U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Regional Office, Gautam Buddh Nagar | Bench-2 Present: Shri Balvindar Kumar, Member Complaint No.: 1281245/08/5975/2020 Prativa Sarkar [?] Versus Rise Projects [?] The present complaint application has been filed by the complainant seeking the return of the amount deposited with the opposite party, along with interest. In brief, the complainant's statement is that they booked Unit Go—-T5-503 in the opposite party's project RISE ORGANIC HOMES [?] 487-, and paid Rs. 40,99,927 /- from time to time in instalments. The opposite party was to complete the project and hand over possession to the complainant by 09.03.209, but possession has not yet been given. The complainant also states that the project is delayed and construction work is stalled. The complainant has therefore requested that the opposite party be directed to give possession and interest for the delayed period, or otherwise to return the deposited amount with interest. In support of the statement, the complainant has filed photocopies of the application, demand letters, account statement, receipts of the amounts deposited, allotment letter/apartment buyer agreement, tripartite agreement, etc.

The opposite party, filing its reply, has stated that the complainant had booked an apartment in its project. The allotment letter/apartment buyer agreement was executed on 05.09.20:5, in which the complainant was allotted Unit No. 75-503. The delay in the project was caused by the orders of the Hon'ble 6.7... [?] and by the restriction on construction imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The opposite party is striving to complete the project and will give possession to the complainant by 'September 2024'. Both parties were heard and the case file was perused. On the basis of the parties' pleadings, the following issues have been framed for consideration: 1 [?]. Whether the opposite party's project was delayed due to force majeure? If so, what is the effect? 2. Whether it is proper for the complainant to demand the return of the amount deposited? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to possession and interest for the delayed period? Disposal of Issue No. 1 [?] Issue No. 1 [?] has been considered to determine whether in fact the project was delayed due to force majeure events. This issue has been considered on the opposite party's averments, and the burden of proving it lies on the opposite party.

The opposite party has stated that the project was delayed due to the orders of the Hon'ble 5.7... [?] and the ban on construction imposed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The opposite party has neither stated which force majeure event caused the delay in the project works, nor filed any evidence of force majeure [?] showing that work on the project land was obstructed. Page 2 In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 940/20:7 Vikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others, at page 234 and paragraph t0 A of its judgment, has defined force majeure as follows: Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature. From the above definition of force majeure, it is clear that force majeure is a situation in which war, flood, drought, fire, storm, earthquake or another natural calamity has occurred. No such circumstance arose in the present case, and in such a condition the opposite party is not entitled to the benefit of this plea. The opposite party has stated that COVID-49 should be treated as force majeure. In view of the present circumstances, it would be proper to treat COVID-49 as a force majeure event. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 [?] is disposed of. Disposal of Issue No. 2

The complainant has stated that the opposite party has not yet given possession, for which the complainant has requested the return of the deposited amount with interest. The opposite party, on the other hand, says that it is striving to complete the project and will give possession by 'September 2024'. As far as the buyer's request for refund is concerned, the provisions of the RERA Act must be read as a whole on this subject, so that a balanced decision can be taken keeping in view the views of all parties. Section 48 (II) of the RERA Act provides that: Section 768 (I) "If 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." Thus the buyer has the right that, if possession is not given as per the agreement, they may demand the return of the deposited amount with interest, or remain in the project and receive interest at a monthly rate. Section 34 of the RERA Act also mentions, along with the other "functions" of RERA, "to ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder". Similarly, Section 32 provides that the Authority's responsibilities for the development of the real estate sector also include the following: "32 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 of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a) protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector."

It is clear from these provisions that it is the responsibility of this Authority to take appropriate decisions, looking at the interests of all the stakeholders as a whole, so as to ensure the healthy development of the "real estate sector". In this context, in paragraph 424 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. [?] vs. Union of India, in which the constitutional validity of the RERA Act was decided, the Hon'ble High Court made the following observation: Page 4

"24. The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 77 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections /2, /4, J8 and /9. A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work."

From the above it is clear that, after hearing all parties, although an allottee has the right to demand the return of their money with interest where the unit is not received on time, the Authority may, in view of the above observations and on the basis of all the facts of the case, pass orders in line with "by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth". In the context of balancing the interests of allottees who seek the return of their money and of allottees who remain in the project, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its judgment in "Chitra Sharma vs. Union of India" ((744 / 2047)), made the following observation in paragraph 40:

"40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly ...........---- Secondly, 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."

Having regard to the observations quoted in the above paragraphs by the Hon'ble High Court and the Supreme Court, and to the overall scheme of the RERA Act, it is also clear that if the decision in every case of delay were to be to return the money, that would certainly not be in line with the objective and scheme of the Act. While deciding on a refund, it will be in the interest of justice to consider the "uniqueness" of each case, all the facts of the case such as the state of "construction", the "timeline" for completion, the position of the "commitment" regarding the offer of possession made by [?], the effect on other "stakeholders" and especially on the "allottees" who remain with the project, the "consensus" regarding the "proposed possession date", and so on. Page 6 On the subject of the formation of the Authority, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 23.07.20I9 in Civil Appeal No. 940/207 Vikram Chatterjee and Others vs. Union of India and Others, at page 24, paragraph 420, has stated as follows: "20

It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that, we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder. The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond | year." As stated above, it has been made clear that RERA is meant to protect the interests of allottees, and its aim is that promoters should complete all the development works of the building so that home buyers can get their homes and flats. Accordingly, at page 255, paragraph 437 of the same order, it has stated as follows: "The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers' interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation Page 7

due to undue delay in completion of the project." The above observation also makes clear that the provisions of RERA are beneficial to home buyers and are meant to protect the interests of allottees against any kind of betrayal, that supervision to get the building completed is RERA's job, and that the duties and responsibilities of the parties have been fixed in the Act. It has also been held that, if the project is delayed, home buyers have the right to receive interest for the delay as per the rules until the project is completed. Thereafter, again with regard to RERA, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in its order dated 09.08.209, at page 86, paragraph 29, in Civil Appeal No. 43,/ 2049 Pioneer [?] and Infrastructure Limited and Others vs. Union of India and Others, has stated as follows: "The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable."

The important observation in that order is that RERA's aim is to see, under its supervision and oversight, that a real estate project is completed by the promoter within a fixed period, so that allottees do not lose their flats and get the home of their dreams. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees have also been held responsible for not cooperating in completing the project. It has also been said that allottees must properly perform their duties [?] 2 |, such as ensuring timely payment of instalments, so that the project can be completed. Page 8 Thus, according to the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the main objective of RERA is to ensure that the project is completed by the promoters, and that allottees properly pay their instalments, so that the project can be completed within the stipulated period. To protect the interests of allottees, interest for project delay will also be payable to allottees; however, before that, it is also the complainant's responsibility to pay their instalments on time.

* The opposite party has stated that it will give possession by 30.09.202. Since the project is also nearing completion, and other allottees of the project are waiting for possession, keeping in view COVID-49 and all the circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice that the complainant takes possession when the project is completed, by 30.09.2024. After that, the complainant may decide for themselves on the future use of the unit. In any case, the complainant's investment in the project was made for possession, and the opposite party has used it in constructing the project. Certainly, if the allottee remains in the project, interest for the delay shall be payable by the promoters as per the rules. If the opposite party does not give the complainant possession after completing the project by 30.09.2020, the complainant shall be entitled to get back the deposited amount with interest after September 2024. Issue No. 2 is disposed of accordingly. Disposal of Issue No. 3 The complainant says that the opposite party has still not given possession. In support of the statement, the complainant has not filed the complete copy of the allotment letter/apartment buyer agreement dated 26.09.20i5, which would make clear by what date the complainant was entitled to get possession under the agreement. Page 9

In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal Nos. 3533-3534 /20:7 [?] Infrastructures and Others vs. Trevor D'Lima and Others, in paragraph 45, has clearly held that: "5. Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered."

According to the observations and legal position of the above Hon'ble Supreme Court, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for possession of a flat. Where the agreement does not state the date of possession, the Court has held that, looking at the facts and circumstances, a period of 3 years is reasonable for completing this work. In the present case, the date of execution of the agreement is 26.09.205. Looking at the facts and circumstances, handing over possession of the flat to the complainant within 4 years was a reasonable period. In such a case the complainant was entitled to get possession of the flat by 26.09.2049, but the opposite party has not given possession. It is clear that the project is delayed, and in such a case the complainant is entitled to interest for the delayed period from 26.09.209 up to the date of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. In this regard it is noteworthy that, in the petition of Neelkamal Realtors Suburban Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Hon'ble High Court has held:

"Section 8()(0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable." Therefore, in the light of the above decision, it is clear that under the provisions of the UP RERA, interest for the delay and on the principal amount shall be payable as per the agreement between the promoter and the buyer, because the promoters have used the said amount.

As regards the rate of interest payable, the State Government, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2046, notified on 47.0.2048 the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) (Agreement for Sale/Lease) Rules 20i8. In the format of the sale/lease deed given as an annexure to them, paragraph 9 defines the events of default of the promoters, and paragraph 9.26) provides for the allottee in case the promoter is in default, that: "The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +l% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice:" The same rate is also prescribed in case of default by allottees [para 9.30 garbled]. Keeping this provision in view, it appears justified to award the allottee interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLR+ percent. As to up to which period interest is to be awarded, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6649-50/20:8 Supertech Limited vs. Rajni Goyal, has held that:

"the period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 40) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent - Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession, The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession." According to the above legal position, the complainant shall be entitled to delay interest up to the date on which O.C./C.C. is obtained or possession is offered, whichever is later. In such a case, the complainant shall be entitled to delay interest up to the period ending on the date of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. Page 2

As is known to all the public, the infection of a pandemic like the Corona virus has spread widely across all countries of the world. In such a situation, a nationwide lockdown was announced across the country on 24.03.2020 to prevent and control COVID-49 (Corona Virus Disease). During the lockdown, all work was restricted, so all sectors were affected, including the real estate sector. In the interest of justice, keeping this in view, no interest for the delay in the project from 24.03.2020 to 30.09.2020 shall be paid by the promoter to the allottees. Accordingly, Issue No. 3 is disposed of. While disposing of the above issues, the following orders are passed. ORDER i. The opposite party is directed to complete all the amenities of the complainants' units as per the allotment letter/agreement, to ensure that possession is given along with O.C./C.C. by 30.09.2020, and, after receiving the payable stamp duty, to get the registry done as per rules.

2. The opposite party shall ensure that it pays the complainant interest for the delayed period at the rate of MCLRH [?] percent on the amount deposited by the complainant, from 26.09.2049 up to the date of receipt of O.C./C.C. or the offer of possession, whichever is later. It is also made clear that this interest amount shall be adjusted against the final payment amount, and if the interest amount is more than the amount payable, it shall be refunded to the complainant as per rules. In the cases of the other complainants, the calculation shall be made as above, in line with the agreement. Keeping in view the lockdown in the country to prevent and control COVID-49, interest shall not be calculated for the delay in the project from 24.03.2020 to 30.09.2020. 3. The opposite party shall ensure that, after the O.C. is obtained, it issues the offer of possession letter as above. Page 3 The opposite party is directed that interest is defined under Section 2 (ai) of the RERA Act 2046, which provides that if, after RERA comes into force, a promoter charges an interest rate on the allottee's default, the same rate shall be payable to the allottee when the promoter defaults. The interest rate notified by the State Government is MCLR+ percent.

5. If the opposite party does not complete the project and hand over possession to the complainants by 30.09.2024, the complainants shall have the right to file their complaint afresh on the RERA portal for the return of the deposited amount with interest after 30.09.2024. Violation of this order shall be punishable under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2046 and other relevant provisions. The order shall be uploaded on the portal. Date: 03/06 / 2024 (Balvindar Kumar) (Member) U.P. Real Estate Regulatory Authority Page 4

उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, गौतमबुद्धनगर | पीठ-2 उपस्थिति:- श्री बलविन्दर कुमार, सदस्य शिकायत संख्या :- १२८१२45/08/5975/2020 प्रतिवा सरकार बनाम राइज प्रोजेक्ट्स wo feo प्रस्तुत शिकायत प्रार्थना पत्र शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्र जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने हेतु संस्थित किया गया है। संक्षेप में शिकायतकर्ता का कथन है कि उनके द्वारा विपक्षी की परियोजना RISE ORGANIC HOMES एप्र487- में यूनिट Go—-T5-503 बुक किया गया था, जिसके लिए उनके द्वारा समय-समय पर किश्तों के आधार पर 40,99,927 /- रुपये का भुगतान किया गया। विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 09.03.209 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा दिया जाना था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी कहना है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब है और निर्माण कार्य स्थगित है। अतः शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा विपक्षी के विरुद्ध कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अन्यथा जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवेदन पत्र, मांग पत्र, खाता विवरण, जमा धनराशि की रसीदें, आवंटन पत्र/अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध, त्रिपक्षीय अनुबन्ध आदि की छायाप्रतियां दाखिल की गयी हैं। fv / ए8९86९१ ॥

विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र दाखिल करते हुए कहा गया है कि शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा उनकी परियोजना में अपार्टमेंट बुक कराया गया था। आवंटन पत्र/अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 05.09.20:5 को निष्पादित कराया गया, जिसमें कि शिकायतकर्ता को यूनिट सं०- 75-503 आवंटित किया गया | परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय ६.७... के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। वह परियोजना को पूर्ण करने के लिए प्रयासरत हैं और 'सितम्बर 2024 तक शिकायतकर्ता को कब्जा दे देंगे। उभयपक्ष को सुना व पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया। पक्षकारों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्नलिखित वाद बिन्दु विचारणीय किये गये हैं :- 4... क्‍या force majeure होने के कारण विपक्षी की परियोजना विलंबित हुई? यदि हां तो प्रभाव? 2. क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि वापस दिलाये जाने की मांग करना उचित है ? 3 क्‍या शिकायतकर्ता कब्जा एवं विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है? निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-॥ बिन्दु Wo 7 इस आशय का विचरित किया गया है कि कया वास्तव में परियोजना फोर्स मैज्योर इवेन्ट्स होने कारण विलम्बित हुईं? यह बिन्दु विपक्षी के अभिकथनों पर विचरित किया गया है, जिसे साबित करने का भार विपक्षी पर है। विपक्षी की ओर से कथन किया गया है कि परियोजना में विलम्ब माननीय ५.७... के आदेश एवं माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्माण कार्य पर लगाए गये प्रतिबन्ध के कारण हुआ। विपक्षी की ओर से न तो यह कथन किया गया कि किन फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत उसकी परियोजना के कार्यों में विलम्ब हुआ और न ही फोर्स मैज्योर की बाबत कोई साक्ष्य me Page 2 a दाखिल किया गया है, जिससे की विदित हो कि परियोजना की भूमि पर कार्य बाधित था |

इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /20:7 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में निर्णय के पृष्ठ संख्या-234 एवं प्रस्तर t0 A फोर्स मैज्योर को निम्नवत्‌ परिभाषित किया है:- Force majeure shall mean a case of war, flood, drought, fire, cyclone, earthquake or any other calamity caused by nature. उपरोक्त फोर्स मैज्योर के परिभाषा से यह we है कि फोर्स मैज्योर वह स्थिति है, जिसमें की युद्ध, बाढ़, सूखा, आग, तूफान, भूकम्प या अन्य प्रकृतिक आपदा आई हो, प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में ऐसी कोई परिस्थिति उत्पन्न नहीं हुई और विपक्षी ऐसी दशा में वह इस तर्क का लाभ पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है। विपक्षी द्वारा कोविड-49 को फोर्स मैज्योर की श्रेणी में माने जाने का कथन किया गया है। अतः वर्तमान परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए कोविड-49 को फोर्स मैज्योर की श्रेणी में माना जाना उचित होगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु do 4 निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु संख्या-2 शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा कहा गया है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है, जिस कारण जमा धनराशि मय ब्याज वापस दिलाये जाने का अनुरोध किया गया है। दूसरी ओर विपक्षी का कहना है कि वह परियोजना को पूर्ण करने के लिए प्रयासरत हैं और 'सितम्बर 2024 तक कब्जा दे देंगे। जहाँ तक क्रेता द्वारा रिफण्ड के अनुरोध का प्रश्न है, इस विषय में रेरा अधिनियम के प्राविधानों को समग्र रूप से पढ़ा जाना आवश्यक है, ताकि सभी पक्षों के मत को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एक संतुलित निर्णय लिया जा सकें। रेरा एक्ट की धारा 48 (॥) में प्राविधान है कि —

Section 768 (I) “If 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. इस प्रकार क्रेता को यह अधिकार है कि यदि उन्हें एग्रीमेंट के अनुरूप कब्जा नही मिलता तो वह अपनी जमा धनराशि को ब्याज सहित वापिस माँग सकते हैं अथवा मासिक दर से ब्याज प्राप्त करते हुए परियोजना में बने रहें। रेरा अधिनियम की धारा 34 में रेरा के अन्य “फंग्शन्स” के साथ-साथ "fo ensure compliance of the obligations cast upon the promoters, the allottees and the real estate agents under this Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder" भी उल्लेख है।

इसी प्रकार धारा 32 में रियल gee सेक्टर के विकास हेतु अथॉरिटी के उत्तरदायित्यों में निम्न भी सम्मिलित हैं :- “32 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 of the competent authority, as the case may be, on,— (a)protection of interest of the allottees, promoter and real estate agent,....... (any other issue that the Authority may think necessary for the promotion of the real estate sector.” उक्त प्राविधानों से यह स्पष्ट है कि “रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर” के स्वस्थ विकास को सुनिश्चित करने के लिए इसके सभी eH Brose के हितों को समग्र रूप से देखते हुए समुचित निर्णय लेने का उत्तरदायित्व इस ऑथरिटी का है। इस क्रम में मा. मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा नीलकमल mg सबअरबन wife. बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया, जिसमें रेरा अधिनियम Page 4 वैद्यानिकता के सम्बंध में निर्णय दिया गया था, के प्रस्तर 424 में मा. उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निम्न संवीक्षण किया —

#[24., The entire scheme of the RERA is required to be kept in mind. It is already submitted during the course of hearing that in many cases helpless allottees had approached consumer forum, High Courts, Apex Court in a given fact situation of the case. The courts have been passing orders by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the allottees, and issuing directions for timely completion of project, transit accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth. Under RERA now this function is assigned to the authority, tribunal. An appeal lies to the High Court. Under one umbrella, under one regulation and one law all the issues are tried to be resolved. Provisions of Section 77 refers to power to adjudicate. A District Judge is conferred with the power to adjudicate compensation under Sections /2, /4, J8 and /9, A promoter could very well put up his case before the adjudicator who deals with the issues in the light of the fact situation of each case. Therefore, there should not be any apprehension that mechanically compensation would be awarded against a promoter on failure to complete the development work.” उक्त से स्पष्ट है कि सभी पक्षों को सुनने के बाद, यद्यपि समय से इकाई न मिलने की दशा में आवंटी का अपनी धनराशि ब्याज सहित मांगने का अधिकार है, तथापि उक्त वर्णित संवीक्षा को देखते हुए अथॉरिटी, प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों, के आधार पर ‘by moulding reliefs by granting interest, compensation to the _allottees, and_issuing directions for timely

completion of project, transit_ accommodation during completion of project, so on and so forth’ के अनुरूप आदेश पारित किए जा सकते हैं। एलोटीज द्वारा धनराशि वापस किए जाने व परियोजना में बने रहने वाले एलोटीज के हितों में सन्तुलन के प्रसंग में “चित्रा शर्मा बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इण्डिया” (744 / 2047) के निर्णय में मा. सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने निर्णय के प्रस्तर 40 में निम्न ऑबजरवेशन किया है :-

40. As we have stated earlier, an amount of Rs 750 crores is lying in deposit before this Court pursuant to the interim directions, on which interest has accrued. The home buyers have earnestly sought the issuance of interim directions to facilitate a pro-rata disbursement of this amount to those of the home buyers who seek a refund. "We are keenly conscious of the fact that the claim of the home buyers who seek a refund of monies deserves to be considered with empathy. Yet, having given our anxious consideration to the plea and on the balance, we are not inclined to accede to it for more than one reason. Firstly ...........---- Secondly, 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."

मा. उच्च न्यायालय एवं सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा उक्त प्रस्तरों में उद्धरत “ऑबजरवेशनस्‌” एवं रेरा एक्ट की समग्र व्यवस्था को देखते हुए यह भी स्पष्ट है कि यदि विलम्ब के प्रत्येक मामले में धनराशि लौटाने का ही निर्णय लिया जाये तो निश्चय ही यह अधिनियम के “ऑबजेक्टिव” तथा “स्कीम” के अनुरूप न होगा। रिफण्ड का निर्णय लेते समय प्रत्येक मामले की “यूनीकनेस” प्रकरण के समस्त तथ्यों यथा “कन्सट्रक्शन” की स्थिति, कम्पलीशन की “टाईम लाईन”, driest के द्वारा ऑफर ऑफ पजेशन के “कमिटमेन्ट” की स्थिति, अन्य “WH होल्डर्स”, विशेष रूप से परियोजना के साथ बने रहने वाले “एलॉटीज” पर प्रभाव, “प्रस्तावित पज़ेशन डेट” के विषय में “कन्सेन्सस्‌” आदि पर विचार किया जाना न्यायहित में होगा। dV Page 6 wb गठन के सम्बन्ध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-940 /207 बिक्रम चटर्जी एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 23.07.20I9 को परित आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-24 के प्रस्तर-420 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- 20

It is apparent that RERA intends protection of home-buyers and aims at completion of the buildings. The buildings have to be completed, for that,we are required to pass orders. We have already assigned the task to NBCC for completion of buildings as the promoters/builders have failed to complete the building within the time fixed and the time which could have been extended. Now, more than 0 years have passed and buyers were given the assurances that they would get flats within three years period by the promoter/builder.The maximum time fixed in RERA has also expired and extension could not have been beyond | year. उक्तानुसार यह स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए है और उसका लक्ष्य यह है कि प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा बिल्डिंग के समस्त विकास कार्यों को पूर्ण कराते हुए गृहक्रेताओं को उनका आवास, फ्लैट मिल सके | तत्क्रमानुसार आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-255 के प्रस्तर-437 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- The provisions of RERA are beneficial to the home buyers and are intended to insulate them from fraudulent action, ensures completion of the building and it is the duty of the court to protect and ensure the home buyers’interest and at the same time to hold them responsible for the duties enjoined upon them under the said statute. We are not absolving the home buyers from the discharge of their liability if any. At the same time, they have the right of enforcement of their right for compensation Page 7 due to undue delay in completion of the project.

उक्त आब्जर्वेशन में यह भी स्पष्ट किया गया है कि रेरा के प्राविधान गृहकेताओं के लिए लाभकारी हैं और किसी प्रकार के विश्वासघात होने से आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए हैं एवं बिल्डिंग को पूर्ण कराने हेतु निगरानी का कार्य रेरा का है और पक्षकारों के कर्तव्यों एवं उत्तरदायित्व अधिनियम में तय किये गये हैं। यह भी लाभ दिया गया है कि परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर गृहक्रेताओं का यह अधिकार होगा कि वह विलम्ब के लिए परियोजना पूर्ण होने तक नियमानुसार ब्याज पा सके। इसी के पश्चात्‌ पुनः रेरा के सम्बंध में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा सिविल अपील संख्या-43 ,/ 2049 पायनियर ada aes एंड इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड एवं अन्य बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया एवं अन्य में दिनांक 09.08.209 को आदेश के पृष्ठ संख्या-86 के प्रस्तर-29 में निम्नवत्‌ उल्लेख किया है:- The object of RERA is to see that real estate projects come to fruition within the stated period and to see that allottees of such projects are not left in the lurch and are finally able to realise their dream of a home, or be paid compensation if such dream _ is shattered, or at least get back monies that they had advanced towards the project with interest. At the same time, recalcitrant allottees are not to be tolerated, as they must also perform their part of the bargain, namely, to pay instalments as and when they become due and payable.

उक्त आदेश में महत्वपूर्ण आब्जर्वेशन यह दिया गया है कि रेरा का लक्ष्य है कि वह अपनी निगरानी एवं देखरेख में प्रोमोटर द्वारा भू-सम्पदा परियोजना को एक निर्धारित अवधि में फलस्वरूप पूर्ण करा ली जाये, जिससे कि आवंटी अपने फ्लैटस्‌ पाने से वंचित न हो जाये और उन्हें अपने सपनों का घर मिल सके, साथ ही साथ दुर्दम्य (Recalcitrant) आवंटियों को भी परियोजना पूर्ण कराने का सहयोग न करने में उत्तरदायित्व माना है। यह भी कहा गया है कि आवंटी अपने कर्तव्यों को सम्यक रूप से पूर्ण कर] 2 | Page 8 a रूप से जैसे कि किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करना सुनिश्चित कर लें, जिससे कि परियोजना को पूर्ण किया जा सके। ऐसे में उपरोक्त माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित की गयी विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार यह स्पष्ट है कि रेरा का मुख्य उद्देश्य, परियोजना को फलस्वरूप प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा पूर्ण कराना और आवंटियों द्वारा सम्यक रूप से अपनी किश्तों का भुगतान सुनिश्चित कर लिया जाना, जिससे कि परियोजना को निर्धारित अवधि में पूर्ण कराया जा सके। आवंटियों के हितों को संरक्षित करने के लिए परियोजना विलम्ब होने पर ब्याज का लाभ भी आवंटियों को देय होगा, परन्तु इससे पूर्व शिकायतकर्ता का यह भी उत्तरदायित्व होगा कि वह अपनी किश्तों का समय से भुगतान करें।

* विपक्षी द्वारा 30.09.202 तक कब्जा दिये जाने कथन किया गया है। चूंकि परियोजना भी पूर्णता की ओर है तथा परियोजना के अन्य आवंटी कब्जे हेतु प्रतिक्षारत हैं। कोविड-49 को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए एवं समस्त परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए न्यायहित में यह उचित होगा शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 30.09.2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण होने पर कब्जा लें। उसके बाद वे स्वयं यूनिट के भविष्य हेतु उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय ले सकते हैं। वैसे भी शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा परियोजना में निवेश कब्जे हेतु किया गया था, जिसका उपयोग विपक्षी द्वारा परियोजना के निर्माण में किया गया है। निश्चय ही परियोजना में बने रहने की दशा में एलॉटीज़ को विलम्ब हेतु नियमानुसार ब्याज प्रोमोटर्स द्वारा देय होगा। यदि विपक्षी द्वारा दिनांक 30.09.2020 तक शिकायतकर्ता को परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है तो शिकायतकर्ता सितम्बर 2024 के पश्चात अपनी जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस पाने के अधिकारी होगा | निस्तारण बिन्दु Wo-2 तद्नुसार निस्तारित किया जाता है। निस्तारण बिन्दु to 3 शिकायतकर्ता का कहना है कि विपक्षी द्वारा अभी तक कब्जा नहीं दिया गया है। शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा अपने कथन के समर्थन में आवंटन पत्र»अपार्टमेंट क्रेता अनुबन्ध दिनांक 26.09.20i5 की पूर्ण प्रति दाखिल नहीं की गयी है, जिससे यह स्पष्ट हो सके कि शिकायतकर्ता अनुबन्ध के अनुसार किस तिथि तक कब्जा पाने का अधिकारी थे। Page 9 इस सम्बंध में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के सिविल अपील संख्या 3533-3534 /20:7 teri ores इन्फास्ट्रक्चर्स एवं अन्य बनाम ट्रेवर डेलिमा एवं अन्य के प्रस्तर 45 में स्पष्ट रूप से निर्धारित किया गया है कि-:

5.Moreover, a person cannot be made to wait indefinitely for the possession of the flats allotted to them and they are entitled to seek the refund of the amount paid by them, along with compensation. Although we are aware of the fact that when there was no delivery period stipulated in the agreement, a reasonable time has to be taken into consideration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, a time period of 3 years would have been reasonable for completion of the contract i.e., the possession was required to be given by last quarter of 204. Further there is no dispute as to the fact that until now there is no redevelopment of the property. Hence, in view of the above discussion, which draw us to an irresistible conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the appellants and accordingly the issue is answered. उपरोक्त माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के आर्ब्जेवेशन एवं विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार फ्लैट के कब्जे हेतु किसी व्यक्ति को अनिश्चित समय तक प्रतीक्षा नहीं करा सकता, जहाँ अनुबन्ध में कब्जे की तिथि नहीं दी गयी है वहाँ तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए 3 वर्ष का समयावधि इस कार्य को पूर्ण कराये जाने हेतु उचित समय माना है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में अनुबन्ध में निष्पादन की तिथि 26. 09.205 है। तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए 4 वर्ष में शिकायतकर्ता को फ्लैट का कब्जा दिया जाना उचित समयावधि था। ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता अपने फ्लैट का कब्जा दिनांक 26.09.2049 तक प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी था, परन्तु विपक्षी द्वारा कब्जा नहीं दिया गया।

यह स्पष्ट है कि परियोजना विलम्बित है और ऐसे में शिकायतकर्ता दिनांक 26. 09.209 से ओ.सी /सी.सी अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि पर विलंबित अवधि का ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी है। ४ P. -—__e _C[—rranmuvae Sage 30 इस सम्बंध में उल्लेखनीय है कि महाराष्ट्र उच्च न्यायालय के नीलकमल रियलटर्स सबअर्बन प्रा.लि. आदि बनाम यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया की याचिका में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है Ar Section 8()(0) lays down that if the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an aprtment due to discontinuance of his business as a developer on account of suspension or revocation of the registration under the Act or for any other reason, he is liable on demand to the allottees, in case the allottee wishes to withdraw from the project, without prejudice in this behalf including compensation. If the allottee does not intent to withdraw from the project he shall be paid by the promoter interest for every month's delay till handing over of the possession,. The requirement to pay interest is not a penalty as the payment of interest is compensatory in nature in the light of the delay suffered by the allottee who has paid for his apartment but has not received possession of it. The obligation imposed on the promoter to pay interest till such time as the apartment is handed over to him is not unreasonable.

अतः उपरोक्त निर्णय के आलोक में यह स्पष्ट है कि उ0प्र0 रेरा के प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत प्रमोटर व क्रेता के बीच किये गये अनुबंध के अनुरूप विलम्ब तथा मूल धनराशि पर ब्याज देय होगा, क्‍योंकि प्रमोटर्स द्वारा उक्त धनराशि का उपभोग किया गया है। जहां तक देय ब्याज दर का प्रश्न है, राज्य सरकार द्वारा भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम 2046 के अधीन दिनांक 47.0.2048 को भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन और विकास) (विक्रय /पट्टा के लिए करार) नियमावली 20i8 अधिसूचित की गयी हैं। इसमें संलग्नक के रूप में दिये गये विक्रय / पट्टा विलेख के प्रारूप के प्रस्तर 9 में प्रमोटर्स के डिफाल्ट प्रकरण (Events of default) परिभाषित है, जिसमें प्रस्तर 9.26) में प्रमोटर के डिफाल्टर होने की स्थिति में आवंटी हेतु प्राविधानित है कि:-- dV The Allottee shall have the option of terminating the Agreement in which case the Promoter shall be liable to refund the entire money paid by the Allottee under any head whatsoever towards the purchase of the apartment, along with interest at the rate equal to MCLR (Marginal Cost of Lending Rate) on home loan of State Bank of India +l% unless provided otherwise under the Rules. within forty-five days of receiving the termination notice: यही दर आवंटियों के द्वारा डिफॉल्ट की स्थिति में भी wea 9.30) में निर्धारित है। उक्त प्राविधान को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए आवंटी को MCLR+ प्रतिशत की ब्याज दर पर विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत होता है।

जहां तक किस अवधि तक का ब्याज दिलाये जाने का प्रश्न है। इस सम्बंध में सिविल अपील tio 6649-50 /20:8 सुपरटेक लिमिटेड बनाम रजनी गोयल में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा अभिनिर्धारित किया गया है कि :- " the period of Interest should close on April 20l6 when the Full Occupancy Certificate was obtained as per the admission of the Respondent — Purchaser herself in Para 40) of the Consumer Complaint, wherein she has admitted that the Appellant —Builder had obtained the Completion Certificate as late as April 206. The Respondent - Purchaser could not have any further grievance after April 206 with respect to delay in handing over possession, The Respondent — Purchaser ought not to be allowed to reap the benefits of her own delay in taking possession. " उपरोक्त विधि व्यवस्था के अनुसार ओ.सी. / सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता विलम्ब ब्याज पाने का अधिकारी होगा। ऐसी दशा में शिकायतकर्ता ओ.सी. / सी.सी. मिलने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो तक की अवधि तक विलम्ब के ब्याज पाने के अधिकारी होंगे। Page 2

जैसा कि सभी जन-मानस को ज्ञात है कि विश्व के सभी देशों में कोरोना वायरस जैसी महामारी का संक्रमण व्यापक स्तर पर फैला हुआ है। ऐसी स्थिति में कोविड-49 (Corona Virus Disease) की रोकथाम एवं नियंत्रण हेतु सम्पूर्ण देश में दिनांक 24.03.2020 को लॉकडाउन की घोषणा की गयी थी, लॉकडाउन की परिस्थिति में सभी कार्यों पर प्रतिबन्ध लगा दिया गया था, जिससे की सभी क्षेत्र प्रभावित हुए और इसमें रियल एस्टेट सेक्टर भी सम्मिलित है। न्यायहित में इसी को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 24.03.2020 से दिनांक 30. 09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु कोई ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा आवंटियों को नहीं दिया जाएगा। तद्नुसार बिन्दु संख्या-3 निस्तारित किया जाता है। उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं का निस्तारण करते हुए निम्न आदेश पारित किये जाते हैं। आदेश i, विपक्षी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह शिकायतकर्तागण की यूनिट्स की समस्त सुविधाओं को आवंटन-पत्र » अनुबन्ध के अनुसार पूर्ण कराकर दिनांक 30.09.2020 तक ओ.सी./ सी.सी. सहित कब्जा देना सुनिश्चित करें और देय स्टाम्प शुल्क प्राप्त कर नियमानुसार रजिस्ट्री करायें।

2. विपक्षी, शिकायतकर्ता को दिनांक 26.09.2049 से ओ.सी / सीसी प्राप्त होने अथवा कब्जा ऑफर किये जाने, जो भी बाद में हो की तिथि तक शिकायतकर्ता द्वारा जमा धनराशि पर MCLRH प्रतिशत की दर से विलम्बित अवधि का ब्याज अदा करना सुनिश्चित करें। साथ ही यह भी स्पष्ट किया जाता है कि ब्याज की यह धनराशि अंतिम भुगतान की धनराशि में समायोजित की जायेगी और यदि ब्याज की धनराशि देय धनराशि से अधिक है, तो नियमानुसार शिकायतकर्ता को वापस की जाए। अन्य शिकायतकर्तागण के प्रकरण में अनुबन्ध के अनुरूप उपरोक्‍क्तानुसार गणना की जाएगी। कोविड-49 की रोकथाम एवं नियंत्रण हेतु देश में हुए लॉकडाउन को दृष्टिगत रखते हुए दिनांक 24.03.2020 से दिनांक 30.09.2020 तक परियोजना में हुए विलम्ब हेतु ब्याज की गणना नहीं की जाएगी। 3. विपक्षी, उपरोक्तानुसार कब्जा ऑफर पत्र ओ.सी. मिलने के उपरान्त जारी करना सुनिश्चित करें। IV Page 3 विपक्षी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि रेरा अधिनियम 2046 के धारा 2 (ai) के अन्तर्गत ब्याज को परिभाषित किया गया है कि रेरा लागू होने के बाद यदि कोई ब्याज दर आवंटी के डिफॉल्ट से प्रोमोटर द्वारा लिया जाता है, तो उसी दर से ब्याज प्रोमोटर द्वारा डिफॉल्ट किये जाने पर भी आवंटी को दिया जायेगा। राज्य सरकार द्वारा अधिसूचित ब्याज दर MCLR+ प्रतिशत है। 5. विपक्षी द्वारा शिकायतकर्तागण को दिनांक 30.09.2024 तक परियोजना पूर्ण कर कब्जा नहीं दिया जाता है, तो शिकायतकर्तागण को यह अधिकार होगा कि वह दिनांक 30.09.2024 के पश्चात्‌ जमा धनराशि ब्याज सहित वापस पाने के सम्बन्ध में अपनी शिकायत पुनः Rr पोर्टल पर दर्ज करा सकेंगे। इस आदेश का उल्लघंन भू-सम्पदा (विनियमन एवं विकास) अधिनियम, 2046

की धारा-63 तथा अन्य सुसंगत प्राविधानों के अन्तर्गत दंडनीय होगा। आदेश पोर्टल पर अपलोड किया जाये। दिनांक:- 03/06 / 2024 (बलविन्दर कुमार) (सदस्य) उ0प्र0 भू-सम्पदा विनियामक प्राधिकरण Page 4