Haryana RERA Orders Savyasachi Infrastructure To Refund Rs. 11 Lakhs With Interest For Selling Unit In Unlicensed Area
Pranav B Prem
In a significant ruling upholding the rights of homebuyers, the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA), Gurugram, has directed Savyasachi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to refund the entire amount of Rs. 11,00,000, along with interest at the rate of 11.10% per annum, to a complainant who had booked a commercial unit in its project “Amaya Greens.” The Authority found that the unit in question was located in an area that was neither licensed by the Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP), Haryana nor registered under the RERA Act, thereby rendering the sale of the unit unauthorized.
The matter was heard by Justice Ashok Sangwan (Member, HRERA Gurugram), who proceeded to adjudicate the case ex-parte after the respondent failed to appear on multiple dates despite proper service of notice, including through public newspaper publication.
Also Read: IOCL Is PSU, No Intent To Evade Excise Duty Can Be Alleged: CESTAT
The complainant, Mr. Karam Singh, had booked a shop unit (SCO B-10) in the “Amaya Greens” project located at Sector 3, Gurugram, under the Deen Dayal Jan Awas Yojna. He paid a booking amount of Rs. 2,00,000 on 2nd September 2021, and later signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 3rd December 2021, agreeing to pay a total sale consideration of Rs. 21,40,000. By relying on repeated representations made by the builder that all required licenses and approvals were in place, the complainant further paid an amount of Rs. 11,00,000, which was more than 80% of the total cost. The builder promised to execute the buyer agreement within two months and deliver possession within a year from the date of MoU. However, neither the buyer agreement was executed nor the possession offered.
The complainant alleged that despite persistent requests and follow-ups, the builder refused to allow him to visit the site and failed to explain the project’s status. Eventually, when the complainant sought details of the MoU, he discovered that the builder had arbitrarily altered terms and conditions without his knowledge. Moreover, it came to light that the builder had charged him based on the super area instead of the carpet area, in violation of the RERA Act, 2016 and the HRERA Rules, 2017.
The Authority took note of these allegations and referred to its earlier findings in the related case Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. Savyasachi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (CR/5512/2022). In that case, an enquiry officer was appointed to verify the status of the “Amaya Greens” project. The officer's report, submitted on 23rd December 2023, revealed that although the DTCP Haryana had granted a license for only 9.0375 acres of land (under License No. 37 of 2017), the total advertised project area was 12.1625 acres. Crucially, the remaining 3.125 acres, including the plot booked by the complainant, were neither licensed nor registered with the Authority.
The report further recorded that a completion certificate had been issued only for the licensed portion of the project. The units falling within the unlicensed 3.125 acres were therefore outside the legal scope of any legitimate sale. Additionally, the enquiry officer noted that there was no sign of ongoing construction in the area, and the landowner had revoked the collaboration agreement with the developer due to internal disputes.
Based on this evidence, the Authority held that the complainant had validly chosen to withdraw from the project due to non-completion and lack of approvals. It ruled that the case clearly fell within the ambit of Section 18(1)(a) of the RERA Act, which entitles an allottee to seek a refund of the amount paid, along with interest, if the promoter fails to deliver possession in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The judgment quoted Section 18 to affirm the complainant’s right: “If the promoter fails to complete or is unable to give possession of an apartment, plot, or building… he shall be liable on demand to the allottees… to return the amount received by him in respect of that apartment, plot, building… with interest at such rate as may be prescribed.”
The Authority also relied on the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Newtech Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. [2021-2022 (1) RCR (Civil), 357], which was reaffirmed in M/s Sana Realtors v. Union of India [SLP (Civil) No. 13005 of 2020]. In both decisions, the apex court held that a buyer’s right to seek a refund under Section 18(1)(a) is absolute and unconditional, and not contingent on any other stipulation.
Taking into account that more than 2.5 years had elapsed since the MoU, and that the builder had neither offered possession nor completed construction, the Authority noted that: “The allottee cannot be expected to wait endlessly for taking possession of the unit which is allotted to him and for which he has paid more than 80% of the sale consideration.”
It further observed that the builder had made no effort to obtain licensing or registration for the remaining 3.125 acres and had shown no intent to complete the project.
Accordingly, the Authority invoked its powers under Section 37 of the RERA Act, directing the respondent to refund the entire amount of Rs. 11,00,000 received from the complainant. The refund is to be made along with interest at the rate of 11.10% per annum, calculated from the date of each payment until the actual date of refund. The interest rate was determined as per Rule 15 of the Haryana RERA Rules, which mandates the SBI's marginal cost of lending rate (MCLR) plus 2%. As on the date of the order (2nd April 2025), the MCLR was 9.10%, bringing the prescribed rate to 11.10%.
The builder has been granted 90 days to comply with this directive, failing which legal consequences would follow. Additionally, the Authority instructed its Planning Branch to initiate appropriate action under the Act for violation of Section 3(1), which prohibits sale of units in unregistered and unlicensed projects.
Appearance
For the Complainant: Sh. Gaurav Rawat (Advocate)
For the Respondents: None
Cause Title: Mr. Karam Singh V. M/s Savyasachi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & anr
Case No: Complainant No. 4465 of 2023
Coram: Shri Ashok Sangwan [Member]
[Read/Download order]
