RERA Appeal Against Unit Cancellation by Builder: Haryana REAT Sets Aside Authority’s Conflicting Orders. You can file or contest a RERA Appeal Process through your respective state’s Real Estate Regulatory Authority portal if a unit or booking cancellation is arbitrary or unjust.

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal has delivered an important judgment concerning cancellation of an allottee’s unit by a promoter and the power of a RERA Authority to subsequently alter its own order. As a homebuyer, if your builder has unfairly cancelled your unit booking, or if you are unsatisfied with an order passed by the state RERA Authority regarding your cancellation, you have the statutory right to appeal. [1]

The Tribunal held that once the Authority had passed an order granting substantive relief to the allottee, it could not subsequently change the nature and effect of that order under the guise of a “clarification.” The matter was therefore remanded for fresh adjudication.

Unit Cancellation RERA Appeal- Key Rules

Background

The allottee had been allotted a residential unit in the Smart World Orchard project at Sector 61, Gurugram.

The total sale consideration was approximately ₹1.89 crore, against which the allottee had paid about ₹18.91 lakh.

The Agreement for Sale was executed on 27 October 2022, with the contractual possession date fixed as 31 December 2024.

However, according to the promoter, the allottee failed to follow the agreed payment schedule. After issuing a pre-cancellation notice and subsequent reminders, the promoter cancelled the unit on 23 November 2022.

Allottee Challenged the Cancellation

The allottee approached the RERA Authority seeking setting aside of the cancellation and related demand.

On 1 March 2024, the Authority passed an order setting aside the cancellation and directing the promoter to provide possession of an alternative similarly situated unit, having specifications comparable to the original unit, at the same rate and in a similar location after obtaining the requisite Occupation Certificate/Completion Certificate.

This order was clearly favourable to the allottee.

Promoter Sought “Clarification”

After the order dated 1 March 2024, the promoter moved an application seeking clarification.

Instead of merely correcting a clerical or typographical error, the Authority subsequently passed another order dated 12 July 2024, holding that the cancellation of the unit was valid.

This effectively changed the outcome of the earlier order.

The allottee therefore challenged the subsequent order before the Haryana REAT.

Also Read-Complaint in Rera for Cancellation of Unit

Clarification Cannot Become Review

The Tribunal found a fundamental legal problem with the Authority’s approach.

It held that there was no provision permitting the Authority to review its earlier substantive order in the manner adopted in the present case.

The Tribunal observed that the application could only be traced to Section 39 of the RERA Act, whose scope is limited to correcting clerical or typographical errors.

Section 39 cannot be used to rewrite an order or change the nature of relief already granted.

Entire Purport of Earlier Order Was Changed

The Tribunal made a strong observation that the subsequent order had not merely clarified an ambiguity.

Instead, it had changed the entire complexion and purport of the earlier order.

The Authority had effectively passed another substantive order in the same complaint number, replacing the relief earlier granted to the allottee with a finding validating the promoter’s cancellation.

The Tribunal found this approach legally unsustainable.

Also Read-Earnest Money Refund Appeal RERA Haryana

Earlier and Subsequent Orders Both Set Aside

The Haryana REAT ultimately held that both orders dated 1 March 2024 and 12 July 2024 were unsustainable.

Rather than itself deciding the underlying dispute concerning cancellation, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the RERA Authority for a fresh decision on merits.

The Authority was directed to decide the matter expeditiously and, in any event, within three months.

The Tribunal also observed that the Chairman of the Authority should have liberty to conduct an appropriate enquiry into the circumstances in which the subsequent order came to be passed.

Important Legal Principle

The judgment draws a clear distinction between:

Clarification:
Correction or clarification of a clerical/typographical mistake within the limited scope permitted by Section 39 RERA.

Review:
Reconsideration or alteration of the substantive findings or relief already granted.

The Tribunal made it clear that the former cannot be used as a substitute for the latter.

Key Takeaways

• A promoter may cancel an allotment for genuine payment defaults, subject to the terms of the Agreement for Sale and applicable law.
• However, the legality of such cancellation must be properly adjudicated by the competent RERA Authority.
• A RERA Authority cannot use Section 39 to substantively rewrite its earlier order.
• “Clarification” cannot be used to change the nature or extent of relief already granted.
• A subsequent order which fundamentally alters an earlier substantive order may be set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
• Where the Authority’s orders are legally unsustainable, the matter can be remanded for fresh adjudication.
• The present judgment does not finally decide whether the promoter’s cancellation was valid; that issue has been left open for fresh consideration by the Authority.

Also Read-Case of forfeiture of amount by Builder RERA Panchkula

Typical Grounds in Unit Cancellation Appeals

• • Breach of Section 11(5): A promoter cannot unilaterally cancel an allotment without complying with the terms of the registered Agreement to Sell and providing a formal 30-day default notice.
  • Earnest Money Forfeiture Capping: If the cancellation arose from buyer payment default, HREAT generally restricts forfeiture of earnest money to a maximum of 10% of the sale consideration, ordering a refund of the remaining balance. [1]
  • Builder Default Preceding Buyer Default:
    If the developer delayed project milestones or statutory approvals, they cannot penalize the buyer for pausing construction-linked installments.

Step-by-Step Haryana RERA Appeal Filing Procedure

1. Online Appeal Registration:
   • Go to the Haryana RERA Portal and navigate to “Registration of Appeal with HRERA Appellate Tribunal”.
   • Enter details of the appellant (you) and respondent (builder/authority), along with details of the impugned order.
   • Submit to generate an Online Appeal Registration Number
2. Fee Calculation & Demand Draft:
   • • Base Appeal Fee: ₹1,000 per appeal.
     • Annexures & Affidavits: An additional ₹10 per annexure and ₹20 per additional affidavit.
     • Payment Mode: Prepared via a Demand Draft (DD) in favor of the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, payable at Chandigarh. [1]

3. Preparation of Documents (Form AAT):
   • • Draft the Detailed Appeal in the prescribed Form AAT format.
     • Attach a certified copy of the impugned order from HRERA Gurugram or Panchkula.
     • Include the Builder-Buyer Agreement (BBA), cancellation letter, proof of all payments made, calculation sheet, and index of annexures.
     • Flag all annexures and ensure documents are self-attested. [1, 2, 3, 4]

4. Physical Submission:
   • Deliver 3 physical sets of the appeal file (complete with signed checklists and DD copy) to the HREAT Registry in Sector 17, Chandigarh.
   • Provide additional sets (one for each respondent) along with pre-addressed registered covers.
   • Submit a soft copy of the entire set via a pen drive. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Conclusion

The Haryana REAT judgment is significant for both homebuyers and real estate promoters.

While promoters may have contractual remedies where an allottee defaults on payments, those rights must be determined through a legally sustainable process. Equally, a RERA Authority, once it has passed a substantive order, cannot subsequently reverse its decision merely by labelling the exercise as a clarification.

The decision reinforces an important principle of adjudication: a clarification provision cannot become a backdoor route for review or rewriting of a judicial order.

The dispute has now been remanded to the RERA Authority for fresh determination, leaving the parties to contest the validity of the unit cancellation on merits.

Source: Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Appeal No. 648 of 2024, order dated 8 September 2026.

By Satish Mishra, Advocate (99888-17966)