Last Updated on November 1, 2026 by Satish Mishra

Haryana RERA Directs Omaxe Limited to Pay Over ₹20.81 Lakh in Delayed Possession Interest to Subsequent Allottee in project Omaxe Shubhangan Bahadurgarh and rejects the COVID-19 force majeure defence and orders possession within 30 days.

Allottees can file and track complaints against Omaxe Shubhangan (located in Sector 4-A, Kassar Road, Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar district) through the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA) Official Portal.

Key Details & RERA Rulings on Omaxe Shubhangan Bahadurgarh

In a significant order concerning delayed possession and the rights of a subsequent allottee, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Panchkula, has directed Omaxe Limited to pay ₹20,81,522 as delayed possession interest and hand over physical possession of the residential unit within 30 days.

In Dalbir Singh v. Omaxe Limited, Complaint No. 1868 of 2024, decided on 27 October 2026, the Authority considered whether a person who acquired a residential unit through a transfer from the original allottee could claim statutory protection under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

The Authority held that the subsequent allottee was entitled to the rights arising from the original allotment and the transaction accepted by the promoter. It also rejected the promoter’s attempt to rely on the COVID-19 pandemic as a force majeure circumstance, observing that the contractual possession date had expired in April 2016, several years before the pandemic.

The order is particularly relevant for subsequent purchasers and transferees of real estate units, as it discusses their entitlement to statutory remedies under RERA and the promoter’s continuing responsibility to honour possession commitments.

Case Details

Particulars	Details
Case Title	Dalbir Singh v. Omaxe Limited
Complaint No.	1868 of 2024
Authority	Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula
Member	Dr. Geeta Rani Singh
Date of Decision	27 October 2026
Project	Shubhangan, Sector 4-A, Kassar Road, Bahadurgarh, Haryana
Unit	VHBH/Tower-19/Second/204
Agreement for Sale	21 April 2014
Contractual Possession Date	21 April 2016
Basic Sale Consideration	₹20,24,750
Amount Paid	₹21,65,282.39, as stated in the project particulars
Occupation Certificate	5 March 2026
Offer of Possession	10 April 2026
Principal Relief	Delayed possession interest under Section 18 of the RERA Act

Facts of the Case

The complainant, Dalbir Singh, approached Haryana RERA seeking possession of a residential unit in Omaxe’s project Shubhangan, situated at Sector 4-A, Kassar Road, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.

The unit in question was VHBH/Tower-19/Second/204.

According to the complaint, the unit had originally been booked by another individual, Shashi Kant Juneja, on 6 June 2012. The original booking was subsequently transferred in favour of the complainant.

The relevant sequence of events recorded by the Authority was:

1. The original booking was made on 6 June 2012.
2. The complainant stepped into the shoes of the original allottee through a transfer application dated 6 January 2014.
3. A Builder-Buyer Agreement was executed between the complainant and Omaxe Limited on 21 April 2014.
4. Under Clause 40(a) of the agreement, the promoter was required to complete the unit within 18 months, with an extended period of six months.
5. The contractual date for possession was therefore 21 April 2016.
6. The complainant had deposited substantial amounts towards the sale consideration.
7. The Occupation Certificate was obtained on 5 March 2026.
8. The promoter issued an offer of possession on 10 April 2026.

The complainant alleged that despite substantial payment and expiry of the contractual possession period, the promoter had failed to complete and hand over the unit for several years.

He sought actual physical possession along with interest for the delay.

Reliefs Sought by the Complainant

The complainant sought directions requiring Omaxe Limited to:

• Hand over possession of the allotted unit with all necessary statutory approvals and completion documents.
• Pay interest for delayed possession under Section 18 of the RERA Act.
• Pay interest on the amounts deposited, as claimed in the complaint.
• Pay compensation for alleged mental harassment.
• Pay litigation costs.

The complainant initially claimed interest at 24% per annum, compounded half-yearly. However, the Authority ultimately applied the statutory rate prescribed under the Haryana RERA Rules.

Defence Raised by Omaxe Limited

Omaxe Limited contested the complaint and raised several objections.

1. Suppression of material facts and transfer of allotment

The promoter contended that the original booking had been made by Shashi Kant Juneja and that the complainant had subsequently acquired the unit through a transfer.

It argued that the complainant had allegedly misrepresented the transaction and had not correctly disclosed the complete history of the allotment.

The respondent relied upon the decision in Dilip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2012) 2 SCC 114, and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 398, to contend that suppression of material facts could disentitle a litigant from relief.

2. Alleged payment defaults

The promoter alleged that the complainant had repeatedly defaulted in making payments under the agreed payment schedule.

It contended that the complainant could not claim delayed possession interest while failing to fulfil his own financial obligations.

3. COVID-19 pandemic as force majeure

Omaxe argued that construction activities had been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, lockdowns, labour shortages and supply-chain interruptions.

It relied upon regulatory extensions and judicial orders relating to the pandemic to contend that the delay should not be attributed to the promoter.

4. Offer of possession after obtaining Occupation Certificate

The promoter submitted that the Occupation Certificate had been obtained on 5 March 2026 and that an offer of possession was issued on 10 April 2026.

It contended that the offer was valid and that the complainant’s outstanding financial obligations were reflected in the statement of account accompanying the offer.

Issue Before Haryana RERA

The principal issue framed by the Authority was:

Whether the complainant was entitled to delayed possession interest on the amount deposited by him, along with possession, under Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016?

A significant connected question was whether a subsequent allottee, who had acquired the unit through transfer from the original allottee and entered into a Builder-Buyer Agreement with the promoter, could claim statutory rights under RERA.

Findings and Reasoning of Haryana RERA

After examining the pleadings, agreement, transfer documents, payment records and correspondence, the Authority recorded several important findings.

1. Subsequent allottee is entitled to statutory rights under RERA

One of the most important aspects of the decision concerned the complainant’s status as a subsequent allottee.

The Authority noted that the unit had initially been booked by Shashi Kant Juneja on 6 June 2012.

However, the complainant subsequently acquired the allotment through a transfer application dated 6 January 2014. The promoter accepted the transfer and entered into a Builder-Buyer Agreement directly with the complainant on 21 April 2014.

The Authority observed that the statutory definition of an allottee under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act includes a person to whom a plot, apartment or building has been allotted, sold or otherwise transferred by the promoter. It also includes a person who subsequently acquires the allotment through transfer.

The Authority relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Laureate Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. v. Charanjeet Singh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1006.

The Supreme Court had recognised that a subsequent purchaser who steps into the shoes of the original allottee cannot be deprived of the statutory rights available under the RERA Act merely because the original allotment was made to another person.

Applying this principle, Haryana RERA held that the complainant was entitled to the rights arising from the allotment and the agreement entered into with the promoter.

The Authority further observed that once the unit was transferred and re-allotted in the complainant’s name, the subsequent allottee became entitled to the relevant rights and obligations under the Builder-Buyer Agreement.

2. Contractual possession date was 21 April 2016

The Authority examined Clause 40(a) of the Builder-Buyer Agreement dated 21 April 2014.

Under this clause, Omaxe was required to complete the unit within 18 months from the date of signing of the agreement, with an extended period of six months.

Accordingly, the contractual possession date was 21 April 2016.

The Authority noted that possession had been delayed beyond the stipulated contractual period.

3. COVID-19 pandemic could not justify delay that had occurred before the pandemic

Omaxe attempted to rely upon the COVID-19 pandemic as a force majeure circumstance.

The Authority rejected this defence.

It observed that the contractual possession date was 21 April 2016, whereas the COVID-19 outbreak affected construction activities much later, particularly after March 2020.

The promoter could not rely upon an event that occurred several years after the contractual possession date to explain a delay that had already accrued.

The Authority also referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in M/s Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. v. Vedanta Ltd. & Anr., relating to the impact of COVID-19 on contractual performance.

The reasoning was that the pandemic could not automatically excuse a party from contractual obligations where the relevant default had already occurred before the pandemic.

Thus, the COVID-19 defence was not accepted as a justification for the delay in this case.

4. Promoter’s allegation of payment default was not accepted

The promoter also alleged that the complainant had repeatedly defaulted in making instalment payments.

The Authority examined the payment records and demand reminders placed on record.

It noted that the promoter had issued reminders during 2014, 2015 and 2016. The complainant had made payments against certain demands.

The Authority further observed that the remaining payment reminders were issued well after expiry of the committed possession date.

More importantly, the promoter had accepted substantial payments without terminating the allotment or initiating cancellation proceedings.

The Authority held that by accepting payments and treating the agreement as subsisting, the promoter could not subsequently set up an artificial defence of default to avoid its delayed possession liability.

The promoter’s contention that the complainant was responsible for the delay was therefore not accepted.

5. Occupation Certificate obtained in March 2026 and possession offered in April 2026

The Authority noted that the promoter had obtained the Occupation Certificate on 5 March 2026.

Thereafter, Omaxe issued an offer of possession dated 10 April 2026.

The Authority observed that under Section 19(10) of the RERA Act, once the Occupation Certificate is issued, the allottee is required to take physical possession within two months from the date of issue.

It further observed that the promoter’s obligation to pay delayed possession interest under Section 18(1) would cease upon a valid offer of possession, provided the offer was made in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the Authority treated 10 April 2026 as the date up to which delayed possession interest was payable.

6. Statement of account was treated as final after opportunity to object

The promoter had supplied a detailed statement of account along with the offer of possession dated 10 April 2026.

The statement reflected outstanding financial dues and the balance amount demanded from the complainant.

The Authority had earlier granted the complainant an opportunity to raise objections regarding the statement of account and had allowed time to file objections.

However, the complainant did not file objections within the opportunity granted.

The Authority therefore held that, in the absence of any specific objection or challenge to the statement of account, the statement accompanying the offer of possession attained finality for the purpose of the proceedings.

The Authority observed that the principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity to dispute a financial statement. Once such an opportunity is provided and not availed of, the proceedings cannot remain open-ended.

7. Interest payable at the statutory rate of 10.95%

The complainant had claimed interest at 24% per annum.

However, the Authority referred to Section 2(za) of the RERA Act and Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017.

Under Rule 15, the prescribed rate is linked to the State Bank of India’s highest marginal cost of lending rate, plus 2%.

The Authority considered the SBI MCLR of 8.95% as on 27 October 2026.

Accordingly, the applicable rate was:

Component	Rate
SBI highest MCLR	8.95%
Additional rate under Rule 15	2%
Prescribed rate	10.95% per annum

The Authority therefore calculated interest at 10.95%, rather than the 24% claimed by the complainant.

Calculation of Delayed Possession Interest

The Authority calculated interest on the amounts deposited by the complainant, with the applicable commencement date determined by the payment dates and the contractual possession date.

The calculation table in the order records the following:

Particulars	Amount
Total interest calculated up to 10 April 2026	₹23,09,178
Final demand/outstanding amount adjusted	₹2,27,656
Net interest directed to be paid	₹20,81,522

The order also contains a detailed payment-wise interest calculation on pages 25 and 26, reflecting the different amounts deposited and their respective dates.

Final Directions Issued by Haryana RERA

In exercise of its powers under Section 37 of the RERA Act, the Authority issued the following directions:

1. Omaxe Limited was directed to pay ₹20,81,522 to the complainant towards delayed possession interest.
2. The amount was calculated after adjusting the final demand of ₹2,27,656 against the total interest of ₹23,09,178.
3. The promoter was directed to hand over physical possession of the unit to the complainant within 30 days.
4. The Authority directed the promoter to comply with the possession and payment directions in accordance with the order.

The complaint was accordingly disposed of.

Legal Significance of the Decision

The decision in Dalbir Singh v. Omaxe Limited is important for several reasons.

1. Subsequent allottees can claim statutory protection under RERA

The order reinforces that a subsequent allottee who acquires a unit through a valid transfer and enters into the contractual relationship with the promoter can claim the rights available under the RERA Act.

A promoter cannot simply deny statutory protection on the ground that the original booking was made by another person.

2. A promoter cannot use COVID-19 to explain an earlier contractual default

The decision reiterates an important principle of force majeure: the event relied upon must have a relevant connection with the period of non-performance.

Where the contractual possession date expired years before the pandemic, COVID-19 cannot automatically be used to justify the earlier delay.

3. Acceptance of payments and continuation of the agreement are relevant

The Authority considered the promoter’s acceptance of payments and its failure to cancel the allotment while examining the allegation of payment default.

A promoter seeking to rely on allottee default must support its defence with the relevant contractual and documentary record.

4. Statutory interest is governed by the prescribed rate

Even though the complainant claimed interest at 24% per annum, the Authority applied the rate prescribed under the Haryana RERA Rules.

The order demonstrates the importance of distinguishing a party’s claimed rate from the statutory rate applicable to a delayed possession claim.

5. A fair opportunity to dispute the statement of account matters

The Authority’s treatment of the statement of account highlights the importance of responding within the time granted by the adjudicating forum.

An allottee who disputes outstanding dues should raise specific objections and provide supporting documents when given an opportunity to do so.

Practical Lessons for Homebuyers and Subsequent Allottees

This order provides useful guidance for property buyers:

• Preserve the original allotment letter and all transfer documents.
• Ensure that the promoter formally recognises the transfer of allotment.
• Obtain a copy of the Builder-Buyer Agreement executed after transfer.
• Keep records of all payments, demand letters and reminders.
• Carefully calculate the contractual possession date, including any valid grace period.
• Do not assume that a force majeure defence automatically excuses every period of delay.
• Examine the statement of account accompanying an offer of possession and raise specific objections within the time granted.
• Verify the Occupation Certificate and other applicable statutory approvals before accepting possession.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. Can a subsequent allottee claim delayed possession interest under RERA?

Yes. In this case, Haryana RERA held that the complainant, who had acquired the unit through transfer from the original allottee and entered into a Builder-Buyer Agreement with the promoter, was entitled to statutory protection under the RERA Act.

Q2. What was the contractual possession date in the Omaxe case?

The Agreement for Sale was executed on 21 April 2014. Under Clause 40(a), the promoter was required to complete the unit within 18 months, with an additional six-month period. The contractual possession date was 21 April 2016.

Q3. Why did Haryana RERA reject Omaxe’s COVID-19 defence?

The Authority observed that the contractual possession date had expired in April 2016, several years before the COVID-19 outbreak. The pandemic could not justify a default that had already occurred.

Q4. What interest rate was applied by Haryana RERA?

The Authority applied 10.95% per annum, calculated by adding 2% to the SBI MCLR of 8.95% considered in the order, in accordance with Rule 15 of the Haryana RERA Rules, 2017.

Q5. How much interest was Omaxe directed to pay?

Omaxe was directed to pay net delayed possession interest of ₹20,81,522 after adjustment of the final demand of ₹2,27,656 against the total calculated interest of ₹23,09,178.

Q6. When was the Occupation Certificate obtained?

The Occupation Certificate was obtained on 5 March 2026, and the offer of possession was issued on 10 April 2026.

Q7. Within what period was Omaxe required to hand over possession?

The Authority directed the promoter to hand over physical possession within 30 days.

Conclusion

The order passed by Haryana RERA, Panchkula, in Dalbir Singh v. Omaxe Limited reinforces the statutory rights of subsequent allottees and the responsibility of promoters to honour contractual possession commitments.

The Authority recognised the complainant’s status as a subsequent allottee, rejected the COVID-19 defence because the contractual default had occurred much earlier, and did not accept the promoter’s unsupported attempt to attribute the delay to payment defaults.

You can view the ruling here.

By directing Omaxe Limited to pay ₹20,81,522 as delayed possession interest and hand over physical possession within 30 days, the Authority granted relief under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

For subsequent purchasers, the decision is a useful reminder that a valid transfer and a direct contractual relationship with the promoter can preserve statutory rights under RERA. For promoters, it underlines that possession obligations and delay-related liabilities cannot be avoided merely through general allegations or contractual objections.

Case Reference: Dalbir Singh v. Omaxe Limited, Complaint No. 1868 of 2024, Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula, decided on 27 October 2026.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes only. It is based on the order referred to above and should not be treated as legal advice. The outcome of other matters will depend on their specific facts, contractual terms and applicable law.

By Satish Mishra Adv (99888-17966)