| Date of Order | Sections Invoked | Complainant & Respondent | Summary of Case | Download |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X-Y-Z | Section 29(4) of RERA Act, 2016; Section 1g of RERA Act, 2016; Section 61 or Section 63 of RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Suvodeep Mukherjee & Shruti Mukherjee
Respondent: Bhowmic Construction, Ajoy Bhowmic, T\rlika Bhowmic vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a dispute concerning the failure to deliver possession of a residential flat after the full consideration amount was paid and a sale deed was executed. The Authority noted that the developer failed to fulfill its obligation to hand over the flat within the promised timeline, despite the execution of the conveyance deed in 2018. After hearing the parties, the Authority found the developer grossly negligent in its duty. Consequently, the Authority issued mandatory directions: 1. **Possession:** The developer must deliver physical possession of the flat within 90 days of receiving the order via email. 2. **Compensation:** The developer must pay interest on the total consideration amount (Rs 15,75,000/-). The interest rate is set at SBI PLR + 2% per annum. 3. **Interest Period:** This interest must be calculated from 26.01.2018 until the actual date of possession. The payment of this interest must be completed within 90 days of the actual delivery of possession. The order also warns that failure to comply with these directions may result in a penalty up to five percent of the estimated cost of the real estate project. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 RERA Act; Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; and West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Saugata Chakraborty and Soumik Chakraborti
Respondent: Unnayan Builders Rrt. Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the sale of a plot of land under an Agreement for Sale dated 13.07.2012. The complainants allege that the respondents failed to develop the land and provide basic infrastructure (roads, drains) as promised, despite an agreement that stipulated completion within 48 months. The complainants sought the refund of Rs. 26,00,000/- along with applicable interest, and sought punitive action against the respondents for advertising and selling the plot without obtaining necessary Completion/Occupancy Certificates. The respondents contested the complaint, arguing that the matter was not maintainable before the Authority. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the matter for further proceedings. The Authority issued specific directions: 1. The complainants are directed to submit their detailed submission via a notarized affidavit within 21 days. 2. The respondents must submit a comprehensive Written Response on a notarized affidavit, addressing both the *merit* and the *maintainability* of the complaint. Crucially, they must also confirm whether the project was registered with the Authority, providing details or reasons for any non-registration. The matter was fixed for further hearing on 05.12.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 of RERA Act, 2016; Section 3 of RERA Act; Section 31 of RERA Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Subrata Kumar Dey
Respondent: Unnayan Builders (P) Ltd. vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning the failure of a developer to complete basic infrastructure and the subsequent dispute over the refund of funds paid for a plot of land. The allottee initiated proceedings after the developer failed to adhere to the stipulated timeline for project development. The core dispute revolves around the refund of a substantial amount paid by the allottee, which the developer refused to return, despite the allottee having already filed a case before the District Consumer Forum. The Authority admitted the matter for further hearing, directing both parties to submit detailed affidavits. The allottee is required to submit a notarized affidavit with supporting documents within 20 days. Crucially, the developer is directed to submit a comprehensive Written Response on a notarized affidavit within 21 days. This response must address both the *merits* of the complaint and its *maintainability* before the Authority. Furthermore, the developer must specifically confirm whether the project was registered with the relevant Real Estate Authority and provide details or reasons for any non-registration. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 05.12.2024. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2021. |
Complainant: Sriparna Bandyopadhyay & Subhankar Chatterjee
Respondent: Siddha Waterfront LLP vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a complaint filed by allottees regarding their 3BHK unit in a residential project. The allottees allege multiple deficiencies, including compensation for the devaluing of their flat due to blocked eastern sides, refund of excess charges related to Super Built-up Area, and failure to complete promised amenities and infrastructure. Specific concerns raised include the narrow driveway, inadequate tower entrances, and delay in handing over the Measurement Completion and Possession (MLCP). The Authority, after hearing both parties, did not pass a final judgment but admitted the matter for further proceedings. The order mandates several procedural steps. Firstly, the Authority directed the inclusion of a joint allottee as a necessary party. Secondly, the allottees are required to submit their detailed complaint submission via a Notarized Affidavit within fifteen days. Correspondingly, the promoter is directed to submit a comprehensive Written Response via a Notarized Affidavit within fifteen days of receiving the allottees' affidavit. Crucially, the promoter is also directed to submit a report, on a Notarized Affidavit, detailing the completion of all remaining project works before the next hearing date. The matter is fixed for further hearing on 04.06.2024. | |
| 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, 2021. |
Complainant: Sriparna Bandyopadhyay & Subhankar Chatterjee
Respondent: Siddha Waterfront LLP vs WBRERA |
The Authority admitted the complaint petition for further hearing under Section 3 of the RERA Act, addressing multiple grievances raised by the allottees regarding the residential project. The core complaints revolve around significant deficiencies, including: compensation for devaluation due to structural blocking of the unit's side; refund of excess charges related to Super Built-up Area calculation; and compensation for the delay in handing over the Master Layout Completion Plan (MLCP). Furthermore, the allottees raised concerns regarding the incomplete status of promised amenities, the failure to properly construct common areas (like the Clubhouse and tower entrances), and persistent issues such as narrow driveways and waterlogging. In its order, the Authority directed the allottees to submit their detailed submissions, supported by a Notarized Affidavit, within fifteen days. Simultaneously, the promoter is directed to file a comprehensive Written Response and submit a report detailing the completion of all remaining project works. The matter is fixed for further hearing, ensuring procedural compliance and accountability from the developer. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 and Rule 36 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Ranabijay Singha and Anandini Singha
Respondent: Siddha Waterfront LLP vs WBRERA |
This order, issued by the West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority, addresses a complaint filed by allottees regarding a unit booked in a specific residential project. The allottees have submitted that they have completed full payment and are seeking relief, including the return of excess amounts collected for additional square footage. The Authority formally admitted the complaint and initiated the procedural steps for resolution. The core directives issued are: 1. **To the Allottees:** They are directed to submit their complete written submission, including an affidavit and supporting documents, within fifteen days. 2. **To the Promoter:** The promoter is mandated to file a detailed written response on a notarized affidavit, along with all relevant supporting documentation, within fifteen days of receiving the allottees' submission. 3. **Project Compliance:** Crucially, the promoter is also directed to complete all remaining works of the project and submit a comprehensive report on a notarized affidavit confirming this progress, serving a copy to the allottees. The Authority fixed the next hearing date for further consideration of the matter. The order establishes a clear timeline for both parties to present their respective evidence and compliance reports. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 3 and Rule 36 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. |
Complainant: Ranabijay Singha and Anandini Singha
Respondent: Siddha Waterfront LLP vs WBRERA |
This West Bengal RERA order addresses a complaint regarding a booked residential unit in a commercial complex. The complainants, who have completed full payment and received possession and conveyance documents, have petitioned the Authority seeking the refund of excess amounts collected for additional area, along with interest. After hearing both parties, the Authority admitted the complaint and issued several procedural directions. The Authority directed the complainants to submit their comprehensive affidavit, petition, and supporting documents within fifteen days. Crucially, the promoter is mandated to submit a detailed written response on a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documentation, within the same fifteen-day period. Furthermore, the promoter was strictly directed to complete all remaining works of the project and submit a compliance report on a notarized affidavit before the next hearing date. The matter is scheduled for further hearing and order on 04.06.2024. The order emphasizes adherence to the provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. | |
| X-Y-Z | The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with Rule 36 of West Bengal Real Estate Regulation and Development Rules, 2015. |
Complainant: Subhojit Ghosh
Respondent: MKHS Realty LLP vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning alleged deficiency in service regarding a residential real estate project. The petitioner purchased a flat after being induced by extensive advertisements and assurances of timely completion. The core grievance is the significant delay in project handover. Despite making payments amounting to over 90% of the total consideration, the project, initially promised by a specific date, has seen construction halt for several years. The petitioner alleges that the developer sold units without necessary sanction plans and repeatedly failed to meet its commitments. The petitioner sought directions for the completion of the project, handover of the flat, issuance of the possession certificate, or, alternatively, a full refund of the advanced amount with interest. The Authority, after hearing the petitioner, issued procedural directions. The petitioner is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint and providing a chronological table of all payments within 15 days. Concurrently, the developer is directed to file a written response on a notarized affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 15 days. Furthermore, the Authority included the spouse as a necessary party to the proceedings. | |
| X-Y-Z | no section has been evoked |
Complainant: Ranajit Mukherjee
Respondent: West Bengal Real Estate Regulatory Authority
Sima Mallick
Raja Mallick vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint concerning a breach of a registered Deed of Development Agreement related to a residential property. The core dispute revolves around the developer's failure to fulfill its obligations under the agreement. The complainant asserts that the developer failed to deliver the owner's allocated share (50% of the FAR/flats) in a habitable condition, which was stipulated to occur prior to the handover of other portions of the building. The complainant seeks immediate directions for the handover of the allocated flats, removal of all current occupiers, and compensation amounting to Rs. 2 crore, along with accrued interest. The Authority, after hearing the complainant, issued procedural directions. The complainant is mandated to submit a detailed submission via a notarized affidavit within 15 days. Similarly, the developer is directed to file a written response and supporting affidavit within 15 days. The Authority warned that non-compliance will result in the matter being disposed of *ex-parte*. Furthermore, both parties were advised that they are free to pursue an amicable settlement and submit a joint affidavit if a mutual agreement is reached. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 15.03.2025. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. |
Complainant: Ganesh Chandra Das
Respondent: Siddha Waterfront LLP vs WBRERA |
The Authority heard the parties regarding a complaint concerning a residential unit and an associated parking space in a specific real estate project. The complainant sought several reliefs, including directing the developer to execute a rectification deed for the parking space, granting immediate physical possession of the space, and awarding compensation at 16.85% per annum for the delay in possession since June 2019. After considering the submissions, the Authority did not pass a final order but instead issued procedural directions for further adjudication. The complainant is directed to submit a comprehensive submission via a notarized affidavit, along with all supporting documents, within fifteen days. Similarly, the developer is mandated to file a detailed written response through a notarized affidavit, also supported by documents, within fifteen days. Furthermore, the developer was directed to submit a report on the completion of all remaining works of the project. The Authority fixed a date for further hearing, ensuring that the matter proceeds through formal documentation and compliance before any final decision is rendered. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the west Bengal Real (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016. |
Complainant: Kalyan Kumar Chattopadhyay
Respondent: M/s. A.S.Enterprises & Others vs WBRERA |
The Authority heard the complaint regarding the non-delivery of a residential flat booked in 2007. The core dispute centers on the failure to execute the Deed of Conveyance and hand over possession, despite the agreement promising delivery by 2013. The complainant alleges that the construction is incomplete, non-habitable, and that the developer has engaged in unauthorized construction beyond the sanctioned plan. Furthermore, the complainant points out a significant discrepancy between the agreed area and the physical area of the property. The complainant sought several reliefs, including: (1) immediate execution of the conveyance deed and delivery of the habitable flat; (2) restraining unauthorized construction; (3) payment of interest @ 12% p.a. on the paid amount since 2013; and (4) compensation of ₹20,00,000/- for mental and physical harassment. The Authority, noting the absence of the respondent, admitted the matter for further hearing under Section 31 of the RERA Act. The Authority directed the complainant to submit a detailed submission via a Notarized Affidavit within 15 days, and simultaneously directed the respondent to file a written response on a Notarized Affidavit within 15 days. A date of 26.06.2024 was fixed for the next hearing. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act. |
Complainant: Subhashis Das
Respondent: DTC Projects Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the cancellation of a flat booking and the refund of substantial payments made. The core issue revolves around the inability of the developer to provide necessary title documents, which subsequently hindered the complainant's ability to secure a housing loan. The complainant sought a full refund of the paid amount and compensation, arguing that the developer’s attempt to forfeit the funds upon cancellation was unjust, especially given the lack of a registered agreement. After hearing both parties, the Authority did not pass a final judgment but issued procedural directions for the next hearing. The complainant is directed to submit a notarized affidavit detailing all payments chronologically, along with supporting documents, within fifteen days. Conversely, the developer is mandated to submit a written response and affidavit addressing the complaint, also within fifteen days. Furthermore, the Authority noted that both parties remain at liberty to settle the matter amicably and submit a Joint Notarized Affidavit if a mutual resolution is reached. | |
| X-Y-Z | West Bengal Real Estate (Regulatory and Development) Rules, 2021. Specifically, Clause 7 under the heading 'Cancellation by Allottee'. |
Complainant: Subhashis Das
Respondent: DTC Projects Private Limited vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the cancellation of an allotment and the refund of the principal amount paid. The allottee paid a total sum for a residential unit but sought withdrawal after the promoter failed to provide essential title documents establishing title devolution prior to 2019. The promoter initially sought to cancel the allotment subject to forfeiting the booking amount, citing the terms of the agreement. However, the Authority found fault with the promoter, determining that the failure to furnish necessary title reports (specifically, 13 years of reports required for home loan sanctioning) was the primary cause for the allottee's withdrawal. Consequently, the Authority ruled that the allottee has the right to withdraw and receive a full refund of the principal amount paid. The promoter is directed to refund the entire sum of Rs. 6,22,783/- within 45 days of receiving the order, via bank transfer. No amount shall be forfeited, as the fault lies with the promoter. Following the refund, the promoter is at liberty to re-allot the unit. The allottee must provide bank details within three days. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 11 of the RERA Act, 2016; Section 11 (RERA Act, 2016); and Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016, read with Rule 36. |
Complainant: Swagatam Karmakar
Respondent: Lifemake Construction Pvt. Ltd vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a complaint regarding the possession of a residential unit where the developer failed to complete essential infrastructure and common area maintenance, violating the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The core grievances include the non-provision of proper electricity infrastructure, reliance on unsafe water sources, and the failure to establish a flat owners' association despite the passage of time. Furthermore, the developer was cited for neglecting the maintenance of common areas and leaving promised amenities (like swimming pools) incomplete. The complainant sought directions for compensation, the formation of a society, and the establishment of a five-year defect liability period and Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) for all project equipment, starting from the date of physical completion. The Authority admitted the matter for further hearing under Section 31 of RERA. Consequently, the Authority directed the complainant to submit a notarized affidavit detailing the complaint within 21 days. Simultaneously, the developer was directed to submit a comprehensive written response on a notarized affidavit, addressing the allegations. Crucially, the developer must also specify the actual date of project completion and attach copies of the Completion Certificate (CC), if available. | |
| X-Y-Z | Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and Rule 36 of the West Bengal Real Estate (Regulation and Rules, 2021). |
Complainant: Ambuja Neotia Teesta Development Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent: Bikash Agarwal vs WBRERA |
This order addresses a dispute concerning the cancellation of a commercial plot allotment and associated sub-lease agreement. The developer initiated the complaint, alleging that the allottee defaulted on payments and failed to respond to multiple demands and notices. The developer claimed that, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement for Sub-Lease, and after the expiry of a 30-day notice period, the agreement was legally terminated, and the allotment was cancelled. The developer sought the Authority to formally record this cancellation, direct the payment of the outstanding dues, and permit the execution of a Deed of Cancellation. After hearing both parties, the Authority did not pass a final judgment. Instead, it admitted the matter for further hearing under Section 31 of the RERA Act, 2016. The Authority issued specific procedural directions: 1. The developer is directed to submit a detailed submission on a Notarized Affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 15 days. 2. The allottee is directed to submit a written response on a Notarized Affidavit, along with supporting documents, within 15 days. The matter is fixed for further hearing on the specified date. |