U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Hearing Bench-02, Complaint Number: 720843737 Smt. Vinita Agarwal & Rakesh Agarwal vs Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. 25.04.20i9 This complaint was instituted on date 44-07-2048 before U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gautam Buddha Nagar as complaint no. 720(873737 by Smt. Vinita Agarwal & Rakesh Agarwal, resident of 3645 D-3 Vasant Kunj New Delhi, wherein refund of deposited amount with interest and compensation has been demanded by the complainant. According to the facts stated in the complaint submitted by the complainants, they had booked plot no. 0/॥॥0264 in the project 'SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS DA-02' developed by the respondent, against which the complainants have paid a total sum of Rs. 545844.52/-, and as per allotment letter executed on 20-02-2042, the project was to be completed and possession handed over by date 20-04-2045, which has not been done. Hence, prayer has been made by the complainants for refund of amount along with interest. In support of their allegations, copy of agreement and receipts of paid amount have been annexed by the complainants. Notice was issued by the Authority and written statement was filed by the respondent.

In the written statement, the respondent has stated that construction of project 'SUSHANT 6757?0॥78' situated at Bulandshahr, U.P. was started by the developer company in the year 2007, but from year 202, local farmers and anti-social elements formed groups and began systematically obstructing ongoing regular development work, and in the year 20I3 the developer was also made a party before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT) New Delhi in Case No. (27/203 Akash Vashishtha & others vs Union of India & others. By order dated 24.09.20I3, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal directed the developer to immediately halt development work, due to which approximately 70 acres of land of the developer remained affected. The developer apprised the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal of facts in sequence of respondent no. 6 in the said suit, also apprised the directed enquiry committee of facts and presented its case, as a result of which by decision dated 72.09.20:7 the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal ruled in favour of the developer on the basis of facts presented by the developer; however, because construction work was stayed for 4 years, development work remained pending and obstructed, causing irreparable loss to the developer. Possession has already been delivered to about 50 allottees in the project and the developer is making efforts to deliver possession to another 50 allottees at the earliest. Due to delay in construction work of the developer company, with a view to provide buildings to allottees as early as possible, the developer company offered alternative projects, and as an adjusted alternative option to complainants Smt. Vinita Agarwal & Rakesh Agarwal, unit number 0498 in Sector number 028 in 'Sushant Megapolis' is ready for handing over possession by the end of February 2020.

Heard and perused the record. From the above analysis, it is clear that refund of deposited amount with interest has been sought by the claimant. In this regard, it is noteworthy that:- Under the Act, obligation of Promoter has been provided under Section 44 (4), which reads as: "The promoter shall- (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be." On the other hand, rights and duties of allottee have been clearly provided under the Act. Sub-section 4 of Section 79 reads as under: "(4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder."

Besides, Section 78 (I) provides that: "If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed."

If we read these provisions conjointly, the language of these provisions suggests that if the promoter/developer fails to fulfill his obligations to handover the possession as per terms of the agreement, the allottee is entitled to claim refund. However, different Authorities set up under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 206 across the country are taking a balanced/pragmatic view as far as refund to the allottees of project is concerned when the projects are at a much more advanced stage of development. Authorities are considering the situation of allottees of a real estate project as well as status of the project i.e stage of construction, timelines for completion, tentative possible 'offer date of possession' from the developer/promoter, possible consensus of the allottee in acceptance of possession within the possible new 'offer date of possession' etc. Section 32 of the RERA Act deals with functions of the Authority for promotion of Real Estate Sector. This Section reads as: "The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, on, (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent... (i) any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector."

On the other hand, Section 38 of the RERA Act, which deals with powers of the Authority, expects the authority/RERA to act on the principles of natural justice. The Section reads as: "(1) The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder. (2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure." This provision confers power to the Authority to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents for contravention of any provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, and it also provides that the Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.

If we read these provisions together along with the scheme of the Act, the Authority is created not only to protect interest of the allottees of the real estate project but also to protect the interest of promoters in order to promote a healthy growth of the real estate sector. Thus, from the provisions referred 80058 and view taken by different authorities, it is clear that complainant has right to withdraw from the project if promoter failed to deliver the flat/unit within the time specified in the agreement. However, different real estate regulatory authorities are deciding matters and awarding refund on the basis of facts of each case considering stage of construction of the project and period and reasons of delay in handing over possession to homebuyers. In projects which are at an advanced stage of completion i.e. 70% - 80% complete and/or is about to be offered for possession within this year (up to the end of 2049), the Adjudicating Authorities are allowing interest for delayed possession at prescribed rate of interest from the due date of handing over of possession as originally agreed (as provided in Agreement to Sale) till actual date of handing over possession.

Under the circumstances, when the promoter is showing the seriousness of completing the project and handing over possession of flat by the end of February 2020 after getting occupation certificate (O.C.) from concerned Authority, it is fully justifiable to give the promoter the last opportunity to complete the project. If the Authority starts allowing refund in every case of delay in possession, it will defy the very object and scheme of the Act. Moreover, there are a large percentage of homebuyers who are keenly interested in taking over possession of their flat. Now the promoter is also making efforts and trying to make arrangements of funds required to complete this project. In cases where the project is in very advanced stage of completion and promoter is making serious efforts to hand over possession of flats to homebuyers within a fixed/revised timeline, homebuyers should not withdraw from the project and claim refund of deposited amount. In any case, the promoter will be required to pay interest on delayed period till the date of possession. However, if the promoter fails to provide possession as committed in this case to UP RERA, then the promoter will be liable to refund the entire money paid by the allottee with prescribed rate of interest.

In this regard, observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 744/207 Chitra Sharma & others vs Union of India & others is significant:- "40. The figures... which have been made available presently, following the opening of the web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund." At this stage, considering the current financial condition of the real estate sector, refunding the amount is likely to adversely affect the interests of those allottees who wish to take possession of their units. Furthermore, it has been stated on oath on behalf of the respondent that possession shall be delivered by February 2020; if the complainant receives possession along with amount/interest for delay, the interests of all allottees can be served. Under the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it does not appear proper to order refund of money to the complainants.

Deep scrutiny and analysis of arguments and evidence on record was conducted by the Bench. It is clear from analysis that possession of plot has not been provided to complainant yet. It is also clear that there is full possibility of promoter delivering possession of plot to complainant in February 2020, as the representative of the promoter stated in writing that construction work has been completed and Occupancy Certificate (O.C.) shall be obtained from concerned authority and possession handed over by February 2020, but the complainant is no longer willing to take possession of the plot.

Order In view of the aforesaid, the Bench reaches conclusion that the prayer of the complainant is decreed. The respondent is ordered as follows: 1. After satisfying the complainant and completing necessary infrastructures, possession/handover of unit no. 0498 in Sector number 028 in 'Sushant Megapolis' be provided by end of February 2020 upon obtaining occupation certificate (O.C.). In addition, penal interest at the rate of MCLR + % for delayed period shall be paid by the promoter from the date of due possession as per Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA) signed between complainant and promoter. This interest/penalty amount shall be adjusted in the final due amount at the time of delivery of possession. If possession of the plot is not delivered to the complainant by the respondent by the end of February 2020, the complainant shall have the liberty to file application before RERA for obtaining their deposited amount with interest from the respondent. 2. Regarding grant of compensation, it is noteworthy that compensation falls within jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer. Therefore, the complainant may institute a claim before the Adjudicating Officer for obtaining compensation. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-83 and other relevant provisions of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2076. Order be uploaded on portal. Date: 25.04.209 (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। सुनवाई पीठ-02, शिकायत संख्या: 720843737 श्रीमति विनीता अग्रवाल एवं राकेश अग्रवाल बनाम अंसल हाई-टेक टाउनशिप लि. 25.04.20i9 यह शिकायत श्रीमति विनीता अग्रवाल एवं राकेश अग्रवाल निवासी 3645 0-3 VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI ने दिनांक- 44-07-2048 को उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण गौतम बुद्ध नगर को प्रस्तुत शिकायत सं. 720(873737 संस्थित की गयी है जिसमें शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज व प्रतिकर दिलाये जाने की मांग की गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत शिकायत में जो तथ्य अंकित हैं उसके अनुसार उन्होंने प्रतिवादी द्वारा संचालित परियोजना ‘SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS DA-02 ' में प्लॉट सं. 0/॥॥0264, जिसपर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कुल अंकन धनराशि रु 545844.52/- का भुगतान कर चुका है तथा दिनांक 20-02-2042 निष्पादित आवंटनपत्र के अनुसार परियोजना पूर्ण कर दिनांक 20-04-2045 तक कब्जा प्राप्त कराया जाना था, जोकि नहीं eT है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा ब्याज सहित धनराशि वापसी की प्रार्थना की गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता ने अपने अभिकथनों के समर्थन में अनुबन्ध पत्र की छायाप्रति, तथा भुगतान की गयी धनराशि की whe संत्रग्नक हैं। प्राधिकरण द्वारा नोटिस जारी की गयी तथा प्रतिपक्षी ने प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल किया।

प्रतिवादपत्र में प्रतिपक्षी ने अभिकथन किया है कि निर्माता कम्पनी द्वारा बुलन्दशहर, उ.प्र. स्थित परियोजना ‘SUSHANT ६७५७?०॥७8' का निर्माण कार्य वर्ष 2007 में प्रारम्भ किया गया, परन्तु वर्ष 202 से क्षेत्रीय किसानों व असमाजिक तत्वों द्वारा समूह बनाकर सुनियोजित तरीके से नियमित हो रहे विकास कार्य बाधित किया जाने लगा व माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण (एन.जी.टी) नई दिल्‍ली में सन्‌ 20I3 में वाद सं. (27/203 आकाश वशिष्ट आदि बनाम भारत गणराज्य व अन्य में निर्माता को भी पक्षकार बनाया गया है, माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण gant दिनांक 24.09.20I3 को निर्माता को तत्काल विकास कार्य ala

स्थगित करने का आदेश किया गया जिस कारण निर्माता की करीब 70 एकड़ भूमि प्रभावित रही। निर्माता द्वारा उक्त वाद में प्रतिपसंख्या 6 के क्रम में माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण को तथ्यों से अवगत कराया व निर्देशित जांच समिति को भी तथ्यों से अवगत कराया एवं अपना पक्ष रखा जिसके परिणाम स्वरूप निर्णय दिनांक 72.09.20:7 को माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण मेँ निर्माता द्वारा प्रस्तुत तथ्यों के आधार पर निर्माता के पक्ष में निर्णय दिया, परन्तु 4 साल परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य रोके जाने के कारण' विकास कार्य लम्बित व बाधित रहा जिस कारण निर्माता को अपूर्णीट क्षति भी हुई। परियोजना में करीब 50 आवंटियों को अधिग्रहण प्राप्त कराया जा चुका है तथा अन्य 50 आवंटियों को शीघ्रातिशीघ्र अधिग्रहण देने के लिए निर्माता प्रयासरत है। निर्माता कम्पनी का निर्माण कार्य लम्बित होने के कारण विकासकर्ता कम्पनी ने आवंटियों को अति शीघ्र भवन प्रदान कराने के परिप्रेक्ष्य में अन्य प्रोजेक्टों को निर्माता कम्पनी ने विकल्पों के रूप में शिकायतकर्ता श्रीमति विनीता अग्रवाल एवं राकेश अग्रवाल को समायोजित विकल्प ‘Sushant Megapolis’ सैक्टर संख्या 028 में यूनिट संख्या 098 qdact ax पर फरवरी 2020 के अंत तक कब्जा देने को तैयार है। सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। उपरोक्त विश्लेषण से स्पष्ट है कि वादी gant अपनी जमा धन्नराशि ब्याज सहित चाही गयी। इस सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है किः-

Under the Act, obligation of Promoter has been provided under Sect 44 (4), which reads as: 7he promoter shall- (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the Provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made there under or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be. On the other hand, rights and duties of allottee have been clearly provided under the Act. Sub-section 4 of Section 79 Read as under,(4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as Provided under this Act, trom the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his yo registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made there under.

Besides, Section 78 (I)provides that 4/ the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.

If we read these provisions conjointly, the language of these provisions suggest that if the promoter/developer fails to fulfill his obligations to handover the possession as per terms of the agreement, the allottee is entitled to claim refund. However, different Authorities set up under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act,206 across the country are taking a balanced /pragmatic view as far as refund to the allottees of project is concerned when the projects are at a much more advance stage of development. Authorities are considering the situation of allottees of a real estate project as well as status of the project i.e stage of construction , timelines for completion, tentative possible | ‘offer date of possession’ from the developer/promoter, possible consensus of the allotee in acceptance of possession within the possible new ‘offer date of possession’ etc. Section 32 of the RERA Act deals with functions of the Authority for promotion of Real Estate Sector. This Section reads as: 7he Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and daa

competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,(a) protection of interest of the allottees, Promoter and real estate agent.(b)......... / (<०........... i (4... /(%.,............. WU () / @) any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” On the other hand, Section 38 of the RERA Act, which deals with powers of the Authority expect the authority/RERA to act on the principle of natural justice. The Section reads as (7 The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the Promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and the regulations made there under. (2) The Authority shall be guided by the Principles of natural justice and, subject to the other Provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own Procedure” This provision confer power to the Authority to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents for contravention of any provisions of the Act and Rules made there under and it also provides that the Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.

If we read these provisions together along with the scheme of the Act, the Authority is created not only to protect interest of the allottee of the real estate project but also to protect the interest of Promoters in order to promote a healthy growth of the real estate sector Thus, from the provisions referred 800५8 and view taken by the different authorities, it is clear that complainant has right to withdraw from the Project if promoter failed to deliver the flat/unit within the time specified in the agreement. However, different real estate regulatory Authorities are deciding matters and awarding refund on the basis of fact of each case considering stage of construction of the project and period and reasons of delay in handing over the possession to homebuyers. ४ In the project which are at advance stage of completion i.e 70% -80% complete and /or is about to be offered for possession within this year (up to the end of 2049), the Adjudicating Authorities are allowing interest for delayed possession at prescribed rate of interest from the due date of handing over of the possession as originally agreed (as provided in Agreement to Sale) till actual date of handing over the possession.

Under the circumstances, when the promoter is showing the seriousness of completing the project and handing over the possession of flat by the end of February 2020 after getting occupation certificate (0.0) from concerned Authority, it's fully justifiable to give the promoter the last opportunity to complete the project. If the Authority starts allowing refund in every case of delay in possession, it will defy the very object and scheme of the Act. Moreover, there are a large percentage of homebuyers who are keenly interested in taking over the possession of their flat. Now the promoter is also making effortsand trying to make arrangements of funds required to complete this project. In the cases, where the project is in very advance stage of completion and promoter is making serious efforts to hand over possession of flats to homebuyers within a fixed/revised timeline, homebuyers should not withdraw from the project and claim refund of deposited amount. In any case, the promoter will be required to pay interest on delayed period till the date of possession. However, if the promoter fails to provide possession as committed in this case to UP RERA, then the promotor will liable to refund the entire money paid by the allotttee with prescribed rate of interest. इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील सं0 744/207 चित्रा शर्मा आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया आदि में किया गया आब्जरवेशन महत्वपूर्ण है:-

" 40. The figures........ which have been made available presently, following the opening of the web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund." इस स्टेज पर Rae एस्टेट सेक्टर की वर्तमान वित्तीय स्थिति को इष्टिगत रखते हुए धनराशि वापस किये जाने से उन आवंटियों के हित प्रतिकूलतः प्रभावित होने संभावित है, जो कि यूनिट का कब्जा लेना चाहते हैं। साथ ही विपक्षी की ओर से सशपथ कहा गया है कि फरवरी 2020 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा, यदि शिकायतकर्ता को विलम्ब के लिए धनराशि/ब्याज के साथ कब्जा मिल जाता है तो इससे सभी आवंटियों के हित साध्य हो सकेंगें। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा प्रतिपादित उक्त के अधीन शिकायतकर्तागण को धनवापसी किया जाना उचित प्रतीत नही होता है।

We दावारा उभयपक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत caf एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों का गहन परिशीलन तथा विश्लेषण किया गया। विश्लेषण से स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता को अभी भी प्लॉट का अधिग्रहण प्राप्त नहीं कराया गया है। यह भी स्पष्ट है कि प्रमोटर द्वारा फरवरी 2020 में शिकायतकर्ता को प्लॉट का अधिग्रहण दिये जाने की पूर्ण सम्भावना है, क्योंकि स्वयं प्रमोटर के प्रतिनिधि ने यह लिखित रूप से अपने प्रतिवादपत्र में यह अंकित किया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटित यूनिट के सैक्टर का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण हो चुका है तथा उक्त प्रश्नगत परियोजना के टावर के सम्बन्ध में Occupancy Certificate (0.0) सम्बन्धित प्राधिकरण से फरवरी 2020 तक प्राप्त कर कब्जा प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा, किन्तु अब शिकायतकर्ता प्लॉट का अधिग्रहण/कब्जा प्राप्त करने का इच्छुक नहीं है। आदेश raed में पीठ इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचती है कि शिकायतकर्ता का प्रार्थनापत्र आज्ञप्त किया जाता है। प्रतिपक्षी को निम्नलिखित रूप से आदेशित किया जाता है। |. शिकायतकर्ता की संतुष्टि व आवश्यक अवसंरचनाओं को पूर्ण कर ‘Sushant Megapolis’ में सैक्टर संख्या 028, यूनिट He 0498 पर occupation certificate (0.0) प्राप्त कर कब्जा/अधिग्रहण फरवरी 2020 के अंत तक प्राप्त करा दिया जाए।

साथ ही शिकायतकर्ता व प्रमोटर के बीच हुये हस्ताक्षरित Builder Buyers Agreement (BBA) के अनुसार विलम्बित अवधि/ delayed period के सम्बंध में कब्जा प्राप्त कराये जाने की' तिथि से MCLR + % की दर से प्रमोटर द्वारा दण्ड ब्याज/ penal interest अदा किया जाएगा। ब्याज /दण्ड की इस धनराशि को कब्जा दिये जाने के समय अंतिम देय धनराशि में समायोजित की जाएगी। यदि प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा फरवरी 2020 के अंत तक शिकायतकर्ता को प्लॉट का कब्जा नहीं प्रदान किया जाता है तो शिकायतकर्ता को यह स्वतंत्रता होगी कि वह अपनी जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज प्रतिपक्षी से प्राप्त करने के लिए रेरा के समक्ष आवेदन प्रस्तुत कर सकता है। 2. प्रतिकर (compensation) art जाने के सम्बन्ध में यह उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रतिपूर्ति (compensation) न्यायनिर्णाय अधिकारी (adjudicating officer) के क्षेत्राधिकार में है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता प्रतिपूर्ति प्राप्ति के लिए न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी (adjudicating Officer) Waal वाद प्रस्तुत कर सकता है। इस आदेश का उल्लघंन उ0प्र0भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2076 की धारा-83 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक 25.04.209 9 (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण

U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddha Nagar. Hearing Bench-02, Complaint Number: 720843737 Smt. Vinita Agarwal & Rakesh Agarwal vs Ansal Hi-Tech Townships Ltd. 25.04.20i9 This complaint was instituted on date 44-07-2048 before U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Gautam Buddha Nagar as complaint no. 720(873737 by Smt. Vinita Agarwal & Rakesh Agarwal, resident of 3645 D-3 Vasant Kunj New Delhi, wherein refund of deposited amount with interest and compensation has been demanded by the complainant. According to the facts stated in the complaint submitted by the complainants, they had booked plot no. 0/॥॥0264 in the project 'SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS DA-02' developed by the respondent, against which the complainants have paid a total sum of Rs. 545844.52/-, and as per allotment letter executed on 20-02-2042, the project was to be completed and possession handed over by date 20-04-2045, which has not been done. Hence, prayer has been made by the complainants for refund of amount along with interest. In support of their allegations, copy of agreement and receipts of paid amount have been annexed by the complainants. Notice was issued by the Authority and written statement was filed by the respondent.

In the written statement, the respondent has stated that construction of project 'SUSHANT 6757?0॥78' situated at Bulandshahr, U.P. was started by the developer company in the year 2007, but from year 202, local farmers and anti-social elements formed groups and began systematically obstructing ongoing regular development work, and in the year 20I3 the developer was also made a party before the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal (NGT) New Delhi in Case No. (27/203 Akash Vashishtha & others vs Union of India & others. By order dated 24.09.20I3, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal directed the developer to immediately halt development work, due to which approximately 70 acres of land of the developer remained affected. The developer apprised the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal of facts in sequence of respondent no. 6 in the said suit, also apprised the directed enquiry committee of facts and presented its case, as a result of which by decision dated 72.09.20:7 the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal ruled in favour of the developer on the basis of facts presented by the developer; however, because construction work was stayed for 4 years, development work remained pending and obstructed, causing irreparable loss to the developer. Possession has already been delivered to about 50 allottees in the project and the developer is making efforts to deliver possession to another 50 allottees at the earliest. Due to delay in construction work of the developer company, with a view to provide buildings to allottees as early as possible, the developer company offered alternative projects, and as an adjusted alternative option to complainants Smt. Vinita Agarwal & Rakesh Agarwal, unit number 0498 in Sector number 028 in 'Sushant Megapolis' is ready for handing over possession by the end of February 2020.

Heard and perused the record. From the above analysis, it is clear that refund of deposited amount with interest has been sought by the claimant. In this regard, it is noteworthy that:- Under the Act, obligation of Promoter has been provided under Section 44 (4), which reads as: "The promoter shall- (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be." On the other hand, rights and duties of allottee have been clearly provided under the Act. Sub-section 4 of Section 79 reads as under: "(4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as provided under this Act, from the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder."

Besides, Section 78 (I) provides that: "If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, (a) in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed."

If we read these provisions conjointly, the language of these provisions suggests that if the promoter/developer fails to fulfill his obligations to handover the possession as per terms of the agreement, the allottee is entitled to claim refund. However, different Authorities set up under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 206 across the country are taking a balanced/pragmatic view as far as refund to the allottees of project is concerned when the projects are at a much more advanced stage of development. Authorities are considering the situation of allottees of a real estate project as well as status of the project i.e stage of construction, timelines for completion, tentative possible 'offer date of possession' from the developer/promoter, possible consensus of the allottee in acceptance of possession within the possible new 'offer date of possession' etc. Section 32 of the RERA Act deals with functions of the Authority for promotion of Real Estate Sector. This Section reads as: "The Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government or the competent authority, as the case may be, on, (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent... (i) any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector."

On the other hand, Section 38 of the RERA Act, which deals with powers of the Authority, expects the authority/RERA to act on the principles of natural justice. The Section reads as: "(1) The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and the regulations made thereunder. (2) The Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice and, subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own procedure." This provision confers power to the Authority to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents for contravention of any provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder, and it also provides that the Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.

If we read these provisions together along with the scheme of the Act, the Authority is created not only to protect interest of the allottees of the real estate project but also to protect the interest of promoters in order to promote a healthy growth of the real estate sector. Thus, from the provisions referred 80058 and view taken by different authorities, it is clear that complainant has right to withdraw from the project if promoter failed to deliver the flat/unit within the time specified in the agreement. However, different real estate regulatory authorities are deciding matters and awarding refund on the basis of facts of each case considering stage of construction of the project and period and reasons of delay in handing over possession to homebuyers. In projects which are at an advanced stage of completion i.e. 70% - 80% complete and/or is about to be offered for possession within this year (up to the end of 2049), the Adjudicating Authorities are allowing interest for delayed possession at prescribed rate of interest from the due date of handing over of possession as originally agreed (as provided in Agreement to Sale) till actual date of handing over possession.

Under the circumstances, when the promoter is showing the seriousness of completing the project and handing over possession of flat by the end of February 2020 after getting occupation certificate (O.C.) from concerned Authority, it is fully justifiable to give the promoter the last opportunity to complete the project. If the Authority starts allowing refund in every case of delay in possession, it will defy the very object and scheme of the Act. Moreover, there are a large percentage of homebuyers who are keenly interested in taking over possession of their flat. Now the promoter is also making efforts and trying to make arrangements of funds required to complete this project. In cases where the project is in very advanced stage of completion and promoter is making serious efforts to hand over possession of flats to homebuyers within a fixed/revised timeline, homebuyers should not withdraw from the project and claim refund of deposited amount. In any case, the promoter will be required to pay interest on delayed period till the date of possession. However, if the promoter fails to provide possession as committed in this case to UP RERA, then the promoter will be liable to refund the entire money paid by the allottee with prescribed rate of interest.

In this regard, observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 744/207 Chitra Sharma & others vs Union of India & others is significant:- "40. The figures... which have been made available presently, following the opening of the web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund." At this stage, considering the current financial condition of the real estate sector, refunding the amount is likely to adversely affect the interests of those allottees who wish to take possession of their units. Furthermore, it has been stated on oath on behalf of the respondent that possession shall be delivered by February 2020; if the complainant receives possession along with amount/interest for delay, the interests of all allottees can be served. Under the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it does not appear proper to order refund of money to the complainants.

Deep scrutiny and analysis of arguments and evidence on record was conducted by the Bench. It is clear from analysis that possession of plot has not been provided to complainant yet. It is also clear that there is full possibility of promoter delivering possession of plot to complainant in February 2020, as the representative of the promoter stated in writing that construction work has been completed and Occupancy Certificate (O.C.) shall be obtained from concerned authority and possession handed over by February 2020, but the complainant is no longer willing to take possession of the plot.

Order In view of the aforesaid, the Bench reaches conclusion that the prayer of the complainant is decreed. The respondent is ordered as follows: 1. After satisfying the complainant and completing necessary infrastructures, possession/handover of unit no. 0498 in Sector number 028 in 'Sushant Megapolis' be provided by end of February 2020 upon obtaining occupation certificate (O.C.). In addition, penal interest at the rate of MCLR + % for delayed period shall be paid by the promoter from the date of due possession as per Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA) signed between complainant and promoter. This interest/penalty amount shall be adjusted in the final due amount at the time of delivery of possession. If possession of the plot is not delivered to the complainant by the respondent by the end of February 2020, the complainant shall have the liberty to file application before RERA for obtaining their deposited amount with interest from the respondent. 2. Regarding grant of compensation, it is noteworthy that compensation falls within jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Officer. Therefore, the complainant may institute a claim before the Adjudicating Officer for obtaining compensation. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section-83 and other relevant provisions of the U.P. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2076. Order be uploaded on portal. Date: 25.04.209 (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर। सुनवाई पीठ-02, शिकायत संख्या: 720843737 श्रीमति विनीता अग्रवाल एवं राकेश अग्रवाल बनाम अंसल हाई-टेक टाउनशिप लि. 25.04.20i9 यह शिकायत श्रीमति विनीता अग्रवाल एवं राकेश अग्रवाल निवासी 3645 0-3 VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI ने दिनांक- 44-07-2048 को उ.प्र. भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण गौतम बुद्ध नगर को प्रस्तुत शिकायत सं. 720(873737 संस्थित की गयी है जिसमें शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज व प्रतिकर दिलाये जाने की मांग की गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा प्रस्तुत शिकायत में जो तथ्य अंकित हैं उसके अनुसार उन्होंने प्रतिवादी द्वारा संचालित परियोजना ‘SUSHANT MEGAPOLIS DA-02 ' में प्लॉट सं. 0/॥॥0264, जिसपर शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कुल अंकन धनराशि रु 545844.52/- का भुगतान कर चुका है तथा दिनांक 20-02-2042 निष्पादित आवंटनपत्र के अनुसार परियोजना पूर्ण कर दिनांक 20-04-2045 तक कब्जा प्राप्त कराया जाना था, जोकि नहीं eT है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा ब्याज सहित धनराशि वापसी की प्रार्थना की गयी है। शिकायतकर्ता ने अपने अभिकथनों के समर्थन में अनुबन्ध पत्र की छायाप्रति, तथा भुगतान की गयी धनराशि की whe संत्रग्नक हैं। प्राधिकरण द्वारा नोटिस जारी की गयी तथा प्रतिपक्षी ने प्रतिवादपत्र दाखिल किया।

प्रतिवादपत्र में प्रतिपक्षी ने अभिकथन किया है कि निर्माता कम्पनी द्वारा बुलन्दशहर, उ.प्र. स्थित परियोजना ‘SUSHANT ६७५७?०॥७8' का निर्माण कार्य वर्ष 2007 में प्रारम्भ किया गया, परन्तु वर्ष 202 से क्षेत्रीय किसानों व असमाजिक तत्वों द्वारा समूह बनाकर सुनियोजित तरीके से नियमित हो रहे विकास कार्य बाधित किया जाने लगा व माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण (एन.जी.टी) नई दिल्‍ली में सन्‌ 20I3 में वाद सं. (27/203 आकाश वशिष्ट आदि बनाम भारत गणराज्य व अन्य में निर्माता को भी पक्षकार बनाया गया है, माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण gant दिनांक 24.09.20I3 को निर्माता को तत्काल विकास कार्य ala

स्थगित करने का आदेश किया गया जिस कारण निर्माता की करीब 70 एकड़ भूमि प्रभावित रही। निर्माता द्वारा उक्त वाद में प्रतिपसंख्या 6 के क्रम में माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण को तथ्यों से अवगत कराया व निर्देशित जांच समिति को भी तथ्यों से अवगत कराया एवं अपना पक्ष रखा जिसके परिणाम स्वरूप निर्णय दिनांक 72.09.20:7 को माननीय राष्ट्रीय हरित अधिकरण मेँ निर्माता द्वारा प्रस्तुत तथ्यों के आधार पर निर्माता के पक्ष में निर्णय दिया, परन्तु 4 साल परियोजना का निर्माण कार्य रोके जाने के कारण' विकास कार्य लम्बित व बाधित रहा जिस कारण निर्माता को अपूर्णीट क्षति भी हुई। परियोजना में करीब 50 आवंटियों को अधिग्रहण प्राप्त कराया जा चुका है तथा अन्य 50 आवंटियों को शीघ्रातिशीघ्र अधिग्रहण देने के लिए निर्माता प्रयासरत है। निर्माता कम्पनी का निर्माण कार्य लम्बित होने के कारण विकासकर्ता कम्पनी ने आवंटियों को अति शीघ्र भवन प्रदान कराने के परिप्रेक्ष्य में अन्य प्रोजेक्टों को निर्माता कम्पनी ने विकल्पों के रूप में शिकायतकर्ता श्रीमति विनीता अग्रवाल एवं राकेश अग्रवाल को समायोजित विकल्प ‘Sushant Megapolis’ सैक्टर संख्या 028 में यूनिट संख्या 098 qdact ax पर फरवरी 2020 के अंत तक कब्जा देने को तैयार है। सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। उपरोक्त विश्लेषण से स्पष्ट है कि वादी gant अपनी जमा धन्नराशि ब्याज सहित चाही गयी। इस सम्बन्ध में उल्लेखनीय है किः-

Under the Act, obligation of Promoter has been provided under Sect 44 (4), which reads as: 7he promoter shall- (a) be responsible for all obligations, responsibilities and functions under the Provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made there under or to the allottees as per the agreement for sale, or to the association of allottees, as the case may be, till the conveyance of all the apartments, plots or buildings, as the case may be, to the allottees, or the common areas to the association of allottees or the competent authority, as the case may be. On the other hand, rights and duties of allottee have been clearly provided under the Act. Sub-section 4 of Section 79 Read as under,(4) The allottee shall be entitled to claim the refund of amount paid along with interest at such rate as may be prescribed and compensation in the manner as Provided under this Act, trom the promoter, if the promoter fails to comply or is unable to give possession of the apartment, plot or building, as the case may be, in accordance with the terms of agreement for sale or due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of his yo registration under the provisions of this Act or the rules or regulations made there under.

Besides, Section 78 (I)provides that 4/ the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot or building, in accordance with the terms of the agreement for sale or, as the case may be, duly completed by the date specified therein; or (b) due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under this Act or for any other reason, he shall be liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice to any other remedy available, to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building, as the case may be, with interest at such rate as may be prescribed in this behalf including compensation in the manner as provided under this Act: Provided that where an allottee does not intend to withdraw from the project, he shall be paid, by the promoter, interest for every month of delay, till the handing over of the possession, at such rate as may be prescribed.

If we read these provisions conjointly, the language of these provisions suggest that if the promoter/developer fails to fulfill his obligations to handover the possession as per terms of the agreement, the allottee is entitled to claim refund. However, different Authorities set up under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act,206 across the country are taking a balanced /pragmatic view as far as refund to the allottees of project is concerned when the projects are at a much more advance stage of development. Authorities are considering the situation of allottees of a real estate project as well as status of the project i.e stage of construction , timelines for completion, tentative possible | ‘offer date of possession’ from the developer/promoter, possible consensus of the allotee in acceptance of possession within the possible new ‘offer date of possession’ etc. Section 32 of the RERA Act deals with functions of the Authority for promotion of Real Estate Sector. This Section reads as: 7he Authority shall in order to facilitate the growth and promotion of a healthy, transparent, efficient and daa

competitive real estate sector make recommendations to the appropriate Government of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,(a) protection of interest of the allottees, Promoter and real estate agent.(b)......... / (<०........... i (4... /(%.,............. WU () / @) any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” On the other hand, Section 38 of the RERA Act, which deals with powers of the Authority expect the authority/RERA to act on the principle of natural justice. The Section reads as (7 The Authority shall have powers to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the Promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents, under this Act or the rules and the regulations made there under. (2) The Authority shall be guided by the Principles of natural justice and, subject to the other Provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, the Authority shall have powers to regulate its own Procedure” This provision confer power to the Authority to impose penalty or interest, in regard to any contravention of obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents for contravention of any provisions of the Act and Rules made there under and it also provides that the Authority shall be guided by the principles of natural justice.

If we read these provisions together along with the scheme of the Act, the Authority is created not only to protect interest of the allottee of the real estate project but also to protect the interest of Promoters in order to promote a healthy growth of the real estate sector Thus, from the provisions referred 800५8 and view taken by the different authorities, it is clear that complainant has right to withdraw from the Project if promoter failed to deliver the flat/unit within the time specified in the agreement. However, different real estate regulatory Authorities are deciding matters and awarding refund on the basis of fact of each case considering stage of construction of the project and period and reasons of delay in handing over the possession to homebuyers. ४ In the project which are at advance stage of completion i.e 70% -80% complete and /or is about to be offered for possession within this year (up to the end of 2049), the Adjudicating Authorities are allowing interest for delayed possession at prescribed rate of interest from the due date of handing over of the possession as originally agreed (as provided in Agreement to Sale) till actual date of handing over the possession.

Under the circumstances, when the promoter is showing the seriousness of completing the project and handing over the possession of flat by the end of February 2020 after getting occupation certificate (0.0) from concerned Authority, it's fully justifiable to give the promoter the last opportunity to complete the project. If the Authority starts allowing refund in every case of delay in possession, it will defy the very object and scheme of the Act. Moreover, there are a large percentage of homebuyers who are keenly interested in taking over the possession of their flat. Now the promoter is also making effortsand trying to make arrangements of funds required to complete this project. In the cases, where the project is in very advance stage of completion and promoter is making serious efforts to hand over possession of flats to homebuyers within a fixed/revised timeline, homebuyers should not withdraw from the project and claim refund of deposited amount. In any case, the promoter will be required to pay interest on delayed period till the date of possession. However, if the promoter fails to provide possession as committed in this case to UP RERA, then the promotor will liable to refund the entire money paid by the allotttee with prescribed rate of interest. इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील सं0 744/207 चित्रा शर्मा आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया आदि में किया गया आब्जरवेशन महत्वपूर्ण है:-

" 40. The figures........ which have been made available presently, following the opening of the web portal by the amicus curiae, indicate that 8% of the home buyers have sought a refund of their monies while 92% would evidently prefer possession of the homes which they have purchased. We cannot be unmindful of the interests of 92% of the home buyers many of whom would also have obtained loans to secure a home. They would have a legitimate grievance if the corpus of Rs 750 crores (together with accrued interest) is distributed to the home buyers who seek a refund." इस स्टेज पर Rae एस्टेट सेक्टर की वर्तमान वित्तीय स्थिति को इष्टिगत रखते हुए धनराशि वापस किये जाने से उन आवंटियों के हित प्रतिकूलतः प्रभावित होने संभावित है, जो कि यूनिट का कब्जा लेना चाहते हैं। साथ ही विपक्षी की ओर से सशपथ कहा गया है कि फरवरी 2020 तक कब्जा दे दिया जायेगा, यदि शिकायतकर्ता को विलम्ब के लिए धनराशि/ब्याज के साथ कब्जा मिल जाता है तो इससे सभी आवंटियों के हित साध्य हो सकेंगें। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा प्रतिपादित उक्त के अधीन शिकायतकर्तागण को धनवापसी किया जाना उचित प्रतीत नही होता है।

We दावारा उभयपक्षों द्वारा प्रस्तुत caf एवं पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध साक्ष्यों का गहन परिशीलन तथा विश्लेषण किया गया। विश्लेषण से स्पष्ट है कि शिकायतकर्ता को अभी भी प्लॉट का अधिग्रहण प्राप्त नहीं कराया गया है। यह भी स्पष्ट है कि प्रमोटर द्वारा फरवरी 2020 में शिकायतकर्ता को प्लॉट का अधिग्रहण दिये जाने की पूर्ण सम्भावना है, क्योंकि स्वयं प्रमोटर के प्रतिनिधि ने यह लिखित रूप से अपने प्रतिवादपत्र में यह अंकित किया है कि शिकायतकर्ता को आवंटित यूनिट के सैक्टर का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण हो चुका है तथा उक्त प्रश्नगत परियोजना के टावर के सम्बन्ध में Occupancy Certificate (0.0) सम्बन्धित प्राधिकरण से फरवरी 2020 तक प्राप्त कर कब्जा प्रदान कर दिया जाएगा, किन्तु अब शिकायतकर्ता प्लॉट का अधिग्रहण/कब्जा प्राप्त करने का इच्छुक नहीं है। आदेश raed में पीठ इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचती है कि शिकायतकर्ता का प्रार्थनापत्र आज्ञप्त किया जाता है। प्रतिपक्षी को निम्नलिखित रूप से आदेशित किया जाता है। |. शिकायतकर्ता की संतुष्टि व आवश्यक अवसंरचनाओं को पूर्ण कर ‘Sushant Megapolis’ में सैक्टर संख्या 028, यूनिट He 0498 पर occupation certificate (0.0) प्राप्त कर कब्जा/अधिग्रहण फरवरी 2020 के अंत तक प्राप्त करा दिया जाए।

साथ ही शिकायतकर्ता व प्रमोटर के बीच हुये हस्ताक्षरित Builder Buyers Agreement (BBA) के अनुसार विलम्बित अवधि/ delayed period के सम्बंध में कब्जा प्राप्त कराये जाने की' तिथि से MCLR + % की दर से प्रमोटर द्वारा दण्ड ब्याज/ penal interest अदा किया जाएगा। ब्याज /दण्ड की इस धनराशि को कब्जा दिये जाने के समय अंतिम देय धनराशि में समायोजित की जाएगी। यदि प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा फरवरी 2020 के अंत तक शिकायतकर्ता को प्लॉट का कब्जा नहीं प्रदान किया जाता है तो शिकायतकर्ता को यह स्वतंत्रता होगी कि वह अपनी जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज प्रतिपक्षी से प्राप्त करने के लिए रेरा के समक्ष आवेदन प्रस्तुत कर सकता है। 2. प्रतिकर (compensation) art जाने के सम्बन्ध में यह उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रतिपूर्ति (compensation) न्यायनिर्णाय अधिकारी (adjudicating officer) के क्षेत्राधिकार में है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता प्रतिपूर्ति प्राप्ति के लिए न्‍्यायनिर्णायक अधिकारी (adjudicating Officer) Waal वाद प्रस्तुत कर सकता है। इस आदेश का उल्लघंन उ0प्र0भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन तथा विकास) अधिनियम, 2076 की धारा-83 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक 25.04.209 9 (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण