| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of Real Estate Development Act, 2016, read with Rule 17 and Rule 1B of the West Bengal Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Mrinmoy Bose
Respondent: M/s.J.I. Corporation vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a booked flat. The complainant alleged that the developer failed to provide possession of the property, despite the agreement stipulating a delivery timeline. The developer, in defense, cited difficulties related to the death of a key landowner and the lack of a fresh Power of Attorney, claiming this prevented them from proceeding with construction or refunds. After hearing both parties and reviewing the submitted affidavits, the Authority concluded that the developer failed in its statutory obligation to deliver possession by the scheduled date. Consequently, the Authority ordered the developer to refund the entire principal amount of Rs 27,50,000/-. This refund must be accompanied by interest calculated at the rate of SBI PLR + 2% per annum. The interest period spans from the date of the complainant's first payment until the date of realization. The developer is mandated to complete the refund via bank transfer within 45 days of receiving the order. The complainant must submit their bank details within three days. The complainant is also granted the liberty to file an Execution Application if the developer fails to comply with the directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of 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: Syamalendu Das and Kaberi Das and souvik Das
Respondent: M/s. J.I. Corporation vs WBRERA |
The Authority addressed a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a booked flat. The complainant had executed an Agreement for Sale in November 2021, setting a clear schedule date for possession within 18 months, which was May 8, 2023. The developer argued that the delay was due to the death of a landowner and the subsequent failure of legal heirs to execute a fresh Power of Attorney. However, after hearing both parties and reviewing the documents, the Authority concluded that the developer failed to meet its contractual obligation and the statutory timeline. Consequently, the Authority ruled that the developer is liable under Section 18 of the RERA Act. The developer is hereby ordered to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-. This refund must include interest calculated at the rate of SBI PLR + 2% per annum, starting from the respective dates of payment until the date of realization. The developer must complete the bank transfer of the refund within 45 days of receiving the order via email. The order also directs the inclusion of joint allottees as joint complainants. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of RERA Act, 2016, read with Rule 17 and Rule 18 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Ashis Mukherjee and Shampa Mukherjee
Respondent: M/s. J.I. Corporation vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a booked flat by the stipulated date. The complainants alleged that despite the agreement, the project stalled, and no possession was received. The respondent cited delays due to the death of a landowner and the lack of a fresh Power of Attorney as the reason for the delay. After hearing both parties and reviewing the documentation, the Authority concluded that the respondent failed to fulfill its contractual obligation to deliver possession by the agreed schedule date. Consequently, invoking Section 18 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Authority ruled that the respondent is liable for a refund. The respondent is hereby ordered to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 23,94,200/-, along with interest calculated at the rate of SBI PLR + 2% per annum. This interest must accrue from the respective dates of payment made by the complainants until the date of actual realization. The refund must be completed within 45 days from the date of receiving the order via email, via bank transfer. The complainants are granted the liberty to file an Execution Application if the mandated refund is not processed within the stipulated timeframe. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) 2016, read with Rule 17 and Rule 18 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation Development) Rules. |
Complainant: Moumita Mukerjee and Sunilasree Santra and Biswanath Mukherjee
Respondent: M/s. J.I. Corporation vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver residential possession. The allottees booked a flat in July 2019, with an agreement stipulating possession within 18 months. The developer, while citing delays related to the death of a land owner and the need for fresh legal documentation, was found by the Authority to be in breach of contract and statutory obligations. The Authority determined that the developer failed to deliver possession by the stipulated date, violating Section 18 of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority directed the developer to refund the entire principal amount of Rs 34,50,000. Furthermore, the developer must pay interest on this amount at the rate of RBLR + 2% per annum. The refund must be completed within 45 days from the date of receiving the order via email, transferred directly to the allottees' bank account. The order also mandates the inclusion of all joint allottees in the proceedings. The allottees are granted the liberty to file an Execution Application if the developer fails to comply within the specified timeframe. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 18 of RERA, 2016, read with Rule 17 and Rule 18 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation Development) Rules, 2016. |
Complainant: Sunil Kumar Shaw and Nisha Shaw
Respondent: M/s. J.I. Corporation vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure to deliver possession of a booked flat by the stipulated deadline. The allottees initiated proceedings after the developer failed to complete the project and deliver the unit, despite the agreement setting a clear possession date within 18 months of the booking. The developer argued that the delay was due to the death of a landowner and the subsequent failure of the legal heirs to execute a fresh Power of Attorney. However, after considering the submissions and documents, the Authority concluded that the developer failed its fundamental obligation to provide possession by the agreed schedule date. Consequently, invoking Section 18 of the RERA Act, the Authority determined that the developer is liable for compensation. The Authority hereby orders the developer to refund the entire principal amount of Rs. 15,00,000/-. This refund must include interest calculated at the rate of SBI PLR + 2% per annum. The payment must be completed within 45 days from the date of receiving the order via email, transferred directly to the allottees' bank account. The allottees are granted the liberty to file an Execution Application if the developer fails to comply within the stipulated timeframe. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 56 of RERA, 2016; Section 31 of RERA, 2016; and Rule 36 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Khokan Naskar
Respondent: Om Sai Construction vs WBRERA |
The Authority admitted the complaint, which centers on serious allegations regarding substandard construction and safety violations in a residential complex. The primary grievances include the use of low-quality building materials, substandard structural iron rods, and significant water seepage. Furthermore, the complaint highlights critical safety deficiencies, such as the absence of a functional fire water tank and inadequate security infrastructure (CCTV/power backup). A major point of contention is the alleged deviation from the sanctioned plan, including the construction of rooms significantly smaller than specified, and accusations of discriminatory treatment in construction quality compared to the developer's personal units. To address these concerns, the complainant seeks a thorough investigation, mandatory rectification of the structure to match approved plans, and the implementation of comprehensive fire and security safety measures. The Authority has directed both parties to submit their detailed submissions—the complainant via a Notarized Affidavit and the developer via a Written Response Affidavit—within 15 days. The matter is scheduled for further hearing and order on 11.07.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2027. |
Complainant: Shyamal Sarkar
Respondent: Foresight Construction Private Limited, (Ganguly Group) vs WBRERA |
The Authority heard the complaint concerning a development agreement for a project. The core dispute revolves around an agreement entered into in 2012, where the complainant agreed to develop a property in exchange for a self-contained flat and car parking space. The agreement stipulated that the flat would be allotted in adjustment of the land and structure's cost. The complainant sought the Authority to direct the immediate handover of the promised flat, citing lack of residential accommodation. After hearing the complaint, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings under the RERA Act. The Authority did not pass a final order on the merits of the dispute but issued specific procedural directions. The complainant is directed to submit a detailed submission via a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 21 days. Conversely, the respondent is directed to file a written response on a notarized affidavit, also with supporting documents, within 21 days of receiving the complainant's affidavit. Crucially, the respondent must specifically state whether the project is registered under WBRERA/WBHIRA, providing the registration number and date if applicable, or stating the reasons for non-registration. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 11.07.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Pradip Mazumdar
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Calcutta Greens Commercial Complex (1st Floor)
1.050/2, Survey Park, Kolkata- 700 075. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the failure of a builder-promoter to complete essential common amenities and hand over a residential complex. The complainant alleges that despite the flat being ready, the developer has delayed the handover process, failing to complete critical infrastructure such as lifts, electrical meters, water treatment plants, boundary walls, and security services. The complaint highlights the builder's alleged undue control and collection of charges while essential services remain incomplete. The Authority, after admitting the complaint under RERA provisions, issued specific procedural directions. The Authority directed the complainant to submit a detailed, notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within ten days. Simultaneously, the respondent was directed to file a written response and affidavit, also supported by documents, within ten days of receiving the complainant's submission. The Authority fixed the next hearing date and ensured that the complaint was formally processed, thereby initiating the dispute resolution mechanism to compel the completion of pending works and facilitate the peaceful handover of the complex to the flat owners' association. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of RERA, 2016, and Section 29(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Megacity Association of Apartment owners
Respondent: Avijit Naskar vs WBRERA |
The Authority admitted the complaint petition for further hearing under the RERA Act, 2016. The complaint raised numerous grievances regarding the project's incomplete status, including the non-transfer of the Corpus Fund, non-operation of the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), pending fire fighting system tests, incomplete gas and electrical installations, and the failure to erect boundary walls. The Complainant sought the immediate transfer of Rs. 50 lakhs and the activation of the fire fighting system, demanding completion of all listed deficiencies within three months. The Authority rejected the Respondent's request for an adjournment, noting that the presence of the Respondent was not mandatory for the admission hearing. The Authority issued specific directions: 1. The Complainant must submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint within 21 days. 2. The Respondent must file a written response on a notarized affidavit within 21 days of receiving the Complainant's affidavit. 3. The Respondent was strictly directed to appear on the next hearing date, failing which the matter will be disposed of ex-parte. The matter was fixed for further hearing on 13.08.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3, Section 3, Section 3, Section 14, Section 3, Section 31, Section 3, and Section 59. |
Complainant: Biplab Das
Respondent: Sampark Developer, Asoke Kumar Mondal, Kalyani Mondal vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint alleging that a large-scale real estate project was initiated, marketed, and sold without mandatory registration under Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority noted that the project was constructed without proper registration, leading to allegations of unauthorized construction, deviation from sanctioned plans, and illegal sales of units. Procedurally, the Authority rejected the request for postponement made by the developer. While hearing the complainant, the Authority raised a critical legal query regarding the complainant's *locus standi*, requiring proof that they qualify as an "Aggrieved Person" under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority issued several directions: 1. The complainant must submit a notarized affidavit within 15 days, specifically detailing the grounds proving their status as an aggrieved person. 2. The developer must submit a written response on a notarized affidavit within 15 days. 3. Crucially, the Authority directed the Secretary to initiate necessary action against the promoter for the non-registration of the entire project, citing violations of the RERA Act. The matter is scheduled for further hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Historic Vintrade Pvt.Ltd.
Respondent: Magus Bengal Estates Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a dispute concerning the delayed handover of commercial office space. The core issue stems from an agreement for the purchase of a commercial unit, which stipulated completion and possession by a specific date in 2014. However, the actual possession was offered and the conveyance deed was executed significantly later, constituting a clear breach of the original agreement. The complainant sought the Authority's intervention to mandate the payment of accrued interest due to this prolonged delay, as per the agreement's terms. Furthermore, compensation was sought for mental trauma, loss of time, and legal costs incurred. The Authority admitted the complaint for further hearing. Consequently, the order issued procedural directions to both parties. The complainant is directed to submit a detailed submission via a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within fifteen days. The opposing party is similarly directed to file a written response on a notarized affidavit, attaching relevant documents, and must specifically state and annex the date of receipt of the Completion Certificate. The matter is listed for further hearing and order on 23.07.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 63 of RERA, 2016; Rule 25 of W.B. RERA Rules, 2021; Section 40 of RERA, 2016 read with Rule 25; Rule 2 of W.B. RERA Rules, 2021; Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. |
Complainant: Rana Das
Respondent: Greentech IT City hrt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order was passed during an execution hearing concerning the non-compliance with a previous directive issued by the Authority. The Authority noted that the non-compliant party had failed to refund the invested amount despite multiple orders. Observing the continued default, the Authority directed the non-compliant party to pay a penalty of ₹5,000/- per day for non-compliance. This penalty is applicable from the original order date (12.12.2024) up to the date of the hearing (18.09.2025). Crucially, the Authority determined that the recovery of the outstanding amount and the accrued penalty must be executed through official channels. Therefore, the matter is formally sent for execution to the District Magistrate of North 24-Parganas. Execution will proceed under Section 40 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 25 of the West Bengal RERA Rules, and the Bengal Public Demand Recovery Act, 1913. The District Magistrate is mandated to initiate the recovery process within one month and submit a compliance report within six weeks. The petitioner is advised to pursue the matter directly with the District Magistrate's office. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 1g(1) of the Act, Section 61 of the Act, and Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Deepak Mawandia (HUF)
Respondent: Shree RSH Projects Rrt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the significant delay in the handover of a residential flat. The complainant, who purchased a unit under an Agreement for Sale executed in 2016, alleges that the project failed to meet the stipulated completion timelines (originally set for 2018/2019). The complainant sought several reliefs, including: (1) interest calculated at a high rate from the date of the first payment until possession; (2) mandatory completion of the project and immediate handover of the flat; (3) imposition of a penalty under the Act; and (4) substantial compensation for financial strain and costs incurred due to the delay. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the matter under Section 31 of the RERA Act. The order is primarily procedural, setting the stage for further adjudication. The Authority directed the complainant to submit a detailed submission via a notarized affidavit within 14 days. Simultaneously, the respondent was directed to file a comprehensive written response on a notarized affidavit, addressing the complaint and the complainant's submissions, also within 14 days. The matter was fixed for further hearing on a subsequent date. | |
| X-Y-Z | Clause 7 (provision of 'cancellation by allottee') and Provision 9 of the Proforma of the Agreement for Sale, both under the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Radheshyam Pancharia
Respondent: Malabika Bhoumic vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the cancellation of an Agreement for Sale and the refund of funds paid by the allottee. After considering the submissions and affidavits from both parties, the Authority determined that the allottee is entitled to a refund of the balance amount upon withdrawal, as per the provisions governing 'cancellation by allottee' under the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Rules, 2021. The Authority hereby orders the cancellation and termination of the Agreement for Sale executed between the parties. The core directive mandates that the developer (Complainant) must refund the total amount of Rs. 9,31,726/- paid by the allottee, after deducting the initial booking amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. This refund must be completed within 45 days from the date the order is received via email. Furthermore, the developer is granted liberty to re-allot the property to any other person. The Authority directs that the allottee must cooperate in the formal cancellation process. The matter is disposed of with these directions. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked. |
Complainant: Rupam Mukherjee & Mitali Mukherjee
Respondent: Sanjib Dey vs WBRERA |
The Authority heard detailed submissions regarding a dispute over the rejection of a home loan and the subsequent refund of a booking amount. The complainants sought the refund of their advance payment, alleging that the loan was rejected by the bank due to significant deviations and the need for a revised sanctioned plan for the property. The promoter acknowledged the dispute and stated a willingness to refund the amount, minus a 10% deduction, while shifting blame for the rejection to the financial institution. After considering the submissions, the Authority issued several key directions: First, the financial institution was formally included as a necessary party to ensure proper adjudication. Second, the Authority directed the financial institution to submit a detailed, notarized affidavit within 21 days. This affidavit must specifically address the reason for the loan rejection and confirm whether the promoter obtained written consent from two-thirds of allottees and the necessary approval from the regulatory authority for the plan revision. The matter is adjourned for further hearing and compliance with these directives. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 36 of the West Bengal Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Tapash Mazumder
Respondent: M/s. Star Construction vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the alleged illegal alteration of a residential flat following a conveyance deed. The Complainant asserts that after purchasing a flat and parking space, the Respondent took possession under the guise of construction work but subsequently made unauthorized internal layout changes. Specifically, the Respondent is accused of erecting a partition wall, carving out approximately 180 sq. ft. to create a new unit, which the Respondent intends to sell, despite this area being already sold and demarcated to the Complainant. The Complainant sought directions to demolish this illegal encroachment, restore the flat to its original condition, and claim compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the damage and mental agony. The Authority, after hearing the matter, did not pass a final judgment. Instead, it directed procedural compliance for further adjudication. The Complainant is mandated to submit a notarized affidavit with supporting documents within 15 days. Similarly, the Respondent must submit a written response on a notarized affidavit, along with any supporting documents, within 15 days of receiving the Complainant's affidavit. A date of May 22, 2024, has been fixed for the next hearing and order. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Section 29(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Prasant Gupta
Respondent: Soumita Construction Pvt' Ltd, Fairland Development India Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the purchase of residential flats in a real estate project. The core dispute revolves around the failure of the developer and landowner to hand over possession of the flats, despite the complainant having paid a total consideration of Rs. 52,48,805/-. The complainant sought specific reliefs, including a full refund of the paid amount, interest at 18% per annum, and compensation for mental agony. The Authority, after hearing the parties, admitted the matter for further proceedings under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority issued detailed procedural directions: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing all payments made chronologically, along with supporting documents, within 15 days. 2. The respondent is directed to file a written response on a notarized affidavit, addressing the complaint and the complainant's affidavit, also within 15 days. The Authority emphasized that strict adherence to these timelines is mandatory, warning that failure to comply will lead to the matter being disposed of *ex-parte*. A date has been fixed for the next hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of RERA, 2016; Rule 36 of WB RERA Rules, 2021; Section 29(4) of RERA, 2016. |
Complainant: Swapan Kumar Maiti
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the purchase of a residential flat, where the primary grievances relate to the developer's failure to provide the Completion Certificate (CC) at the time of registration and the alleged improper measurement of the associated car parking space. The Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings under the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Authority issued specific directions to both parties: 1. **To the Complainant:** The complainant is directed to submit a detailed, chronological, notarized affidavit outlining all payments made, supported by necessary documentation, within fifteen days. 2. **To the Respondent:** The respondent must submit a comprehensive written response on a notarized affidavit, addressing the complaint and the complainant's affidavit, along with supporting documents, within fifteen days. The order emphasizes strict compliance, warning that failure to submit the required affidavits within the stipulated time will result in the Authority proceeding with an ex-parte hearing to ensure the speedy disposal of the matter. A date has been fixed for the next hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Ruma SaLa
Respondent: Labbaik Developers R/t. Ltd. represented by Tanveer Haque & Sagir Ahmed vs WBRERA |
The Authority admitted the complaint concerning the failure to deliver possession of a commercial property. The complainant submitted that after entering into an Agreement for Sale in 2016, substantial consideration was paid, but the developer failed to hand over the possession or execute the Deed of Sale by the stipulated date (August 2017), despite repeated requests and legal notices. The complainant sought the immediate delivery of possession, refund of the paid amount with interest, and compensation for damages. After hearing the detailed submission, the Authority directed the following procedural steps: 1. The complainant must submit a notarized affidavit with supporting documents within fifteen days. 2. The developer must file a written response/affidavit within fifteen days. 3. Crucially, the developer must specifically confirm whether the project is registered with the relevant Real Estate Authority, providing registration details or a valid reason for non-registration. The Authority fixed the next hearing date and warned that failure to appear will result in the matter being heard *ex-parte*. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Debaditya Talukdar & Nandini Talukdar
Respondent: Vedic Realty Pvt. Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the non-delivery of a residential unit after substantial payments were made by the complainants. The core dispute centers on the developer receiving funds, including amounts drawn from a housing building loan account, but failing to execute foundational work or refund the money over a period of nearly a decade. The complainants sought the return of the entire outstanding principal and interest, along with significant compensation for mental agony and delayed use of funds. The Authority admitted the matter for further hearing under the provisions of the RERA Act. Consequently, the Authority issued specific procedural directions: 1. The complainant is directed to submit a detailed submission via a Notarized Affidavit within 15 days, annexing all supporting documents, including a chronological table of payments. 2. The respondent is directed to file a comprehensive Written Response on a Notarized Affidavit, addressing the complaint and the complainant's affidavit, within 15 days. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 17.12.2024, pending compliance with these procedural requirements. |