| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | Section 3g read with Section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Ranadeep Sarkar & Koyel Chakraborty Alias Koyel Sarkar
Respondent: M/S. Cancun Construction vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a previous final order concerning non-compliance with payments. During the hearing, the Authority noted that the required funds had not been remitted, leading the Authority to express serious concern regarding the disregard of its directives. Upon the promoter's request for a payment extension, and with the complainants agreeing to accept the payment under the Authority's supervision, the Authority granted a final opportunity. The operative directions issued are as follows: 1. The promoter is directed to make the outstanding principal amount in five (5) equal consecutive monthly installments, commencing from June 2024 and concluding by October 2024. 2. Crucially, the Authority stipulated that failure to pay any installment in due time will result in the immediate imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) and other stringent punitive actions under the RERA Act. 3. Furthermore, the promoter is prohibited from alienating or transferring any of the properties until the matter is finally disposed of. The Authority reserved the right to review the matter and fixed a date for further hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016; Rule 26 of WBRERA Rules, 2021; Order XXI of the CPC. |
Complainant: Ranadeep sarkar & Koyel chalraborty Arias Koyel Sarkar
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order previously passed by the Authority. During the hearing, it was noted that the respondent failed to comply with the Authority's directive within the stipulated 45-day period. Despite the respondent submitting arguments regarding frozen accounts and challenging the order in the High Court, the Authority found no basis for delay or non-compliance. Consequently, the Authority ruled that, due to the failure to adhere to the previous order, the matter must be sent for mandatory execution. The Authority directs that the matter be treated and executed as a decree of a Civil Court. Specifically, the order mandates the Secretary of the West Bengal RERA Authority to send certified copies of the order and the original final order to the Registrar of the District Court, North 24 Parganas. The court is directed to execute the decree under Rule 26 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. Furthermore, the Authority emphasized the urgency of the matter, directing that necessary steps must be taken to ensure execution within one month from the date of receiving the certified copies, citing precedent from the Supreme Court of India. | |
| X-Y-Z | RERA Act, 2016; Rule 26 of W (Regulation and Development) Rules '2021'; Section 4(2)(1)(D) of the RERA Act. |
Complainant: Ranadeep Sarkar & Koyel Chakraborty Alias Koyel Sarkar
Respondent: M/S. Cancun Construction vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a previous final order concerning non-payment. During the hearing, the Authority noted that despite repeated directives, the required amount has not been paid, and the failure to comply was deemed intentional. Given the persistent non-compliance, the Authority invoked Section 4(2)(1)(D) of the RERA Act, which mandates that a percentage of realized funds for a real estate project must be deposited into a dedicated RERA Account/Escrow Account. Consequently, the Authority bypassed the parties and issued direct instructions to the concerned bank manager. The bank was directed to: 1. Freeze multiple specified accounts belonging to the developer at the branch. 2. Submit a notarized affidavit within seven days, confirming which specific account serves as the official RERA Account/Escrow Account for the project. The Authority concluded that recovery of the dues must be made directly from this designated RERA Account, ensuring compliance with the statutory mandate and facilitating the execution of the outstanding order. A date was fixed for further proceedings. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 38 read with Section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Avijit Kumar Majumder and Soma Majumder
Respondent: M/s. Cancun Construction vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a previous final order concerning non-compliance with payment obligations. During the hearing, the Authority noted that the required amount has not been paid, and the failure of the company's partners to appear or remit funds was observed. While the Authority initially considered imposing stringent punitive action under the RERA Act for non-compliance, it granted a final opportunity to the promoter. The Authority hereby directs the payment of the balance principal amount, along with accrued interest, in five (5) equal consecutive monthly installments, commencing from June 2024 and concluding by October 2024. Crucially, the order stipulates that failure to adhere to the installment schedule will result in the immediate imposition of a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- and other stringent punitive measures under the Act. Furthermore, the promoter is prohibited from alienating or transferring any of the properties until the matter is fully disposed of. The Authority has fixed a date for reviewing the compliance status. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 26 of WBREA Rules, 2021; Order XXI CPC, 1908; Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Avijit Kumar Majumder and Soma Mqjumder
Respondent: M/S. Cancun Constructions / Calcun Constructions vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order previously passed by the Authority. During the hearing, it was noted that the compliance stipulated in the original order was not achieved within the mandated period. The Authority observed that efforts to recover the principal and interest amount from the frozen accounts were unsuccessful, as the bank reported a nil balance in the relevant accounts. Consequently, the Authority invoked Rule 26 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2021. This rule mandates that the Authority's order must be enforced as if it were a decree of a civil court. Therefore, the Authority directed that the matter be immediately sent for execution to the Principal Civil Court, North 24 Parganas. The Secretary of the Authority was directed to transmit certified copies of the order and the original final order to the Registrar of the District Court. Finally, the Authority mandated that necessary steps must be taken to execute the order expeditiously, specifically within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copies by the executing civil forum. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 40 of the RERA Act, 2016; Rule 26 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2017; Section 4(2)(1XD) of the RERA Act; and Section 4(2X1XD) of the RERA Act. |
Complainant: Avijit Kumar Majumder and Soma Majumder
Respondent: M/s. Cancun Construction vs WBRERA |
This order was passed during an execution hearing concerning the non-compliance with previous directives issued by the Authority. The Authority noted that the developer has repeatedly failed to execute the final order and subsequent compliance orders, despite the complainant asserting that no payment has been made. Finding the developer to be negligent and intentionally avoiding compliance, the Authority invoked Section 40 of the RERA Act, 2016. Given that the project has a mandatory RERA Account/Escrow Account, the Authority determined that recovery must be facilitated through the concerned bank. Consequently, the Authority issued stringent directions to the Bank Manager of the specified branch. The Bank Manager was directed to: 1. Freeze specific accounts, and any other accounts held by the developer for the project. 2. Submit a notarized affidavit within seven days, confirming which specific account serves as the official RERA Account/Escrow Account for the project. The action taken mandates the bank to ensure the recovery of the funds owed to the complainant from the designated escrow account. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 4O, Section 38, and Section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Manikuntal Das
Respondent: Evanie Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order passed on June 23, 2023, concerning non-refunded amounts. The Authority, noting the lack of compliance, directs the matter for immediate execution under Rule 25 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2021. The execution is mandated to be carried out by the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas, treating the due amounts as arrears of land revenue. The WBRERA Secretary is directed to send certified copies of the original order and the complaint petition to the District Magistrate within 15 days. The District Magistrate must execute the order within four weeks of receiving these documents and submit a compliance report within six weeks. Furthermore, as the previous order was not fully complied with, the Authority imposes a penalty of ₹5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakhs) on the respondent, payable within four weeks. The Authority emphasizes the urgency of the matter, referencing Supreme Court directives, and fixes the case for compliance review in June 2024. The complainant is at liberty to pursue the recovery process directly with the District Magistrate. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Section 29(4) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Manish Shaw
Respondent: Dhoot Realtors Private Limited vs WBRERA |
The Authority admitted the complaint, which details numerous alleged deficiencies in the real estate development. The complainant raised serious concerns regarding incomplete construction, including missing boundary walls, unfinished common areas, and damaged infrastructure. Key allegations include the failure to implement mandated environmental and safety systems, such as proper Sewage Treatment Plants (STP), wastewater recycling, rainwater harvesting, CCTV surveillance, and solar energy installations. Furthermore, the complaint highlights the lack of essential amenities, including a medical unit, adequate open space, and a dedicated office facility for the Residents' Association. Instead of passing a final judgment, the Authority directed the matter for further hearing. The order mandates procedural compliance from both parties. The complainant is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint with supporting documents. Conversely, the respondent must file a written response affidavit, addressing the allegations and annexing supporting documentation. Both parties are given 15 days to submit these affidavits, and a date of 09.04.2026 has been fixed for the next hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 63 of RERA, 2016; Rule 25 of RER Rules, 2021; Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913; Rule 26; Section 40 of RERA, 2016 read with Rule 25; Rule 25 of RER Rules, 2021; Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. |
Complainant: Ruchita Sethi and Nikhil Shah
Respondent: Soumita Construction h/t. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the non-compliance with a previous final order dated 15.06.2023, wherein a refund of funds was mandated. The Authority noted that the respondent failed to adhere to the stipulated refund timeline, leading the Authority to conclude that the previous order was violated. Consequently, the Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) on the respondent for non-compliance with the earlier directive. To ensure the recovery of the principal amount, the Authority directed the matter to be executed through the District Magistrate of the concerned jurisdiction (North 24-Parganas). This execution must proceed by initiating a Certificate Case under the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. The District Magistrate is mandated to execute the original order within one month of receiving the necessary documents and submit a compliance report within six weeks. The Authority emphasized the need for speedy execution, aligning with judicial directives, and confirmed that the complainant is at liberty to pursue the matter directly with the District Magistrate's office. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 17 and Rule 18 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Ashoke De
Respondent: Usashi Realstates pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a booked residential unit and the subsequent non-refund of the principal amount paid. The Authority noted that the developer failed to appear or submit a written response despite due service of notice, leading the Authority to proceed with an *ex-parte* hearing. The core finding is that the developer failed miserably in its obligation to hand over possession of the apartment within the stipulated timeline. Consequently, the Authority held the developer liable for the refund of the entire principal amount paid by the allottee. The developer is hereby ordered to refund the principal sum of Rs. 3,48,489. Furthermore, the developer must pay interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest period commences from the respective dates of payments made by the allottee until the date of actual realization. The refund must be completed via bank transfer within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. The allottee is granted the liberty to file an Execution Application if the developer defaults in compliance. | |
| X-Y-Z | RERA Act, 2016. The Act is repeatedly invoked throughout the order, establishing the jurisdiction of the Authority and governing the disposal of the complaint matter. |
Complainant: Amarnath Banerjee (and Smt. Sanjukta Banerjee, Deepnil Banerjee, and Shri Debojit Banerjee - subsequently included)
Respondent: Iris Construction & Ors. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the fresh disposal of a complaint matter following a directive from the West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT). Previously, the Authority had dismissed the case, but the WBREAT allowed the appeal, ruling that the subject matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Authority and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The Authority noted a related complaint filed by the opposing party. Considering that both matters involve the same parties and properties, the Authority directed that the two cases be heard *analogously* (together) to ensure proper dispute resolution. Procedurally, the Authority included necessary legal heirs and parties to ensure a complete adjudication. Key directives issued include: 1. The complainants are required to submit a notarized affidavit detailing their submissions within 15 days. 2. The opposing party must submit a notarized affidavit regarding the related complaint within 15 days. 3. The complainants must also submit a written response/affidavit to the related complaint within 15 days. The Authority fixed a date for further hearing, ensuring all parties comply with the affidavit submission requirements. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 13 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Abhijit Ghosh & Manasi Ghosh
Respondent: Riverbank Developers Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order, passed by the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority, addresses the failure of the developer to hand over possession of the apartment within the stipulated timeline. After considering the submissions of both parties, the Authority concluded that the developer failed in its primary obligation to deliver the property. Consequently, the developer is directed to refund the principal amount of Rs. 42,95,432/-. Crucially, the developer must also pay interest on this amount at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest period is calculated from the respective dates of payments made by the complainant until the date of actual realization. The Authority mandated that the complainant first provide the developer with a legible "no due certificate" and loan closure certificate from the bank. Upon receipt of these documents, the developer must ensure the full refund is made via bank transfer within 45 days. The order emphasizes that failure to comply will result in a daily penalty, which may cumulatively extend up to five percent of the estimated cost of the project. The matter is disposed of with these binding directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(4) of RERA Act, 2016; Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016; and Section 63 of RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Rajapantula Ramkrishna
Respondent: Evanie Infrastructure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the Authority after the respondent failed to appear despite due service of notice, leading the Authority to proceed *ex-parte*. The core dispute involved the failure to deliver possession of a booked flat within the stipulated timeline. The complainant had paid a total principal amount of Rs. 7,06,000 for the property. Finding that the respondent had failed miserably in their obligation to hand over possession, the Authority directed the refund of the entire principal amount. The respondent is hereby ordered to refund Rs. 7,06,000, along with interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. Crucially, the interest period must be calculated from the respective dates of all payments made by the complainant until the date of realization. The refund must be transferred via bank account within 45 days of the Authority receiving the order. The order also warns that failure to comply may result in a penalty up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Sunita Gupta
Respondent: Greentech lT City Pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
The Authority held an online hearing and took cognizance of the complainant's detailed affidavit. During the proceedings, the respondent proposed alternative flat(s), which the complainant accepted, provided the final selection was based on her choice and subsequent physical verification. Consequently, the Authority issued several directives to facilitate a mutual settlement. Firstly, both parties were granted a period of 15 days to conduct a thorough inspection of the proposed alternative flat(s). If, following this inspection, a mutual consensus is achieved, both parties must submit a Joint Notarized Affidavit detailing the terms and conditions of the settlement to the Authority within 30 days of receiving this order. Secondly, a contingency plan was established: if no consensus is reached, the respondent must file a Written Response on a Notarized Affidavit addressing the complainant's affidavit. This response must be submitted within 21 days of receiving the order. The Authority has fixed a subsequent date for further hearing and order. Both parties are directed to take proactive steps to complete the inspection process. | |
| X-Y-Z | Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. The Authority relies on the general provisions of the Act to determine jurisdiction and non-maintainability. |
Complainant: Shri. Alak Kumar Roy and Shri. Kanak Kumar Roy
Respondent: M/s. Gouri Group, Smt. Swati Choudhury, and Smt. Kabita Choudhury vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint filed before the Authority, concluding that the matter lacks jurisdiction under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016. After hearing both parties and reviewing submitted affidavits, the Authority determined that the dispute does not fall within the purview of RERA. The core finding is that the dispute primarily concerns the rights and obligations between landlords and the developer/promoter, which are governed by a Development Agreement and a General Power of Attorney. Enforcing these specific agreements is deemed outside the Authority's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Authority clarified the scope of RERA applicability. It noted that RERA provisions are applicable only when there is a clear relationship of "Promoter and Allottee," typically involving an Agreement for Sale and the payment of consideration. Since the complainant landlord did not pay any consideration to the promoter, the relationship does not qualify as that of an allottee. Consequently, the Authority dismissed the matter on the ground of non-maintainability, stating that the dispute must be addressed through the contractual agreements governing the relationship between the parties. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(4) of the Real Estate (ment) Act. Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 17 and 18 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Modassair Jawaid" " "' Complainant
Vs.
1) Cancun Constructions'
2) Sri. Debasis Biswas'
3) BoN Marque Pvt' Ltd"""" Respondents vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the Authority after proceeding *ex-parte*, noting the respondent's absence and failure to submit a written response despite due service of notice. The core dispute involved the complainant, who had executed an Agreement for Sale and paid substantial booking money and service charges for a specific flat. The complainant alleged that the booked property was subsequently occupied by a third party without due process, despite the agreements signed by the respondents. After hearing the complainant and reviewing the documents, the Authority concluded that the respondent had failed in their obligation and cheated the complainant by allocating the same flat to a third party. Consequently, the Authority ordered the respondent to refund the principal amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only). Furthermore, the respondent must pay interest on this amount at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2%/o. The refund must be transferred to the complainant's bank account within 45 days of receiving the order via email. The complainant is granted liberty to file an Execution Application if the order is not complied with. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 25 (RERA Rules, 2021); Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913; Rule 26 (W.B. RERA Rules, 2021); Order XXI (CPC, 1908); Section 40 (RERA Act, 2016) read with Rule 26. |
Complainant: Modassair Jawaid
Respondent: Cancun Constructions vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final directive passed by the Authority on 01.08.2023. During the hearing, it was noted that the non-compliance by the opposing party, despite due service of notice, necessitated immediate action. The Complainant stated that only a minimal amount had been refunded, leaving a substantial principal amount, along with accrued interest, totaling Rs. 4,25,000/- due. Since the stipulated period for compliance had lapsed, the Authority determined that further delay was unwarranted. Consequently, the Authority exercised its power to initiate execution proceedings. It directed that the matter be transferred to the Principal Civil Court, North 24 Parganas, for execution. This action is taken under Rule 26 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2021, which mandates that the Authority’s order be enforced as if it were a civil court decree. The Authority mandated the Secretary, WBRERA, to send certified copies of the order and the original complaint petition to the District Court Registrar, thereby formally commencing the legal process for recovery of the outstanding dues. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sections 31 (Jurisdiction), 18 (Completion of Project), and 49 (Refund/Compensation) of the RERA Act, 2016, are evoked. |
Complainant: Surmit De
Respondent: Ideal Real Estates Private Ltd. & Directors; Rajat Group of Companies vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the failure to deliver possession of a booked residential flat in a real estate project. The complainant alleges that despite paying a significant sum, the developer failed to meet the promised completion date, leading to a request for a refund of the principal amount along with interest. The Authority first addressed the procedural history, noting that the matter was previously filed before the erstwhile regulatory body. Citing a Supreme Court directive, the Authority confirmed that all complaints filed under the previous legislation stand transferred to and must be disposed of by the current Authority. Consequently, the Authority dismissed the older complaint and proceeded with the present petition. After hearing the complainant, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings. The core dispute remains the failure of the developer to complete the project and the subsequent transfer of the project to a third party. The Authority issued directions to both parties: The complainant must submit a notarized affidavit and supporting documents within 15 days. Similarly, the respondents must file a written response on a notarized affidavit within 15 days. The matter was fixed for further hearing and order on 08.08.2023. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Sibsankar Koley
Respondent: Satchidananda Mitra and Smt. Renu Bala Paul vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning a sale agreement for a residential flat, where the complainant alleges paying the full consideration amount and taking possession, but the developer failed to deliver the Completion Certificate (CC/OC) and allegedly engaged in unfair trade practices during the conveyance process. The complainant seeks a refund of the principal amount and accrued interest. Procedurally, the Authority noted that the matter was previously filed under the erstwhile regulatory framework. Citing a Supreme Court directive, the Authority confirmed that all such complaints are transferred and disposed of under the current RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority dismissed the previous complaint filing and proceeded with the present petition. After hearing the complainant, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings. The complainant was directed to submit a notarized affidavit with supporting documents and must amend the prayer to include a specific third-party entity. The respondent was directed to submit a written response on a notarized affidavit within 15 days. The matter was fixed for further hearing on 08.08.2023. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016, and Section 63 of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Ashutosh Mazumdar & smt. chandana Mazumdar
Respondent: Riverbank Developers Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a residential unit within the stipulated timeline. The allottees sought the refund of the principal amount paid, along with interest, under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA). The core dispute revolved around the date of allotment, as the developer attempted to argue that the original allotment was cancelled and re-allotted years later. The Authority, after examining the records, rejected this defense, finding no evidence of a fresh agreement or payment in the later year. Consequently, the Authority affirmed that the original allotment date must be considered for calculating interest. Finding that the developer failed its statutory obligation to hand over possession, the Authority directed the developer to refund the full principal amount of Rs. 22,63,766. This refund must be accompanied by interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. The interest must accrue from the respective dates of payments made by the allottees until the date of realization. The developer is mandated to complete the bank transfer of the refund amount within 45 days of receiving the order. Failure to comply may result in a penalty. |