| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Tapas l3anerjee
Respondent: Sukdcb Koiey vs WBRERA |
This order was passed during an execution hearing concerning the status of a residential project and a specific flat. The complainant asserted that the flat remains uninhabitable due to the incomplete status of essential services, including water infrastructure, permanent electrical connections, drainage, sewerage, and common amenities. They demanded immediate possession or a full refund with interest. Conversely, the respondent submitted an affidavit claiming that most project works are complete, with the exception of the lift installation, which is expected within 90 days. After hearing both parties, the Authority issued critical directives: 1. **Inspection Mandate:** The BDO, Sankrail Block, is directed to conduct a comprehensive inspection of the entire project and the specific flat. The inspection report must specifically verify the status of all essential services (water, electricity, lift, drainage, sewerage) and be submitted within 30 days. 2. **Monitoring:** The District Magistrate, Flowrah, is tasked with monitoring this inspection process. 3. **Warning:** The Authority warned that if the inspection report reveals any discrepancies with the status claimed by the respondent in their affidavit, punitive action will be initiated for submitting false statements. | |
| X-Y-Z | 1. Section 40 of the erstwhile West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017. 2. Section 40 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Joydeep Roy
Respondent: Nestwood Estates Pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the stalled execution of a refund amount, originally mandated by an order passed under the erstwhile West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act (WB-HIRA). The Authority notes that while the matter was transferred to the District Magistrate for recovery as arrears of land revenue, no substantial progress has been made in the execution proceedings. Crucially, the Authority relies on the Supreme Court's ruling, which declared the WB-HIRA Act ultra vires and clarified that all prior orders passed under the old law must be executed as if they were issued under the current Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA). Therefore, the Authority directs the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas to execute the original order expeditiously, within one month from the date of receiving the certified copy. Furthermore, the DM is mandated to keep the concerned party informed of all communications regarding the execution status. The Authority also directs the Secretary to provide certified copies of all relevant orders to the District Magistrate to ensure compliance. | |
| X-Y-Z | 1. Section 40 of WB HIRA Act, 2017, read with Rule 27 of WB HIRA Rules, 2018. 2. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 3. Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016, read with Rule 25 of WB RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Ashish Saha
Respondent: Nestwood Estates Pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the stalled execution of a refund amount mandated by a previous authority order. The matter, originally initiated under the erstwhile West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017, was sent for recovery to the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas. The Authority noted that despite the passage of time and the subsequent declaration of the old Act as *ultra vires* by the Supreme Court, the execution proceedings had made no substantial progress. Crucially, the Authority relied on the Supreme Court's directive in the *Saptaparna Ray* case, which affirmed that orders passed under the defunct Act must be executed as if they were issued under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. Therefore, the Authority directed the District Magistrate to execute the original order dated 04.12.2019, mandating the recovery of the due amount expeditiously, within one month of receiving the certified copy. Furthermore, the DM was directed to ensure the complainant is kept informed by sending copies of all communications made with various local authorities. The Authority also mandated the immediate transfer of the matter to the current regulatory framework for proper disposal. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 38 read with Section 61 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Brototi Banerjee & sukanta Prosad
Respondent: Dharitri Infraventure hrt'Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the continuation of proceedings following the Supreme Court's directive, which affirmed that previous orders and complaints filed under the erstwhile regulatory body remain valid and transferable to the current Authority. The Authority dismissed one complaint petition as redundant and proceeded with the execution hearing of a related matter. After hearing both parties, the Authority issued specific directions regarding the refund payment. The core directive mandates the payment of the refund amount in structured installments. The principal amount of Rs. 1,00,000 must be paid in March 2024, with the remaining balance paid in four equal monthly installments from April to July 2024. Furthermore, the payment of accrued interest must also be made in four equal consecutive monthly installments during the same period (April to July 2024), calculated at the rate of SBI pyp + 20% per annum. The refund must be transferred via bank account within three days of the order. Failure to comply will result in the imposition of a penalty under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. The matter is scheduled for review on June 6, 2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Qazi Fahim Ahmed
Respondent: KGN Construction vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final directive passed by the Authority and a subsequent order from the West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT). The Authority granted a stipulated time for compliance after hearing both parties. The core directives issued mandate the following actions: 1. **Possession and Registration:** The Respondent is directed to hand over possession of one covered car parking space, booked by the Complainant, by May 31, 2024. Furthermore, the Respondent must complete the registration of both the covered car parking space and the associated flat by June 30, 2024. 2. **Penalty Deposit:** The Respondent must deposit a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for every day of delay. This fine accrues starting from December 4, 2023, until the date of registration of the subject matter flat and car parking space. The amount must be deposited into the designated WBRERA bank account. The Authority fixed the next hearing date for further review and compliance monitoring. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Qazi Fahim Ahmed
Respondent: KGN Construction vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final directive passed by the Authority in 2021, along with a subsequent order from the West Bengal Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (WBREAT) dated 04.10.2023. The Authority confirmed its jurisdiction following a Supreme Court directive, ensuring the continuity of previous RERA proceedings. After hearing both parties, the Authority granted a stipulated time for compliance. The core directives issued are as follows: 1. The developer is mandated to provide possession of one covered car parking space, booked by the aggrieved party, by 31.05.2024. 2. The developer must complete the registration of the said covered car parking space, along with the flat, by 30.06.2024. 3. Furthermore, the developer is directed to deposit a daily fine of Rs. 1,000/- for every day of delay. This fine must be paid starting from 04.12.2023 until the date of registration, and deposited into the designated WBRERA bank account. The Authority fixed 09.07.2024 for the next hearing to review compliance with these orders. | |
| X-Y-Z | 1. Sec 40, WBHIRA Act, 2017 & Rule 27, WBHIRA Rules, 2018. 2. Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. 3. Sec 40, RERA Act, 2016 & Rule 25, WB RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Gargi Ghosal
Respondent: Evanie Infrastructure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order passed by the erstwhile regulatory authority concerning the recovery of a refund amount. The matter was previously sent to the District Magistrate for execution. The Authority notes the significant legal shift: the West Bengal Housing Industry Regulation Act, 2017, was declared *ultra vires* by the Supreme Court, which mandated that all prior orders under the defunct Act must be executed as if they were issued under the central RERA Act, 2016. Finding that no substantial progress had been made in the execution proceedings before the District Magistrate, the Authority invoked the Supreme Court's directives. Consequently, the Authority directs the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas to execute the original order dated 10.01.2020 expeditiously, within one month from the date of receiving the certified copy. Furthermore, the DM is instructed to ensure the complainant is kept sufficiently informed of all communications regarding the execution status. The Authority also directs the relevant regulatory body to promptly send certified copies of all necessary orders to the District Magistrate. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 25 (RERA Rules, 2021); Rule 26 (RERA Rules, 2021); Section 40 (RERA Act, 2016); Rule 25 (WBRE Rules, 2021). |
Complainant: Arijit Kundu
Respondent: Evanie Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final directive passed by the Authority on February 12, 2021, concerning a recoverable amount of ₹3,80,000. During the execution hearing, the Authority noted the absence of the opposing party and confirmed the complainant’s request for immediate recovery. After considering the legal options, the Authority directed that the matter be executed through the District Magistrate (DM) of North 24-Parganas. The recovery mechanism mandated is under Section 40 of the RERA Act, 2016, read with Rule 25 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. The amount must be recovered by the DM as arrears of land revenue, utilizing the provisions of the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. The Authority issued specific compliance directives: 1. The Secretary, WBRERA, must forward certified copies of the original order and complaint to the DM within ten days. 2. The DM is mandated to execute the order within one month of receiving the documents and submit a compliance report within six weeks. The Authority emphasized adherence to the Supreme Court's directive for expeditious execution, thereby ensuring the speedy recovery of the due amount. The complainant is advised to pursue the matter directly with the DM's office. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 38 read with Section 61 of RERA, 2016. Also, Section 18 of RERA, 2016, read with Rule 17 and 18 of the West Bengal Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Vijay Kumar Gupta
Respondent: Greentech IT City Pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
The Authority passed the order after noting the Respondent's absence, despite due service of notice, and after hearing the Complainant regarding the non-compliance with previous directives. The Authority took serious exception to the Respondent's continued neglect of its orders. Finding that the Respondent failed to deliver possession of the booked flat within the agreed timeline, the Authority issued comprehensive directions. The Respondent is hereby directed to: 1. **Refund:** Refund the Principal Amount of Rs. 9,60,260/-, along with interest calculated at the rate of SBI PLR + 2% per annum. This refund must be completed within 45 days of receiving the order. 2. **Penalty:** Pay a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the Authority within 45 days. The Complainant is granted the liberty to file an Execution Application if the Respondent fails to comply with these directions within the stipulated period. The matter is disposed of with these binding orders. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 2 (RERA Rules, 2021); Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913; Sec 4 RERA Act, 2016 (w/ Rule 2(b) & 11); Sec 40 RERA Act, 2016 (w/ Rule 2(J)); Rule 25 (WBRE Rules, 2021); Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913; Rule 2 (WBRE Rules, 2021). |
Complainant: Vijay Kumar Gupta
Respondent: Greentech IT City Rrt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the execution of a final order previously passed by the Authority. During the hearing, it was noted that the mandated amount had not been received, constituting a violation of the earlier directive. The Authority appraised the concerned party regarding the legal mechanisms for execution, specifically the option of recovery through the District Magistrate under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. The party consented to this method. Consequently, the Authority directs the matter to the District Magistrate of North 24 Parganas for immediate execution of the order, concerning the recovery of Rs 20,00,000. The Authority mandates its Secretary to transmit certified copies of the order and related documents to the District Magistrate within seven days. The District Magistrate is strictly directed to initiate recovery proceedings under the relevant Act within one month of receiving the documents and submit a compliance report within six weeks. The Authority emphasized adherence to the speedy execution principles established by the Supreme Court. The party is advised to pursue the matter directly with the District Magistrate's office for the refund of the amount. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 44 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Dinesh Chandra Agarwal
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex (l"t Floor)
lO5Ol2, Survey Park, Kolkata- 70O 075 vs WBRERA |
This order addresses two separate Review Petitions filed by multiple parties. The Authority examined the petitions, finding significant deficiencies in the arguments presented by the petitioners. Regarding the first petition, the Authority noted that the petitioner lacked the proper standing, as documentation indicated they were the Assignor of the Landlords, not the Developer. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to provide the necessary Completion Certificate (CC) required to validate claims regarding the regularization of the ground floor. For the second petition, the Authority observed that the petitioners could not demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the previous order. Crucially, the Authority highlighted that the successor-in-interest of the Developer had already admitted the claim and expressed willingness to hand over physical possession and execute the conveyance deed for the disputed flat. The Authority concluded that both Review Petitions were filed without a valid cause of action or cogent reason, appearing merely to delay the adjudication process. Consequently, both Review Petitions were dismissed. | |
| X-Y-Z | Sec 88, Sec 31, Sec 88, Sec 18, Sec 38, 61, and 63 of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Dinesh Chandra Agarwal
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a specific flat (Flat No. 1D, First Floor) following an Agreement for Sale executed in 2006. The Authority first established the maintainability of the complaint under the RERA Act, rejecting the Respondents' pleas to be released from liability. After reviewing extensive documentation, including admissions from the legal heir of the erstwhile developer, the Authority found that the Respondents grossly violated the terms of the Agreement for Sale and the provisions of the RERA Act, particularly Section 18, by failing to provide possession by the stipulated date. Consequently, the Authority passed the following binding directions: 1. The primary responsible Respondent must execute the Deed of Conveyance and simultaneously deliver physical, vacant possession of the flat within 45 days of receiving the order. 2. The Complainant is directed to pay the remaining balance consideration amount (Rs. 58,000/-) at the time of conveyance. 3. All Respondents must ensure full cooperation during the handover process. 4. Furthermore, all Respondents must provide authenticated copies of all required documents within 30 days of possession. Failure to comply with these directions will result in further action under relevant sections of the RERA Act. | |
| X-Y-Z | Rule 36(2)(h) Rules, Sec 29(4) RERA Act, Sec 18 RERA Act, Rule 17 & 18 Rules, and Sec 63 RERA Act. |
Complainant: Romit Banerjee
Respondent: Evanie Infrastructure Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order was passed by the Authority after the respondent failed to appear on the scheduled hearing dates, despite due service of notice, leading the Authority to proceed *ex-parte*. The matter concerned a complaint regarding the purchase of a residential flat in a project that had failed to commence construction. The complainant sought the refund of the principal amount paid, along with interest, due to the failure to provide possession within the stipulated timeline. After hearing the complainant and reviewing the documents, the Authority found that the respondent had failed in its obligation to deliver the property. Consequently, the Authority directed the respondent to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 6,19,000/-. Crucially, the order mandates the payment of interest calculated at the SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective dates of all payments made by the complainant until the date of actual realization. The refund must be transferred via bank account within 45 days of the order's receipt. Furthermore, the order 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 | Section 13, RERA Act, 2016; Section 89, RERA Act; Section 18, RERA; Section 3, RERA Act, 2016; Rule 36, WB RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Digambar Nath Jha
Respondent: Bengal Shriram Hi-Tech City Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the possession and payment demands for an under-construction residential unit. The buyer alleges that the developer demanded payments and charged interest on amounts exceeding 10% of the total cost *before* the Agreement for Sale was registered, arguing this violates RERA provisions. The buyer also contested the developer's imposition of holding charges, asserting that since the Sale Deed was duly registered and all payments were completed, such charges are inapplicable. The buyer sought immediate possession and compensation from the deemed date of possession. The Authority, after hearing both sides, admitted the matter for further proceedings. The primary directive issued is for both parties to attempt a mutual settlement within fifteen days. Should a settlement fail, the buyer is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint and supporting documents within ten days. The developer is similarly directed to submit a comprehensive notarized affidavit responding to the complaint, which must include crucial details regarding the project's registration status (WBHIRA/wBRERA) and the date of receipt of the Completion Certificate. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 09.04.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 40 of WB HIRA Act, 2017; Rule 27 of WB HIRA Rules, 2018; Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913; RERA Act, 2016; Section 40 of RERA Act, 2016; Rule 25 of WB RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Aditi Bhattacharjee
Respondent: Rudradeb Ghosh vs WBRERA |
This order addresses the stalled execution of a final order passed by the Authority concerning a refund amount. The matter was initially sent for recovery as arrears of land revenue to the District Magistrate (DM) of North 24-Parganas. The Authority notes that the original governing legislation (WB-HIRA Act) was subsequently struck down by the Supreme Court, which clarified that all prior orders and execution proceedings must be executed as if they were under the central RERA Act. Finding that the execution proceedings before the DM have made no substantial progress, the Authority invokes the Supreme Court's directive. Consequently, the Authority directs the DM of North 24-Parganas to execute the original order expeditiously, within one month of receiving the certified copy. Furthermore, the DM is mandated to keep the Complainant sufficiently informed about the status of the proceedings by sharing all communications with relevant authorities. The Authority also directs its own Secretary to transmit certified copies of all relevant orders to the DM to ensure compliance with the RERA framework. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Shyamali Mitra
Respondent: Janapriyo Real Estate pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the failure to deliver possession of a booked plot in a real estate project. The core complaint detailed that the developer failed to provide possession of the land within the stipulated timeframe, despite an agreement executed years prior. Furthermore, the developer unilaterally cancelled the Sale Agreement and forfeited the entire consideration amount paid. After considering the evidence and hearing both parties, the Authority concluded that the developer failed miserably in its obligation to hand over possession within the agreed timeline. Consequently, the Authority has ordered the developer to refund the full principal amount paid (Rs. 5,30,000). Crucially, the developer must also pay interest at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective dates of payments made by the purchaser until the date of actual realization. The refund must be completed via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. The order also stipulates that failure to comply will result in a penalty, which may cumulatively extend up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Shyamali Mitra
Respondent: Janapriyo Real Estate pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
The Authority addressed a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a booked plot in a mini-township. The complainant had paid a total consideration of Rs. 5,77,000, with the developer agreeing to provide possession within a stipulated timeframe. The core grievance was that the developer failed to meet the agreed-upon timeline, culminating in the unilateral cancellation of the Sale Agreement and forfeiture of the entire amount paid. After reviewing the evidence and hearing both parties, the Authority concluded that the developer was grossly negligent and failed in its primary obligation to deliver the property. Consequently, the Authority ordered the developer to refund the full principal amount of Rs. 5,77,000. Furthermore, the developer is mandated to pay interest on this amount at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum, calculated from the respective dates of payment until the date of realization. The refund must be completed via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. The order also warns that failure to comply will result in a daily penalty, potentially extending up to five percent of the estimated project cost. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of RERA, 2016 (read with Rule III & 1G of WB RERA Rules, 2021); Section 63 of RERA, 2016. |
Complainant: Arindam Mitra & Respondent: Janapriyo Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the failure to deliver possession of a booked plot in a mini-township project. The allottee had paid a total consideration of Rs. 10,61,600/- and was promised possession within a stipulated timeframe. The Authority found that the developer failed miserably in its obligation to hand over the plot after necessary development within the agreed timeline. Furthermore, the developer unilaterally cancelled the sale agreement and forfeited the entire amount paid. Consequently, the Authority directed the developer to refund the full principal amount of Rs. 10,61,600/-. Crucially, the developer is also mandated to pay interest on this amount at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest must be calculated starting 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 of receiving the order. The order also warns that failure to comply within the specified period will subject the developer to a daily penalty, potentially extending up to five percent of the estimated project cost. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of the RERA Act, 2016 (read with Rule 17 & 1g of WB Rules, 2021); Section 63 of the RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Arindam Mitra
Respondent: Janapriyo Real Estate Pvt, Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the failure to deliver possession of a booked plot in a mini-township project. The complainant had paid a total consideration of ₹10,50,000 for the plot, with the developer agreeing to provide possession within a stipulated timeframe. The Authority noted that the developer failed to fulfill its primary obligation, not only missing the scheduled delivery date but also unilaterally cancelling the sale agreement and forfeiting the entire amount paid. After reviewing the evidence and hearing both parties, the Authority concluded that the developer was in gross breach of its contractual and statutory obligations. Consequently, the Authority directed the developer to refund the full principal amount of ₹10,50,000. Furthermore, the developer is mandated to pay interest on the refunded amount at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum, calculated from the respective dates of payment until the date of realization. The refund must be completed via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. The order also stipulates that failure to comply will result in a penalty, which may cumulatively extend up to five percent of the estimated cost of the project. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of RERA, 2016; Rule 17 & 1G of WB RERA Rules, 2021; and Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Arindam Mitra
Respondent: Janapriyo Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a booked plot in a mini-township project. The complainant had paid a total consideration amount, with the developer having promised possession within a specific timeframe. The Authority examined the records and found that the developer failed miserably in its primary obligation to hand over the plot after necessary development within the agreed schedule. Furthermore, the developer had unilaterally cancelled the sale agreement and forfeited the entire amount paid. Consequently, the Authority ruled that the developer is liable to refund the principal amount paid. The order mandates the refund of the full principal sum, along with interest calculated at the rate of SBI Prime Lending Rate + 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective dates of payments made by the complainant until the date of actual realization. The developer is directed to effect the refund via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. The order also stipulates that failure to comply within the specified period will result in a penalty, which may cumulatively extend up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project. |