In this post we will discuss about HRERA complaint against Parsvnath Developers wherein the complaints werw allowed and the respondents were directed to allot and deliver the possession of booked plots to the complainants in the project Parsvnath City, Sonipat on payment of balance sale consideration recoverable from them.
RERA Panchkula Complaint against Parsvnath.
The Real Estate Regulatory Authority has created a great positive change to the image of the whole real estate industry. Earlier, the confidence amongst the investors and other stakeholders who invested their hard-earned money in the projects and desired for taking possession on the contractual delivery date was almost shattered till the time Real Estate Regulatory Act, 2017 (herein referred to as “RERA Act”) came into force. There was a total transformation of the whole real estate industry which was earlier a one-sided game played by the builders in domination over investors.
After the inauguration of the RERA portal, is more transparency in monitoring the status of the project by banks, allottees, and other stakeholders of the project and the cases in litigation between the builder and the allottee are also being tracked by the management on a real-time basis.
The basic controversy involved in all the above captioned complaints is similar and grievances raised therein are directed against the same project of the respondent. So, all these complaints are being disposed of by this common order.
ALSO READ- DELAY COMPENSATION IN HRERA PANCHKULA
Facts
In the present case of Nishant Bansal and Others vs M/S Parsvnath Developers Ltd. [1] wherein, the basic controversy involved in all the above captioned complaints is similar and grievances raised therein are directed against the same project of the respondent. So, all these complaints are being disposed of by this common order. Complainant Nishant Bansal is deriving his rights through Santosh Bansal who had booked a plot measuring 400 sq. yards in a township named ‘‘Parsvnath City’ under ‘Present and Future Scheme’ launched by the respondent company at Sonipat, Haryana. Santosh Bansal had paid advance money of %2,25,000/- to respondent on 25.08.2004 for allotment of plot @ Rs 3,600/- per sq. yard. Santosh Bansal had sold his booking rights in the plot to Gopi Chand and the present complainant Nishant Bansal had subsequently purchased the booking rights from Gopi Chand. The respondent had already endorsed the transfer of booking rights in favour of complainant Nishant Bansal on 06.04.2010.
It has been averred that Nishant Bansal and his predecessor-in-interest had already paid which forms fifty percent of the total sale consideration of Rs 14,40,000/- and he is ready to pay the balance sale consideration. According to the complainant, the respondent was obliged to pass on to him the title and possession of the booked plot on payment of remaining fifty percent sale consideration. However, he has not been allotted the plot till date. Therefore, ten complaint has been filed for delayed possession along with compensation for the delay.
Also Read- Panchkula project: Parsvnath fined Rs 5 lakh for not complying with RERA Order
It was further pleaded that the present complainant is bound by the above referred condition because he had also executed a document in the form of an ‘affidavit-cum-undertaking and
indemnity’ at the time of seeking transfer of booking rights in his favour. The respondent has further pleaded that township in Sonipat was planned to be developed upon various pieces of land which was to be acquired from various farmers. However, land admeasuring 200 acres had been acquired by the government out of those pieces and therefore, development of township at Sonipat in the planned manner was ruined. He had undergone litigation with the government for withdrawal of acquisition but in vain. So, he can now offer allotment to the complainants in other townships developed by him in cities of Panipat, Rajpura and Indore.
The respondent, the however, has disputed the original applicant was merely an advance registration to avail inaugural discount and the original applicant, as per the clauses set out in his application whatsoever, reason he would not raise any other claim except for refund of the amount along with 10% interest. It was further pleaded that the present complainant is bound by the above referred condition because he had also executed a document in the form of an ‘affidavit-cum-undertaking and indemnity’ at the time of seeking transfer of booking rights in his favour. The respondent has further pleaded that township in Sonipat was planned to be developed upon various pieces of land which was to be acquired from various farmers. However, land admeasuring 200 acres had been acquired by the government out of those pieces and therefore, development of township at Sonipat in the planned manner was ruined. He had undergone litigation with the government for withdrawal of acquisition but in vain. So, he can now offer allotment to the complainants in other townships developed by him in cities of Panipat, Rajpura and Indore.
ALSO READ- ULTRATECH DEVELOPERS HARYANA RERA PANCHKLULA AUTHORITY COMPLAINT
It has been submitted on behalf of the complainants that they are not interested to take refund because they are legally entitled for the allotment and possession of booked plots. According to them, the respondent has allotted plots on premium to other buyers by ignoring their rightful claim.
The respondent was asked to file an affidavit ascertaining the following things-
- Category wise plots approved in the layout plan by the department of Town and Country Planning and revised layout plan, if any. Copy of the same be produced before the Authority.
- | Procedure and parameters adopted by the respondent in allotment of the plots to various allottees.
- Year wise details of the allotments made by them and to whom the allotments are made in a tabular for mentioning his application date and allotment date.
- Category wise complete details of plots in Block-A and Block-B of the project and unallotted plots in these blocks by the time the complainant filed this complaint in the Authority.
- Plots affected by acquisition be shown distinctly on approved layout plan/demarcation plan and plots offered to any other allottee out of that area. Whether services and infrastructure are provided in the project as per approved demarcation plan and service plan estimates.
- Details of the plots allotted within last six months, if any, along with details of allottees and date of their applications received in the respondent’s office.
The affidavit was filed but with incomplete information pertaining to the precise criteria adopted for allotment of plots to those persons who had booked plots in Parsvnath City, Sonipat. He has also concealed the names of the persons to whom plots have been allotted in the said Project and the dates on which bookings were made by the persons to whom plots have been so allotted. He has also failed to disclose the number of un-allotted plots available in the Parsvnath City, Sonipat. Concealment of such information calls for an adverse inference against the respondent. So, it can be safely assumed that the plots have been sold at premium by ignoring the legitimate rights of the complainants for allotment of plots and respondent had earned premium by effecting illegal sales. That being the situation, the Authority has no hesitation in concluding that the complainants are entitled for allotment and delivery of the booked plots.
Also Read- Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority – Haryana RERA Judgments
Due to concealment of such information, the Authority in the preceding paragraph of this order has been constrained to observe that the plots have been sold at premium by ignoring the legitimate claims of the complainants. So, the Authority regrets its inability to uphold the respondent’s contention that complainants are not entitled to allotment and are merely entitled to refund of amount along with interest.
Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the present complainants, as per the clauses set out in the ‘application forms’ submitted by original applicants and ‘affidavit-cum-undertaking and indemnity’ furnished by the complainants themselves, are entitled only to refund of the paid amount along with interest and therefore, they can’t be held entitled for allotment and delivery of booked plots. The referred clause was reproduced by the respondent at internal page no. 2 of his reply and the same reads as under: –
“Though the company shall try to make an allotment but in case it fails to for any reason whatsoever, no claim of any nature, monetary or other would be raised by me/us except that the advance money paid by me/us shall be refunded to me/us with10% simple interest per annum.”
If the respondent was keen to refund the amount and was not in a position to allot the plots, he should have exercised such option of refunding the already paid amount along with interest to the complainants when they had applied for transfer of booking rights. The respondent did not exercise such option and continued to withhold the already paid amount. This would imply that he had agreed to allot plots to the complainants instead of acting upon the clause which entitled him to refund the money along with interest. That being so, it does not now lie in the mouth of the respondent to claim at this stage that he does not have plots for allotment to the complainants or that the complainants are entitled only for refund along with interest.
ALSO READ- HARYANA RERA PANCHKULA COMPLAINT AGAINST SAMAR ESTATES
Judgment
In the backdrop of these circumstances, it can be easily deciphered that the complainants and their predecessors-in-interest had booked plots in the project named Parsvnath City, Sonipat. Such an inference stands further fortified from the fact that respondent has not been able to produce any material on record to indicate that some project other than Parsvnath City, Sonipat was launched at Sonipat in or around the year 2006. The Authority, in these circumstances has no hesitation to conclude that complainants are entitled to have plots in the project named Parsvnath City, Sonipat.
Respondent in the aforementioned situation has then sought to defeat the complaints arguing that the same have been filed after inordinate delay. According to him, the complainants have approached the Authority in the year 2019 for allotment and possession of the plots which were booked prior to the year 2006 and therefore, the cause of action is time barred. The argument is not acceptable because it is nowhere the respondent’s case that he had offered possession of the plots to the complainants at any point of time and the latter had refused or failed to accept such offer and pay the balance fifty percent amount which was payable at the time of such offer of possession.
For the reasons recorded above, the complaints are allowed and the respondent is directed to allot and deliver the possession of booked plots to the complainants in the project Parsvnath City, Sonipat on payment of balance sale consideration recoverable from them. The respondent shall comply with these directions within 90 days from the date of uploading of this order. In case the respondent due to non-availability of plots is not able to allot and offer its possession to the complainant concerned, he will be liable to make available to him a plot of the size, as booked, by purchasing it from the open market at his own cost. The respondent however will be entitled to recover from the complainants the balance amount payable by them as per the rate agreed by the parties at the time of booking of plots.
ALSO READ- EXECUTION OF RERA PANCHKULA ORDERS
Conclusion
Despite all these initial issues, we can say RERA has been instrumental in transforming the real estate sector into a trusted industry in the last one year of its implementation. It could become more organised like other established industries – if it is driven more by clearer product definitions, well-defined branding and customer service orientation. Simultaneously, strong commitment from both Central and State government is required to evolve RERA into a dynamic institution for creating appropriate growth conditions for the real estate industry and to maintain a healthy balance of power between various stakeholders.
In the present case, the as the respondent failed to give possession on fifty percent payment was absurd, the authorities came into action by ordering the following promises to be fulfilled. Where in the present situations it can be seen that there is an overpowering authority of the property sellers, the authority is trying to bring a balance in this society.
This post is written by Tanya Gorshi
For case specific advice on real estate matters, one may contact top/best expert Punjab Haryana RERA Appeal Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar Mullanpur Baltana
More on 99888-17966.
[1] complaint no. 723 ,1115,1770,1774,1775,2218,1680 of 2019
