Last Updated on September 14, 2026 by Satish Mishra
RERA Refund After 18 Years: Haryana RERA Panchkula Directs Developer to Refund Entire Amount with Interest. You can file a refund complaint against TDI Infrastructure for the Rodeo Drive project in TDI City, Kundli through the Haryana RERA Portal or the appropriate Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission TDI City Consumer Case Guide.
The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Panchkula, has delivered an important order concerning the right of a homebuyer to seek refund after prolonged delay in possession in Rodeo Drive TDI City Kundli Refund Complaint.
The Authority held that where possession is not validly offered within the period contemplated under the agreement and the project remains substantially delayed, the allottee acquires an enforceable right to seek refund of the amount paid along with interest under the RERA framework in Rodeo Drive TDI City Kundli.
Rodeo Drive TDI City -Refund Issues
- Courts and regulatory bodies like Haryana RERA have frequently ruled in favor of allottees, ordering developers to refund principal amounts with interest due to inordinate delay and lack of timely occupation certificates
Background
The allottee had booked a commercial unit measuring approximately 400 sq. ft. in the project Rodeo Drive, TDI City, Kundli, Sonepat, in 2006.
Against the total sale consideration of ₹16 lakh, the allottee had paid ₹12.80 lakh to the developer by 2010. The builder-buyer agreement was, however, never executed.
According to the allottee, possession was contractually contemplated within 30 months, including a six-month grace period, from sanction of the building plans.
Despite the passage of several years, the project was not completed within the agreed period.
Possession Offered After More Than a Decade
The developer eventually offered possession on 25 March 2019, almost 13 years after booking.
The allottee declined to accept possession, contending that the offer was legally defective and came after an unreasonable and extraordinary delay.
The Authority examined the occupation certificate and found that it related to the ground and first floors, whereas the allotted commercial unit was situated on the second floor. Consequently, the Authority held that the possession offered to the allottee could not be treated as a valid offer of possession.
Mortgage of Project Without Informing Allottee
The Authority also took note of another significant circumstance.
The developer had mortgaged the project in favour of a financial institution through an equitable mortgage executed in 2018, without informing the allottee.
The allottee was thereafter allegedly required to obtain a No Objection Certificate from the financial institution.
The Authority considered this conduct while examining the developer’s failure to fulfil its contractual obligations.
RERA Applies to Ongoing Projects
The developer argued that RERA could not be applied because the project had commenced before the enactment of the RERA Act, 2016.
The Authority rejected this contention by relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in M/s Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
The Authority observed that RERA applies to ongoing projects and that the beneficial provisions of the legislation are intended to protect the interests of allottees.
Right to Refund After Prolonged Delay
The Authority placed particular reliance upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Newtech Promoters, holding that where possession is not delivered within the stipulated period, an allottee has an unqualified right to seek refund of the amount paid, together with interest at the prescribed rate.
In the present case, the Authority found that the developer had failed to deliver possession within the agreed period and that the delay had continued for many years.
The Authority therefore held that the allottee was entitled to exit the project and obtain refund.
Interest at Prescribed RERA Rate
The Authority applied Rule 15 of the Haryana Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 for determining the applicable rate of interest.
On the basis of the SBI MCLR prevailing on the relevant date, the Authority calculated the prescribed rate at 11.10% per annum.
The amount of ₹12.80 lakh paid by the allottee, together with calculated interest of approximately ₹23.02 lakh, resulted in a total refund amount of ₹35,81,988.
Entire Amount Directed to Be Refunded
The Authority ultimately directed the developer to refund ₹35,81,988, representing the principal amount paid along with interest calculated under the applicable RERA Rules.
The developer was granted 90 days to comply with the order, failing which the statutory consequences under Section 16 of the Haryana RERA Rules would follow.
Compensation and Litigation Expenses
The allottee had also sought compensation for harassment and mental agony.
The Authority clarified that claims for compensation and litigation expenses fall within the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act, with the quantum of compensation being determined in accordance with Section 72.
Accordingly, the allottee was advised to approach the competent Adjudicating Officer for such relief.
Key Takeaways
- Prolonged delay in possession can give an allottee a right to exit the project and seek refund.
- Possession must be a legally valid offer, not merely a formal communication from the developer.
- An occupation certificate covering portions of a project may not establish valid possession of a unit located in an uncovered portion.
- RERA protections can extend to ongoing projects, even where the project originated before the RERA Act.
- Under the applicable Haryana RERA Rules, refund carries interest at the prescribed rate.
- Compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses is to be pursued before the Adjudicating Officer where the statutory framework so provides.
Steps to File a Complaint for Rodeo Drive TDI City Kundli Refund
- Legal Notice: Send a formal legal notice to TDI Infratech demanding your principal refund with accumulated interest. [1]
- Gather Documents: Collect your original booking receipts, allotment letters, buyer’s agreements, and payment proofs. [1]
Conclusion
The Rodeo Drive matter is a significant example of the protection afforded to allottees where a developer fails to deliver possession within the agreed timeline.
The passage of nearly 18 years from the original booking, coupled with the Authority’s finding that the possession offer was not legally valid for the allotted second-floor unit, ultimately entitled the allottee to withdraw from the project and recover the amount paid with statutory interest.
The order reinforces a fundamental RERA principle: a homebuyer cannot be compelled to remain indefinitely invested in a project when the developer fails to fulfil its obligation to deliver lawful and complete possession within the promised period.
By Satish Mishra, Advocate (99888-17966)
