In a ruling that underscores MahaRERA’s procedural guidelines on complaint filing, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority has partly allowed a long-pending complaint by 11 flat buyers but rejected most of their individual-specific reliefs, citing the limitations of filing a joint (group) complaint for personal grievances.
The final order, passed on April 7, 2026 by Member-II Shri. Ravindra Deshpande in Complaint No. CC006000000196093, involved buyers in the “Gaurav Samruddhi” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51700009724) developed by Ravi Developments in Mira Bhayandar, Thane district.
MahaRERA’s Clear Stance on Group vs Individual Complaints
MahaRERA has consistently maintained through its guidelines (including Order No. 11 of 2019 and the official complaint filing portal) that:
- An aggrieved person must file a separate (individual) complaint when seeking personal or individual reliefs.
- Group complaints are entertained only for truly common reliefs, such as those under Section 7 (revocation of registration) & Section 8 (remaining projects after revocation) of the RERA Act, or for common amenities affecting the entire project.
- The Authority may, at its discretion, club multiple similar individual complaints for joint hearing, but it does not encourage mixed joint filings where individual prayers (like specific parking allotment, personal refunds, or interest calculations) are clubbed together.
In the present case, the Authority noted at the outset that the 11 complainants had filed a common complaint seeking a mix of common and individual reliefs. This made it “difficult for this Authority to ascertain which Complainant has purchased which parking” and to grant buyer-specific directions in the absence of clear, per-complainant documentary evidence.
The order explicitly referenced the earlier 2018 directive and MahaRERA’s procedural framework, highlighting that such joint filings often lead to procedural hurdles and partial or limited relief.
This approach aligns with recent MahaRERA observations in other matters, where collective grievances affecting a larger group of allottees are expected to be pursued through a registered Association of Allottees, Co-operative Housing Society, or with explicit authorisation from the majority of homebuyers, rather than by a small group acting in their individual capacity.
Background of the Gaurav Samruddhi Case
The flat buyers had earlier succeeded in a 2018 complaint before the then Chairperson of MahaRERA, which directed the developer to hand over possession by October 31, 2018, pay delay interest if applicable, and initiate society formation.
The buyers claimed they took “fit-out” possession in July 2018. However, even years later, the building lacked a formal Occupation Certificate (OC) from Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation. They alleged missing basic amenities (reliable water supply, consistently working lifts, boundary wall), non-allotment of dedicated car parking despite payments, unpaid property taxes by the developer for the pre-possession period, and demands for additional charges.
Notably, the buyers themselves formed and registered the Gaurav Samruddhi CHS Ltd. in 2021 after the developer failed to do so, despite collecting society formation charges.
What the Order Granted and Rejected
After examining the pleadings, rejoinder, sur-rejoinder, and written submissions (with the final hearing on June 24, 2025), the Authority held:
Granted:
- Direction to the developer (Ravi Developments) to obtain the Occupation Certificate from the Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation within 30 days from the date of the order (i.e., by approximately May 7, 2026). No proof of OC having been received was placed on record.
Rejected:
- Fresh claims for delay interest (as buyers had admitted taking possession in July 2018, before the 2018 deadline).
- Compensation for mental agony/harassment under Section 18(3).
- Specific directions on dedicated car parking (due to lack of clarity in the joint filing).
- Refund of property taxes paid by buyers for the pre-possession period (buyers became liable after taking possession and occupying the flats).
- Directions regarding society formation (already done by buyers in 2021).
- Restraints on additional charges or GST on maintenance (society is now handling maintenance).
No costs were awarded to either side. The complainants were represented by Adv. Godfrey Pimenta, while the respondent was represented by Adv. Makrand Raut.
Implications for Homebuyers Across Maharashtra
This order serves as a reminder to homebuyers that:
- For personal reliefs (interest calculation per flat, specific parking, individual refunds, or accounting of payments), filing individual complaints is safer and more effective.
- For project-wide or common issues (such as obtaining OC, major common amenities, or revocation-related matters), approaching through a registered Co-operative Housing Society or Association of Allottees (with majority backing) carries more weight.
- Joint complaints mixing individual and common prayers risk partial rejection or procedural complications.
Homebuyers in similar delayed or lapsed projects are advised to:
- Coordinate through their registered society for common reliefs like OC and handover of accounts.
- File fresh individual complaints where personal monetary claims (interest, compensation) remain unaddressed.
- Consider appealing the order before the Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (MahaREAT) within the stipulated 60 days, if they believe stronger grounds exist for interest or compensation.
The ruling comes at a time when MahaRERA continues to handle thousands of complaints annually, emphasising procedural discipline to ensure efficient redressal while protecting the rights of genuine homebuyers.
Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute
