3. cR / 6846 /2022 Yogenr Infra er Sharma V/S Salyasachl tructure Private Limited 4. cR /7 498 /2022 lnfra Ved Parkash V/S Savyasachi 'ucture Private Limited CORAM: Shri Arun Kumar Shri Vijay Kumar coyal Shri Ashok Sangwan Chairmar Membe Membe Page I of 15 _t 2.

3. * HARERA S- eunuennll Ihereinafter referred as "the Act") read with rule 2B of the Haryana Real Estatc (Regulation and Developmentl Rules,2017 (hereinafter referred as "the rules,,) for violation of section 11(4)(aJ of the Act wherein it is inter alia prescribed that the promoter shall be responsible for all its oibligations, responsib il ities and functions to the allottees as per the agreement fOr sale executed inter se parties.

The core issues emanating from them are similar in nature and thc complainant(s) in the above referred matters are allottees of the projcct, namely, "Amaya Greens", Sector 03, Gurugram, ['laryana being developed by thc respondent/promoter i.e., M/s Savyasachi Infrastructure pvt.

Ltd.

The terms and conditions of the allotment letter, buyer's agreements, fulcrum of the issue involved in all these cases pertains to failure on the part of the llromoter to deliver timely possession of the units in question seeking award of refund oi t ho entire paid up am paid up amount along with interest and other reliefs.

The details ofthe complaints, unit no., date ofagreement, possession clause, duc date ofpossession, totalsale consideration, total paid amount, and reliefsought are given in the table below: "Amaya Greens", Sector 03, Gurugram..

3.125 acres (Unlicensed) Deen Dayal fan Awaas Yojna DTCP license no. and other details : Not obtained by DTCP Not registered "Thot the First Porry ossurls the Second Porly thot the possesston of the soid SCO shqll be hollded over v)ithin q period ol Twelve months Jrom the dote olligning ol this MOll ond if in ony cose First Party unoble to hondover the SC1 within Twelve months then from the month oI Thirte4n, the First Party ossures the Second Porty thot it shallpoy interhst of2% ofinvested omount p.o. to Lhp Complaint No.1206 of 2023 and 3 others Project Name and Location Project area Nature of the proiect RERA Registered/ not registered Possession clause as per buyer's agreement Page 2 of .15 t Complaint No.1206 of 2023 and 3 others Second Porty till the tim period: ln lieu of Covid-1 S.

Complaldt no., Case title, Date ofEling of complaint and reply status Unitno. and size MOt executed between respondent 1 and the complainant Or date of allotment Due date of possession CR/ t206 /2023 title Sarojand Yogender Sharma Vs.

Savysachi ln6-astructure Private Limited.

Ltd D0Fl 10.04.2023 A-06 54.36 sq. yds.

MoU 29.0t.202t 29.07.2022 CR/5285 /2023 Case titled as Surender Sharma VS Savyasachi lnfrastructure Private Limited.

DOF: 06.t2.2023 D08 124.79 sq. yds MoU 03.12.202 03.t2.2023 CR/6A46/2022 Case titled as Yoginder Sharma Vs Sa\,yasachi lnlrastructure Pvt.

Ltd DOF: 02.t1.2022 108 sq. vds MoUj 29.03.201 29.09.2020 CR/7 498 /2022 Case titled as Ved Parkash Vs Savyasachi lnfrastructure Pvt.

Ltd DOF: 20.t2.2022 c-73 117.13 sq. yds MoU: 19.11.201 19.05.2021 HARERA GURUGRAM of possession of the soid SCO.rGroce --Total sale consideration and Total amount paid by the complainant in Rs. ant in Rs.19,00,000/- Rs,:10,22,000/ BSPr Rs.44,91,691/ AP: Rr.20,00,000/- BSP: Rs.16,20,000/ Rs.13,00,000/- BSP: Rs.17,56,950/- Rs. r5,00,000/ I'age 3 of 15 I HARERA ffiGURUGRAI!{ Relief sought by the complainant(s):- Direct the respondent (o execute BBA as per provistons ol lhc Act.

Direct the respondent to hand over the legal possessron o[ subjefi plot to the cnmplainant r,!,ith .rll basic amenities after getting necessary appaovals from the toncerned authorities.

Direct the respondent to pay assured return charges at ra{e of Rs. l5,OOO/- p.m. to the complarn.rnt w.e.l 14arch 2020 till the rime of possessron of the plo(. ln the alternative, the respondent may be directed to pay dflay possession charges as per provrstons olthe Act.

To restrain the respondent from creating third party rnterest upon the plot booked by rh(, complainant.

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

Out of the above-mentioned case, the particulars of lead case CR/1206/2023 titled as Saro,f & Anr.

Vs Savyasachi Infrastr\cture pvt.

Ltd. are being takcn into consideration for determining the rights of the allottee(s).

Proiect and unit related details The particulars ofthe proiect, the details ofunit, sale consideration, the amount paid by the complainant, date of proposed handing over the possession, havc been detailed in the following tabular form: Complaint No.1206 of 202.i and 3 others 4.

A.

CR/1206/2023 titled as Saroj & Anr.

Vs Savyisachi tnfrastructure pvt.

Ltd. s.N.

Particulars Details 1.

Name ofthe project "Amaya Gfeens", Sector 03, 2.

Nature of the project Deen Dayll Jan Awaas Yojna 3.

Total proiect area 12.7625 acres 9.0375 acres (licensedJ 3.125 acres IUnlicensed) *Note: Complainant's SCO falls u unlicensed area.

RERA registered or not ,Jr5 "4;s tlrcens"d) Res, 3.125 acr{s (Unlicensed) Nor -Note: Com{hinant's SCO falls und 6.

Completion certificate received on Not obtained Gurugram.

Gurugram. rnder ;i"*d t registered ler unregistered Page 4 oi 15 I B.

6.

II III IV ffi HARER,a ffi,eunuenRtvr lomplaint No.1206 of 2023 and 3 others 7.

MOU executed between respondent no.

1 and the complainants on 29.01..202 [page 17 c f complaintl B.

SCO no.

A 54.36 Sq. l6 admeasuring rds.

9.

Basic sale consideration Its.

19,00, 08/- ---- 10.

Paid up amount Rs.

10,22, 00/- 11.

Possession clause 7 "Thot Second P0 soid SCO r period of7 ofsionino he First Pqrty ossures the "ty thot the possession of the hall be handed over within a welve months from the dote of this MOU." 1_2.

Due date of possession 29.07 .202 (lncludinp COVIDI 6 months grace period of Facts of the complaint The complainants have made the following subn That the respondent induced the compl believing their representations to be true applied for booking the SCO admeasuring 5 in the said commercial colony.

That a memorandum of understanding d: between the complainants and respondent' allotted SCO No.A-06.

That the basic sale price of the plot was Rs. l Rs.

34,956/- per sq.yard as per clause [6) ol .

That till date the complainants have paid a sr been duly acknowledged by the respond amount of lls.

2,64,000/- has been adju issions in the complaint: - ainants with tall claims a and correct, the complaina 1,36 sq.ft. yards to be launch ted 29.01,2021 was execu vherein the complainants w 9,00,208/- calculated at rate the MoU.

Lm of Rs.

10,22,000/- which I :nt.

0ut of Rs.10,2 2,000/-, rted from the assured retu Page 5 o -t and nant ched :uted were r has ., an turn of .15 I, ffi HARERa #* eunuennvr payable by the respondent for another unit complainant no.2 That as per clause (7J of the MoU, the r interest(d2olop.m. on Rs.

10,22,000/- l complainants till the time of possession of t That the respondent has not made the pay the fact that the possession has still not bee VII. t bee VII.

That the complainants are ready to pa respondent after the adjustment of assured paid by the respondent to the complainants VI II. 'lhat despite paying such huge amount executed the agreement for sale with the co also violated Section 13 of the Act, 2016 for sale.

Further, the complainants were n development status by the respondent des tx. 'Ihat the complainants have made nume asking them to give the possession of the S avoiding the complainants on one pretext o X. 'Ihat the act of the respondent are causing to the complainants and the complainan approach the Authority through a complain payment of assured return as per MoU dat vl.

C.

Relief sought by the complainants: - Direct the respondent to pay assured retu from February 2022, till the time of posses II.

I.

Direct the respondent to execute the build buyer agreement Page 6 of15 omplaint No.1206 of 2023 and 3 others earing no.

C-1.16 booked by the spondent also assured to pay 2022 to the. om February e plot. ent of assured return despite offered to the complainants. the balance amount to the return charges which are to be respondent has till date not plainants.

The respondent has thout executing the agreement apprised about the actual ite repeated requests. us requests to the respondent O but the respondent has been the other.. t hardship and mental agony has no other option but to for a possession of the pot and 29.01.2021 @20/o p.m. on Rs.

10,22,000/- ion of the plot.

HARER M.GURUGRANI Direct the respondent to handover the lega no A-06 to the complainant.

7.

The Authority issued a notice dated 12.04.2023 t and also sent it to the provided email a gmail.com, savyasachi(Dgmail.com.

Delivery rep Despite this, a public notice for the appearan reply was published on 04.12.2023 in the news and Hindustan Times.

The respondents failed to 20.07.2023, 06.09.2023, 05.10.2023, 12.1,2.2 0 7 .05.2 02 4, 20.08.202 4, 0 5.1 1.2025 4, 7 7.02.

4, 7 7.02.2 appeared on behalf of the respondent despite opportunities, in view ofthe same, the defense and matter was proceeded ex-parte vide order decided on basis of facts and documents submi undisputed. lurisdiction of the Authority The Authority observes that it has territor jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint E.l Territorialiurisdiction 9.

As per notification no.

1/92/2017-7TCP dated Country Planning Department, the iurisdicti Authority, Gurugram shall be entire Guru offices situated in Gurugram.

In the present situated within the planning area of Gurugram D has complete territorial jurisdiction to deal with I II, D.

B. omplaint No.1206 of 2023 and 3 others possession of the SCO bearing the respondent by speed post dresses,dhruvduttsharmal 1 @ rts have been placed on record. of respondent and for filing a apers, namely Dainik Bhaskar ppear before the Authority on 3, 06.02.2024, 20.032.2024, 5 and 06.05.2025.

None has ing given sufficient & multiple the respondent was struck off ated 06.02.2024 and is being with the complaint which are las well as subject matter br the reasons given below.

4.12,2017 issued by Town and n of Real Estate Regulatory District for all purpose with e, the project in question is strict.

Therefore, this authority the present complaint.

Page 7 of 15 tr HARERA S-eunuennl,r E.II Subiect matter iurisdiction 10.

Section 11(4) (aJ of the Act, 2016 provides that th promoter shall be responsible to the allottee as per agreement for sale, Se hereunder: on 11(4)(a) is reproduced as Section 11 [4) 'l he promoter shall- (o) be responsible for oll obligations, under the provisions of this Act or the thereunder or to the qllottees as per the nsibilities and Iunctions es ond regulotions mqde associotion ofollottees, os the cose may be, ll the conveyance ofall the aportments, plots or buildings, as the cose ty be, to the ollottees, orthe common oreos to the ossociqtion ofallottees os the cose moy be; t he co m p ete n t o u th or i ty, Sec i ty, Section 34-Functions oJ the Authority: 344 of the Act provides to ensure compli 11.

So, in view of the provisions of the Act quoted ab ve, the Authority has complete jurisdiction to decide the complaint regarding n -compliance of obligations by the promoter leaving aside compensation w ich is to be decided by the t at a later stage. upon the promoters, the allottees ond the Act ond the rules ond regulotions made th ment for sale, or to the ce of the obligotions cost I estate agents under this under- wherein it has been laid down although the Act indicotes lLy' and 'compensotion', a 12.

Further, the Authority has no hitch in proceeding ith the complaint and to grant a relief of refund in the present matter in view Ilon'ble Apex Court in fleultech promoters and f the iudgement passed by the lopers Private Limited Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

2027-2022 (1) RCR (Civi t, 357 and reiterated in case of M/s Sana Reoltors Private Limited & other Vt Union of India & others SLP adjudicating officer if pursued by the complaina (Civil) No.

73005 of2020 decided on 12.05.202 as under: 86.

From the scheme ol the Actofwhich a detailed rence has been mode ond taking note of power ofadjudicqtion delineated wi ond odjudicating officer, what frnally culls out is tho the distinct expressions like'ret'und','interest','pen h the regulotory authotity omplaint No.1206 of 2023 and 3 others Page 8 of 15 ffi HARERA ffi eunuennnr conjoint reading of Sections 1B ond 19 clearly montests thoL when it comes to refund ofthe amount, ond interest on the refund olount, or directing payment of interestfor deloyed delivery of possesston, or penflty ond interest thereon, it is the regulatory outhoriq) which hos the power to pxomine and determine the outcome of a comploint.

At the some time, when it comes to a question of seeking the retief of odjudging compensatton o$d interest thereon under Sections 12, 14, 1B ond 19, the odjudicoting offcer ilxclusNely has the power to determine, keeping in view the view the collectNe reodinfi of Seciton 71 read with Section 72 of the Act. if the odjudicotion under Sectfuns 12, 14, 1B ond 19 other thon compensotion os envisqged, il extended b |he odju(ttLoting officer as proyed thot, in our view, may intend to expond tlte ambit and iopi of the powers oncl functions of the a(ljudicating officer {nder Section 71 and thot would be agoinst the mondate of the Act 2016.

13.

Hence, in view of the authoritative pronouncefnent ot the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the cases mentioned above, the entertain a complaint seeking refund of the amolunt and interest on the refund amount. r Findings on the relief sought by the complainants.

E.l Directthe respondentto payassured return @Zyo p.m. on Rs.

10,22,000/- from February 20ZZ till the time ofpossession ofthe SCO.

During proceeding dated 06.0 5.2 025, the complaipants have submitted that they are seeking handover the legal possession of thp SCO with all basic amenities after getting necessary approvals, execute the conveyance deed and to pay thc assured return.

Moreover, the complainants clarifies that the unit is part of the project which is not yet registered and neither the developer has obtained any license from DTCP to develop the colony.

Although the complainants wishes to take possession of the unit along with payment of DpC/assured return in terms of MoU as no allotment letter has been issued neither any agreement executed thereafter.

Therefore, the complainants may bc granteri rcfun.l along with prescribed rate of interest.

The complainants booked a SCO plot no.A-O6 admeasuring S4.36 sq.yds.

A MotJ with regard to the subject unit was executed on 29.01.2 021 between the parties.

Autfrority has the jurisdiction to E.

14. [ornpla int No.] 206 o f 2023 and :J orhers 15, Page 9 of 15 76. ffi HARERA #euRuennH,r The complainant has paid Rs.

10,22,000/- agains Rs.

19,00,208/-.

As per clause 7 of the MoU, it respondent that the SCO plot shall be handed ov from the date of MoU. te of MoU.

As submitted by the complainants that the work and see no hope of its completion.

Some o approached the Authority by way of Complaint others Sunil Kumar & Anr.

Vs Sawasachi L Confectioners Pvt Ltd, seeking a refund ofthe p that the prontoter of the project has not bee Authority nor obtained the license from the DT situation, on 31.08,2023, the Authority appoint Shri.

Ilamesh Kumar, retired DSP. ln pursuance to the directions passed by the submitted the status report o n 23.12.2023 andh ""6.

Conclusion: The site of the project i.e., "Amaya Forukhnogar, Gutugram being d lnfrastructure Pvt.

Ltd. hos been in concluded thot: - (A) Collaboration ogreement doted 28.0 between the landowner i.e., Sharma collaborotion with the developer i.e., Sa for the lond odmeasuring 97 Karnal 6 ma (B) I'he license hod been granted by DTCP vi 24.06.2017 volid up to 27.06.2022 for lo only and ofter thot the project had REP1 vide RC no 212 of2017 doted 18.0 (including 6 months Covid extension).

17. mplaint No.1206 of 2023 and 3 others the basic sale consideration of was agreed by the promoter- r within a period of 12 months t the site was not even started the allottees of the proji:ct bearing no.

5572-2022 & 17 structure Pvt, Ltd. & Shorma id-up amount by taking a plea neither registered with the P.

Therefore, to ascertain the an Enquiry Officer, namely, uthority, the Enquiry officer concluded as under:- reens", locoted at Sector-3, by M/s Sovyosochi 12.12.2023 and it is oped on 2016 had been registered Conlectioners Pvt.

Ltd. in sochi Infrostructure Pvt.

Ltd. la i.e.,12.1625 aues. license no 37 of2017 dIted odmeosuring 9.0375 acres registered with the interim t.2017 volid up to 16.03.2023 Page 10 oi 15 ffiHARERa ffieunuenRHl (D) (E) (F') (c) 18.

In pursuance the total area the license to remaining area, i.e., 3.125 acres, has not been granted any license by DTCP, Haryana, nor itis registered with the Authority.

Authority. 'l'he unit booked by the complainants is part ofunlicensed and unregistered area measuring 3.12 5 acres, Moreover, there is neither any allotment nor any agreement executed between the parties.

Therefore, in view of the same, the complainants may be granted refund along with prescribed rate of interest.

Section 1U(1J of the Act is reproduced below for ready reference:- Complainl No.1206 of 2023 and 3 others (c) Completion certifrcote hod been gronled by DGTCP, Horyano vide memo no.

LC-3257/|E(51)-2021/510 qorcd 11.01.2021 lor license no 37 o12017 lor ,ond qdmeosuring 910375 acres only.

The holonce port i,e.,3.125 ocres has +oa been gronted any license by DTCP, Haryqna and not registered lvith the Authority olso, As per the stotement of landowner SPA rtos concelled on 03.01.2022 by Lhe londowner due lo some dispules ansdlbetween them and comploints regarding SCO which is to be honded lver by the promorcr i.e., M/s Sovyosochi lnfrostructure Pvt.

Ltd. falls oltside the license no 37 ol2017 ond Lhe qreo on which SCO'| ore proposqd Io build hos not granted ony license from DTCP Haryana.

I MOIJ'I were signed on diflerent dotes ls per mentioned in the toble between the developer i.e,, Soulosochl ln[ro ructure Pvt.

Ltd ond complainant i.e., Mr.

Vinod Kumor S/o fh.

Romchonder ond poyment hod been received from developer wilhoPt registerng the proiecl with the Authority.

Landowner i.e., Shormo Confectioners Put- Ltd. stoted that they hove no objection for the allottees who has been offered possession by the developer i.e., Savyosochi lnfrastructure Pvt. l,td- in the lond parcel of 9.0375 qcres only qnd will not create ony obstruction to the allottees fot taking the physicolpossession ond once the license and registrotion hos been gronted for the balance part i.e., i.125 qcres, then they will not hove ony objections for giving possesslon to the concerned ollottees also.(Statement attoched os Annex- C).

Annex- C)." of the above-mentioned conclusion, the Authority observes that of the project is 12.7625 acres, 'llhe DCTP, Haryana, has granted develop the colony only for an area of 9.0375 acres only.

The Page 11 of15 M HARERA S-euRuenRl,l prescribed." --rO* *"-,ra "r ror, "*-l 3 others I Section 1B! - Return oI omount ond comPensotion lB(1). lf Lhe pronoter foils to complele orls unoble Lo give possession olon oportment, plot, or building.- | (o) in accordance with the lerms of he o|reemenl for sole or, as the case moy be, duly completed by the dole specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuonce ofhis business 4s a developer on occountof suspension or revocolion oI lhe regislfoLion under this Act or lor any other reason, I he shall be liqble on demand to the ollotte*, in cose the ollotteewishes to withdrow from the projecL, without pr+udice Lo ony othet remedy avoiloble, to return the omount receive+ by him in respect of thot oportment,plol, building, os the csse moy +e,with mterest at such rate os moy be prescribed in this behof incllding compensqtion in the monner os provided under this AcE I Provided thol where on ollottee does not ilund to withdraw lrom the project, he sholl be poid, by the promoler,linterest lor every month oJ deloy, Lill the honding over of the possesilon, ot such rote os moy be (Emphosis supplied) 19, Clause 7 of the memorandum of understanding dated 29.01.2021 provides for the time period for handing over of possession and is reproduced below: "7) 'l'hot the First Party ossures the Second Pqrty that the possession of the sqid SCO shqll be handed over within a period olTwelve months Jrom the date oJ signing of this MOU and iJ in qny tose First Party unqble to handover the SC) within Twelve months then from the month of'l'hirteen, the First Porty assures the Second Party that i[ sholl poy interest of 2ak of invested omount p.q. to the Second Porty tillthe time of possession ofthe soid sco.

20. d sco.

20.

Due date of handing over possession: As per clause 7 of the MOU, the possession of the allotted SCO plot was supposed to be offered within a stipulated timeframe of 12 months from the dalte of signing of the MOU. ln thc present matter, the MoU was executed on 29.01 .2 021 and hence the respondent was liable to handover possession by 29.01.20?2 in terms of the MoU.

Further the Authority in view of notification no.913-2020 dated 26.05.2020, allows grace period of 6 months on account of force majeure conditions due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic.

Therefore, the due date of handing over of possessiotl comes out to be 29.07.2022.

Page 12 of15 ffiHARERT ffi eunuennl 21.

Admissibility of refund along with complainant is seeking refund the amount interest and intends to withdraw from interest as provided under Rule 15 of reproduced as under: Complaint No.1205 of 20 3 others T] prescfibed paid ilv him tne pfo;ect. tn" drl"r, rate of interest: 'l'he at the prescribed rate of The prescribed rate of ibid.

Rule 15 has been Rule 15.

Prescribed rote of interest- lProvigo to section 12, section 78 and suh-section (4) and subsection (7) of sectiott 191 (1) l;or the purpose of proviso to section 12; section 18; ond sub-sections (4) and (7 ) ofsection 19, the "interest ot the rote prescribe(1" sholl be the Stote Bank ol Indio highest morginol cost oflending rqte +20/0.: Provicled thot in case the Stote Bank of lnLlio marginol cost ol lending rote (MCLR) is not in use, it sholl be replaced by such benchmo ( lending rotes whtch the Stote Bqnk of tndio may Jix from time toitime for lending ti the generol publn.

22. 'l'he legislature in lts wisdom in the subo rdinaterlegislatio n under the provision ofrule 15 ofthe rules, has determined the prescribed rate ofinterest.

The rate of interest so determined by the legislature, is reasonable and iF the said rule is followed to award the interest, it will ensure uniform practice in all the cases.

23. cases.

23.

Consequently, as per website of the State Bank o|f tndia i.e., https: //sbi.co.in, the marginal cost of lending rate (in short, MCLR) as on date i.e., 06.05.2025 is 9.1070.

Accordingly, the prescribed rate of interest will be marginal cost ol lending rate +20/o i.e..,L,l}o/o.

24.

The due date of possession as per MoU as mentioned in the table above is 29.07 .2022.

The Authority has observed that even after a passage of more than 3 years till date neither the construction is complete nor the offer of possession of the allotted unit has been made to the allottee by the respondent/promoter.

The Authority is of the view that the allottee cannot be expected to wait endlessly for taking possession of the unit which is allotted to it and for which they havc paid more than 80% of sale consideration.

It is also pertinent to mention that Page 13 of 15 * HARERA ffieunuennHl 25.

F.

26. complainant has paid the more than 8070 amo the memorandum of understanding, i.e., on 29. observes that the total area of the proiect is L2. has granted the Occupation Certificate only fo remaining area of 3.125 acres, which includes t not been granted any license by the DTCP, tlary Authority and neither the promoter is making an or even application for grant of permission t initiated.

Accordingly, the non-compliance of the mandat read with Section 18( 1) of the Act on the part o As such, the complainant is entitled to refund of at the prescribed rate of interest i.e., @ 11.10 highest marginal cost of lending rate IMCLR) prescribed under Rule 15 of the Haryana Development) Rules, 2017 from the date of eac refund of the amount within the timelines pro Rules 2017 ibid.

Directions of the Authority Hence, the Authority hereby passes this order a under section 37 of the Act to ensure complianc promoter as per the functions entrusted to the the Act: i.

The respondent/promoter is directed to re received by it from the complainants alo omplaint No. plaint No.1206 of 2023 and ll others nt on the date of entering into 1.2 021. l-urther, the Authority 625 acres.

The DCTP, Haryana, an area of 9.0375 acres.

The e complainant's SCO plot, has na, nor it is registered with the efforts to complete the project develop the colony has been contained in Section 11(4)(aJ the respondent is establishcd. e entire amount paid by thenr p.a. [the State Bank of India pplicable as on date +20/o) as Real Estate (Regulation and payment till the actual date of ded in Rule 16 of the Haryana d issue the following directions of obligations casted upon the uthority under section 34(0 of nd the entire paid-up amount g with interest at the rateof Page 14 of 15 * HARERA S-eunuennnr 11.100/o p.a.as prescrlbed under Rule 1 (Regulation and DevelopmentJ Rules, 201.7 till the actual realization of the amount. ll.

A period of 90 days is given to the responde given in this order and failing which legal 'fhe planning branch of the Authority is di under the provision of the Act of 2016 for 3 (11 of the Act by the respondent for sale o license.

27.

This decision shall mutatis mutandis apply to ca order wherein details of paid up amount is menti Complaint as well as applications, if any, stands llt.

29.

Files be consigned to registry.

S',w (Arun Kumar) Chairman Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Au Dated: 06.0 5.20 Sa omplaint No.1206 of 2023 and 3 others of the Haryana Real Estate the date of each payment m t to comply with the directions sequences would follow. cted to take necessary action iolation of proviso to Section units without registration and es mentioned in para 3 of this ned in each ofthe complaints. isposed of accordingly. s,,"I'},.-ffii Member ority, Gurugram 5 Page 15 of 15