The order, passed on 5 June 2026 by Member II Ravindra Deshpande, highlights serious risks that arise when buyers rely on old, unregistered documents and when projects undergo major structural changes through Joint Development Agreements (JDAs).

Chronological Sequence of Events

Here’s how the case unfolded over 15 years:

• 5 January 2007: Ankit Developers (a partnership firm) became the lessee of certain plots at Dr. S.S. Rao Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai through a registered Deed of Assignment.
• 30 August 2011: The Murarka family (complainants Kanchan Vinod Murarka and Amit Vinod Murarka) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Ankit Developers. They paid ₹1.53 crore (out of total consideration of ₹1.61 crore) for approximately 1,700 sq.ft. saleable area + two car parks. The MOU was executed on plain ₹100 stamp paper and was never registered.
• 2013: The 12-month construction start period + 6-month grace period mentioned in the MOU ended. No construction began on the originally proposed project.
• 27 November 2015: Ankit Developers converted into a Limited Liability Partnership — Rak Magnum Realty LLP.
• 21 October 2021: Public notices were published in English, Marathi, and Gujarati newspapers inviting objections before entering into a Joint Development Agreement.
• 2 November 2021: Rak Magnum Realty LLP signed a registered Joint Development Agreement with Gundecha Construction Pvt. Ltd. for developing the larger layout under an SRA scheme.
• 11 April 2022: The project was registered with MahaRERA as Gundecha KBK Magnum Phase-I (Registration No. P51900034493) with a completion date of 31 March 2027.
• 3 February 2023: The Murarkas filed a complaint before MahaRERA seeking delayed possession interest under Section 18 of RERA, possession of the flat, and compensation.
• 11 September 2025: Final hearing took place.
• 5 June 2026: MahaRERA dismissed the complaint.

What the Complainants Argued

The buyers claimed they were genuine allottees who had paid 95% of the consideration in 2011. They argued that Rak Magnum Realty LLP was the successor of Ankit Developers and that Gundecha Construction, being the joint developer, was also liable. They demanded interest at SBI’s highest MCLR + 2% from 2014 onwards until possession, along with other compensation.

Why MahaRERA Dismissed the Complaint

MahaRERA held that the complainants failed to produce sufficient documentary evidence to prove they were allottees in the registered project.

Key observations by the Authority:

• The 2011 MOU only promised “approx. 1,700 sq.ft. saleable area” on floors 7 to 15. It did not allot any specific flat number.
• Flat selection was supposed to happen only after plans were approved — which never happened in the original project.
• The current registered project is significantly different in scale and structure from the 2011 proposal.
• There was no registered Agreement for Sale or any document issued by the current promoters (Rak Magnum + Gundecha) allotting a flat to the complainants.
• The complainants did not raise any objection when public notices were published in 2021 before the JDA was signed.
• The MOU was unregistered and insufficiently stamped, further weakening its evidentiary value.

Critical Lessons for Homebuyers

This order exposes several dangerous loopholes that homebuyers must understand:

1. Old MOUs Offer Very Weak Protection A simple Memorandum of Understanding, especially one that is unregistered and executed on low-value stamp paper, carries very limited legal weight once a project changes hands or gets restructured. Courts and regulators increasingly demand stronger proof of allotment.

2. Project Transformation Through JDA Can Erase Old Claims When a new developer enters through a Joint Development Agreement, old informal bookings often do not automatically carry forward. Buyers must actively establish their claim in the new project structure.

3. You Must Prove You Are an “Allottee” in the Registered Project MahaRERA made it clear that just because you paid money to the earlier entity does not automatically make you an allottee under the RERA-registered project. You need clear evidence linking your booking to the current project.

4. Public Notices Are Not Mere Formalities Failing to object to public notices published before a JDA or redevelopment can later be used against buyers. It weakens claims of ignorance about project changes.

5. Specific Flat Details Matter Vague descriptions like “approx. 1,700 sq.ft. on 7th to 15th floor” without a specific flat number or selection after plan approval create serious problems in enforcement.

6. Long Delays Weaken Your Case Practically Even if limitation is not strictly applied, a 12–15 year gap makes it extremely difficult to produce supporting evidence and prove continuous claim.

Bottom Line for Homebuyers

This ruling is a wake-up call. In today’s real estate environment — where projects frequently change hands through JDAs, redevelopment, or insolvency — relying on old, unregistered documents is extremely risky.

Homebuyers who have paid substantial amounts on the basis of MOUs or allotment letters in projects that later underwent structural changes should urgently review their documents and seek proper legal advice. Getting a registered Agreement for Sale at the earliest possible stage remains the safest protection.

Also Read: Homebuyers Beware: Waiting for Builder’s Review Can Kill Your RERA Appeal

The post Homebuyers Beware: Unregistered MOU + Project Change = Zero Rights in MahaRERA appeared first on Square Feat India.

Prajesh Chandra Mohan, Micky Prajesh Mohan, and Naina Chandra Mohan had booked two luxury flats (B-3903 and B-4203) in Tower B of the project originally launched as Orchid Heights, later renamed One Mahalaxmi Phase 2. The project is now known as Godrej Avenue Eleven – Tower B (MahaRERA Registration No. P51900006299).

In 2010, the family paid around ₹2.11 crore each (nearly 30% of the ₹7.22 crore per flat) to the original developer, Neelkamal Realtors Tower Private Limited. They received only a stamped “Request for Allotment” (RFA) document, which described the payment as an “Interest Free Deposit” and clearly stated that the document did not constitute an Agreement for Sale.

The project faced a major crisis when directors of Neelkamal Realtors were arrested in the infamous 2G spectrum scam, leading to stalled construction. In 2011, the developer assured the buyers via email that the arrests had not impacted the project. Communication eventually became irregular.

Timeline of Promoter Changes:

• Neelkamal Realtors remained the original promoter.
• Indo Global Soft Solutions and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. was inducted as co-promoter around 2018.
• Godrej Residency Private Limited later took over the project as the present promoter and rebranded it.

The promised date of completion has been extended multiple times. The current extended date stands at 31 December 2028, and the project is yet to receive an Occupancy Certificate.

In April 2021, the family filed complaints before MahaRERA. They initially sought a full refund with 18% interest. Later, they amended their pleas to demand execution of Agreement for Sale, interest for delayed possession from 2013, ₹20 lakh compensation, and an injunction.

Godrej’s Key Objections

Godrej Residency Pvt. Ltd. strongly contested the complaints and submitted the following:

• The complainants are not “allottees” under RERA Section 2(d) as no formal allotment letters or registered Agreements for Sale were ever executed.
• They lack locus standi to file the complaints.
• The old RFA was merely an offer, not a binding contract, and carried no possession date.
• Payments were accepted as “Interest Free Deposit”, which was legally permissible under MOFA at that time.
• Godrej offered to refund the principal amount paid to the original promoter without interest.
• The complaints were premature since the revised possession date is December 2028.
• The complainants had allegedly accepted the revised layout plans and the change in promoter.
• The amendment of the complaint (from refund to possession + interest) was impermissible as it changed the nature of the case.

MahaRERA’s Ruling (2nd June 2026)

MahaRERA Member Shri. Ravindra Deshpande, after hearing both sides, passed the following order:

• The complainants qualify as “allottees” under RERA due to substantial payments, continuous correspondence, and identification of specific flats over 15+ years.
• Godrej Residency Pvt. Ltd. has stepped into the shoes of the previous promoters and is liable for past obligations. All three respondents (Neelkamal, Indo Global, and Godrej) are jointly and severally liable.
• The termination letter issued by Godrej was declared invalid.
• Godrej must execute and register formal Agreements for Sale for both flats within 60 days.
• The buyers are entitled to delay interest at the prescribed RERA rate (from 1st January 2023 till possession with Occupancy Certificate) on the amounts paid (excluding taxes and statutory charges).
• Claims for ₹20 lakh compensation, full refund, project revocation, and injunction were rejected.
• Each complainant was awarded ₹20,000 as litigation costs.

This order reflects MahaRERA’s approach of balancing homebuyer protection with the continuation of the project under the new promoter.

Also Read: Even Without Agreement for Sale, MahaRERA Can Order Refund to Prevent Injustice

The post Mumbai Homebuyers Wait 16 Years for Flats, Finally Gets Relief appeared first on Square Feat India.

The final order was passed by Member II, Shri. Ravindra Deshpande on 14th May 2026 in Complaint No. CC005000000116897.

Background of the Dispute

The complaint was filed on 6th April 2022 by Mr. Sreenivasarao Koraganti, an advocate and resident of “Impact Imperial” (RERA Registration No. P52100008652), against Impulse Buildcon’s project “Impulse Residency” bearing RERA Registration No. P52100006791, located at Survey No. 286/1D, Lohegaon, Pune.

The core grievance of the complainant was that the developer was allegedly carrying out residential construction on a 15% statutory amenities space admeasuring 388.56 sq. mtrs., which was originally reserved in the layout approved by the District Collector, Pune in 2014. According to the complainant, this area was meant to be maintained permanently as public amenities/garden and could not be converted for residential use.

Mr. Koraganti argued that both projects (Impact Imperial and Impulse Residency) fall under the same survey number and that the amenities spaces were intentionally kept contiguous to function as a larger public open space. He claimed that construction on this reserved area violated the original sanctioned layout, undertakings given to the Collector, and provisions of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2017.

He sought multiple reliefs including:

• Permanent restraint on further construction on the amenities space
• Restraint on creation of third-party rights
• Directions to hand over the area to Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) for public garden use
• Demolition of alleged illegal construction

Respondent’s Stand

Impulse Buildcon strongly opposed the complaint, arguing that it was misconceived and not maintainable. The developer pointed out that the revised plans were duly approved by the competent authority in 2020, and the project was being developed as per sanctioned permissions. They also raised a preliminary objection that the complaint did not conform to the prescribed format under MahaRERA rules.

MahaRERA’s Ruling: No Locus Standi

After considering pleadings from both sides, MahaRERA rejected the complaint as not maintainable.

The Authority observed two key points:

1. The complainant is not an allottee in Impulse Buildcon’s project. He is a resident of a separate adjoining project and has no Agreement for Sale or contractual relationship with the respondent.
2. The dispute primarily concerns planning permissions, validity of revised sanctioned plans, and utilisation of amenities space — matters that fall under the jurisdiction of planning authorities like PMC and the Collector, rather than RERA.

MahaRERA held that such complex issues involving planning laws cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the RERA Act. The Authority further noted that only allottees of the project or persons with direct enforceable rights under RERA would typically have standing to raise such grievances.

Section 31 of RERA vs MahaRERA’s Interpretation

Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 states that “any aggrieved person” may file a complaint with the Real Estate Regulatory Authority for any alleged violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or rules and regulations made thereunder.

While the section uses broad language allowing any aggrieved person (not limited to allottees) to approach RERA, MahaRERA in this case took a narrow and practical view. The Authority ruled that even if the complainant claims to be aggrieved as a neighbour, he still lacks locus standi because:

• There is no privity of contract with the promoter.
• The reliefs sought (declaration of construction as illegal and handing over of land) fall outside RERA’s core mandate of protecting homebuyers/allottees.

This order reinforces the trend in MahaRERA where complaints filed by third parties or neighbours on planning and open space issues are often dismissed on grounds of maintainability.

The complaint has been disposed of with no order as to costs.

Also Read: MahaRERA Rejects Builder’s Deregistration Bid Over Massive Booking Discrepancies

The post MahaRERA Dismisses Neighbour’s Complaint Against Real Estate Project: “Not an Allottee, No Locus Standi” appeared first on Square Feat India.

In its order dated 4 May 2026 in Complaint No. CC006000000209782, Member Ravindra Deshpande partly allowed the complaint filed by Usha Khanderao Navale against M/s. Sanskruti Nirman Private Limited and its directors regarding Flat No. 1303 in the “Sanskruti Splendour” (also called Anurag Mansion) project at Dahisar (East), Mumbai.

While the Authority rejected most of the buyer’s other demands, it upheld the statutory obligation of the promoter to rectify structural defects under Section 14(3) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.

What the Homebuyer Sought

Usha Khanderao Navale purchased the flat through a registered Agreement for Sale dated 23 July 2018. She alleged that the builder failed to:

• Allot a designated car parking space
• Issue a proper revised possession letter
• Clear all statutory dues up to the date of possession
• Provide a solar system for the society
• Construct a proper side safety compound wall (steel sheets were installed instead)
• Rectify persistent leakage in the side walls of her flat

She submitted photographs showing the leakage and terrace issues as evidence.

Builder’s Defence

The promoter argued that:

• The buyer had opted for “zero vehicle parking space” in the Agreement and paid no extra consideration.
• Possession was offered in November 2021 (before the agreed December 2021 date) and the project received Occupancy Certificate on 31 July 2021.
• Common amenities like solar system and compound wall were never promised and the project was built as per sanctioned plans.
• Leakage issues, if any, were not structural and could be due to post-possession alterations or wear and tear.

MahaRERA’s Key Decision

Strong Message on Defect Liability

MahaRERA emphasised that under Section 14(3) of the RERA Act, the promoter remains liable to rectify structural defects, defects in workmanship, or quality of services for five years from the date of handing over possession — even after the Occupancy Certificate is issued and the buyer has moved in.

The Authority ordered a joint inspection of Flat 1303. If the leakage is found to originate from external walls due to construction deficiencies, the builder must fix it free of cost.

No costs were awarded to either party.

Important Lessons for Homebuyers Across Maharashtra

• Defect Liability is Powerful: Even after possession and OC, builders can be forced to repair structural leakages and major defects for up to 5 years.
• Agreement for Sale is Crucial: Claims for parking or specific amenities will not succeed if they are not mentioned in the Agreement and no payment was made.
• Common Amenities: Issues affecting the entire society (solar system, compound wall, etc.) should ideally be taken up by the Residents’ Welfare Association.
• Maintain Records: Photographs and timely written complaints help strengthen your case before RERA.

This order strikes a balance — it protects genuine construction defect complaints while preventing buyers from reopening issues that were clearly not part of the original deal.

Order Status: Complaint partly allowed. Builder has 60 days (30 days for inspection + 30 days for repairs, if required) to resolve the leakage issue.

Also Read: MahaRERA Cracks Down on 8,212 Projects for Non-Compliance, Threatens Cancellation & Bank Freezes

The post Builder Must Fix Leakage in Flat Even After Possession: MahaRERA Orders Rectification at Builder’s Cost appeared first on Square Feat India.

Background of the Case

The dispute was filed by the Poonam Heights Welfare Association, a society formed by flat purchasers, against the developer Timestar Limited and its associates. The buyers raised serious concerns:

• Project delay of nearly a decade
• Absence of Occupancy Certificate (OC)
• Lack of basic amenities
• Alleged unauthorized construction
• Financial irregularities

Based on these issues, the society demanded strong action:

• Revocation of the project registration
• Removal of the existing developer
• Appointment of a new developer

Developer’s Defense

The developer pushed back with a very different narrative:

• The building was already completed and occupied
• Delays were caused by:
  • Unauthorized alterations by flat buyers
  • Regulatory hurdles and approvals
  • COVID-related disruptions
• Claimed substantial compliance, including:
  • Payment of ~₹6 crore for approvals
  • Installation of systems like parking and fire safety
  • Ongoing efforts to obtain OC

What MahaRERA Examined

Instead of deciding emotionally or based on allegations, MahaRERA focused on a fundamental legal principle:

Who has to prove?

The authority emphasized that:

• The burden of proof lies on the complainant (buyers)
• Allegations must be backed by:
  • Documents
  • Technical reports
  • Official records
  • Expert certifications

Where Buyers Lost the Case

This is where the entire case turned.

MahaRERA observed:

• Buyers made broad and serious allegations
• But failed to submit supporting evidence
  • No engineering reports
  • No certified proof of illegal construction
  • No official communications proving violations

On the other hand:

• The developer submitted documents showing:
  • Payments
  • Approvals
  • Compliance steps

Final Verdict

MahaRERA dismissed the complaint, stating:

The complainant failed to substantiate allegations with credible documentary evidence.

• No action against developer
• No project cancellation
• No cost awarded

Key Takeaway for Homebuyers

This case is a wake-up call.

RERA is evidence-driven, not emotion-driven.

Even if:

• Your project is delayed
• Amenities are missing
• Builder has defaulted

You can still lose the case if you don’t present:

• Written records
• Expert reports
• Government notices
• Clear documentation

What Homebuyers Should Do Before Filing a RERA Case

To avoid this mistake:

Collect all agreements and payment proofs
Document delays with official communication
Get architect/engineer reports for defects
Save emails, notices, and builder commitments
File a structured, evidence-backed complaint

Conclusion

The Poonam Heights case highlights a harsh but critical truth:

In RERA, truth alone doesn’t win cases—proof does.

For thousands of homebuyers facing delays and builder issues, this order is a reminder to prepare thoroughly before approaching the authority.

Also Read: Double Booking Costs Builder Dear: MahaRERA Orders Refund to Homebuyer in Sunteck Project

The post RERA Case Lost: Buyers Failed to Prove Claims—Big Lesson for Homebuyers Before Filing Complaints appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Verdict in Plain Language

“You accepted fit-out possession without an Occupation Certificate and stayed on. You acquiesced. You now get interest for 49 days — not 35 months.”

— MahaRERA Member II, in effect

The Story

In September 2016, Manasa Balumur — an NRI — purchased a flat in the Dinesh Kunj project in Goregaon (West), Mumbai, from builder Swastik Realty Pvt. Ltd. for a total consideration of ₹1,06,44,000. The Agreement for Sale was registered. The builder promised possession within 24 months — by 31 August 2018.

That date came and went. No Occupation Certificate. No lawful possession. Instead, in October 2018, the builder offered what it called “fitment possession” — a chance to enter the flat to carry out interior works, with no OC in sight. The buyer accepted, began her interiors, and moved in. The actual Occupation Certificate arrived only on 29 July 2021 — nearly three years after the promised possession date.

Her father, Anantha Krishna Balumur, armed with a registered Power of Attorney, filed a complaint before MahaRERA in October 2020 seeking interest on the full consideration for the period of delay and ₹10 lakh in compensation for mental agony.

The Timeline

Sep 1, 2016

Agreement for Sale registered. Builder promises possession within 24 months.

Aug 31, 2018

Contractual deadline for possession. Builder misses it. No OC obtained.

Oct 20, 2018

Builder offers “fitment possession” — flat handed over without Occupation Certificate. Buyer accepts for interior works.

Oct 31, 2020

Complaint filed before MahaRERA seeking interest and compensation.

Jul 29, 2021

Occupation Certificate finally obtained — 35 months after the agreed possession date.

Oct 2022

Buyer admitted to the Co-operative Housing Society.

Apr 20, 2026

MahaRERA passes final order. Interest awarded for 49 days only.

What the Law Says

This is not a grey area. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 is explicit. Section 18(1) makes builders liable to pay interest for every month of delay in handing over possession. Section 19(10) gives allottees the right to receive possession only after the builder has obtained the Occupation Certificate. Without the OC, there is no lawful possession — period.

Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules specifies the interest rate: SBI’s highest MCLR plus 2%. The law does not say this liability evaporates if a buyer, desperate after years of waiting, accepts entry into a flat she has already paid for in full, merely to begin her interiors.

“The flat had no OC. Under RERA, that means it legally did not exist as a deliverable unit. Yet the order penalises the buyer for daring to use what she paid ₹1.06 crore for.”

What MahaRERA Did

MahaRERA correctly dismissed several of the builder’s defences. It rightly held that the unregistered Deed of Cancellation — the builder’s claim that the entire sale agreement had been cancelled in September 2016 — was legally void. A registered agreement can only be cancelled by a registered instrument. The builder’s subsequent conduct — handing over possession, helping the buyer get society membership — confirmed the agreement was alive.

MahaRERA also rightly dismissed the builder’s claim that ₹45.3 lakh in dues were outstanding. The builder’s own cancellation deed admitted full consideration had been received. No contemporaneous demand for dues existed.

So far, so good. Then came the twist.

Having established that the Agreement for Sale was valid, that the builder was in breach, and that the OC only came 35 months late — MahaRERA then drastically curtailed the relief. The order held that because the buyer voluntarily accepted fitment possession in October 2018 and “continued to occupy the premises without raising any contemporaneous objection,” she had acquiesced to the delay. Therefore, interest would be awarded only for the gap between the contractual date (31 August 2018) and the fitment possession date (20 October 2018) — a grand total of 49 days.

The Arithmetic of Injustice

The buyer waited 35 months for a legal, OC-backed possession. MahaRERA awarded interest for 49 days. The remaining 34+ months of delay — during which the flat had no Occupation Certificate and therefore no legal standing as a completed unit — were wiped away because the buyer moved in to do her interiors.

The Fatal Flaw in the Reasoning

The order’s logic creates a perverse trap for homebuyers. Under RERA, a buyer is entitled to either interest for delay or a refund. The buyer here did not want a refund — she wanted her flat. After waiting, she accepted fitment possession to at least begin her interiors, mitigating her own losses while paying EMIs on her home loan. That act of pragmatic mitigation is now treated as a waiver of three years of statutory rights.

The order is silent on a crucial question: what was she supposed to do? Refuse entry into a flat she had paid ₹1.06 crore for, sit in limbo, and keep paying home loan EMIs while waiting for an OC that came three years later? If she had done that, would she have been entitled to interest? Apparently yes. Because she was practical and moved in, she is entitled to almost nothing.

This reasoning also directly conflicts with the plain text of the Act. Section 18 creates an obligation on the promoter to pay interest. The allottee’s decision to occupy the flat — which she paid for, in full — does not extinguish the promoter’s statutory obligation. The RERA framework does not contain an “acquiescence” exception. If it did, builders across Maharashtra would simply hand over possession without OCs, wait for buyers to move in, and be immunised from all liability.

“RERA does not contain an acquiescence exception. If it did, every builder in Maharashtra would hand over flats without OCs, wait for buyers to move in, and declare themselves immune.”

The Compensation Denial

Beyond the interest question, MahaRERA denied the ₹10 lakh compensation claim for mental agony entirely, observing that “no separate and specific evidence” had been placed on record. The order concluded that statutory interest “would sufficiently meet the ends of justice.” Interest for 49 days on ₹1.06 crore — likely amounting to a few thousand rupees — is described as sufficient to compensate for three and a half years of living in a flat without legal occupation, dealing with incomplete amenities, and funding litigation.

The Cost Award: A Final Insult

The Respondent was directed to pay ₹20,000 toward the cost of the complaint. For context, the complainant’s advocate fees and years of litigation costs almost certainly far exceed this figure. The builder — which delayed the OC by 35 months, tried to pass off an unregistered cancellation deed as legally valid, and claimed fictitious outstanding dues — walks away paying twenty thousand rupees in costs and 49 days of interest.

What This Order Signals

MahaRERA was created precisely to correct the power imbalance between builders and homebuyers. The RERA Act gave buyers the right to compensation for delay, the right to possession only with an OC, and the right to approach a statutory authority for redress. An order that uses a buyer’s practical acceptance of an incomplete flat against her — to deny the very relief the Act provides — undermines the architecture of the legislation.

If this reasoning stands, it sends a clear message to builders: delay your OC, hand over fitment possession, and wait. Once buyers move in, your liability is capped at the narrow gap between contractual deadline and fitment date. The longer you delay the OC after that, the more liability you shed.

And it sends a clear message to buyers: do not accept fitment possession, no matter how desperate you are, no matter how many EMIs you are paying, no matter how many years you have waited — because the moment you do, your right to compensation effectively disappears.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Full Refund with Interest to Homebuyer for Possession Delay

The post “You Stayed in It — So Stop Complaining”: How MahaRERA Let a Builder Off the Hook After 35 Months of Illegal Delay appeared first on Square Feat India.

The 23-page order dated 24 March 2026 in Regulatory Case No. 437 of 2025 has left many allottees shocked and angry. They had booked flats in what was marketed as “Sai Sapphire I”, paid hefty amounts (one group alone paid ₹16.60 crore for 11 flats), and waited since 2014–2016 for possession that was originally promised by December 2015. Instead of getting their homes, they now face the prospect of chasing refunds from the terminated original developer while the new promoter sells the units to fresh buyers at today’s much higher prices.

Chronological Sequence of Events

• 2014–2016: ITMC Developers Pvt Ltd launches Sapphire I (SRA project on CTS Nos. in Kurla). Allottees book flats and pay substantial consideration. Possession promised by Dec 2015. One allottee (Blessings Infra Developers LLP) pays full ₹16.60 crore for 11 flats.
• 1 August 2017: Project registered with MahaRERA as ongoing project No. P51800006372. Proposed completion: 31 July 2017 (later extended multiple times till 30 Dec 2023).
• 2017–2023: Severe delays. Construction stalls. ITMC stops paying transit rent to slum dwellers. 46 complaints filed by allottees; 34 disposed, 12 still pending. A 21-storey structure is later demolished.
• 13 Feb 2024: Committee under Additional Chief Secretary (Housing) discusses lender’s amnesty proposal.
• 15 March 2024: SRA terminates ITMC under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act and appoints Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company (EARC) along with Mahadev Spaceinnovator Pvt Ltd (later renamed Mahadev Realtors Powai Pvt Ltd) as the new developer.
• 1 October 2024: SRA issues Letter of Intent in favour of the new developer.
• 28 November 2025: New promoter files application for fresh RERA registration (REPM1180002502274).
• 15 Dec 2025 & 22 Jan 2026: MahaRERA hears the case. Over 20 allottees, represented by advocates including Sunilraja Nadar and Godfrey Pimenta, strongly object. They argue that their vested rights cannot be wiped out and demand that the new promoter honour old agreements.
• 24 March 2026: MahaRERA passes order allowing fresh registration to the new promoter while keeping the old registration in abeyance.

What the Order Says

MahaRERA held that this was not a voluntary transfer under Section 15 of RERA (which requires 2/3rd allottee consent). Since the old promoter was statutorily terminated by SRA, the new promoter (Mahadev Realtors Powai) is not automatically bound by the old agreements. The Authority recognised the new entity as the promoter and directed it to complete formalities for a fresh RERA registration and open a new project bank account.

For the affected homebuyers, the Authority directed:

• Old registration P51800006372 to be kept in abeyance so they can still file complaints against ITMC.
• A lien on the reimbursement amount that EARC must pay to ITMC (to be valued by a government-approved valuer). This money can be used to satisfy claims of old allottees if ITMC fails to pay.
• ITMC barred from selling any units; old project bank account frozen.

However, the order makes it clear that original allottees have no direct enforceable rights against the new promoter. Their remedies lie only against the now-terminated ITMC Developers.

Allottees had argued that the building was demolished without consent, material facts were suppressed, and principles from Supreme Court and Bombay High Court judgments (including Bikram Chatterji) should protect homebuyers who funded the project. MahaRERA distinguished the facts, noting this was an SRA-driven termination, not a society redevelopment.

The Scary Reality of SRA Projects in Mumbai

This case highlights a recurring danger in Mumbai’s real estate market: buying into an SRA project carries high risk. Homebuyers often pay crores believing they are getting a flat in a redevelopment scheme, only to discover that when the original developer defaults and SRA brings in a new player (usually backed by a lender), their booked units can effectively be resold to others. They are left as unsecured creditors of a failed entity, fighting for refunds that are notoriously difficult to recover in full.

Many affected buyers in Sapphire I had already approached consumer forums and even the NCDRC. Some are retired individuals who invested lifetime savings. The new promoter can now legally market and sell the sale component at current market rates, while old buyers chase money from ITMC.

This order is likely to fuel fresh debate on whether SRA projects need stronger homebuyer protections, similar to calls for a separate RERA-like law for redevelopment schemes.

Also Read: Is A Homebuyer Protected If SRA Terminates Builder?

The post SRA Dream Turns Nightmare: Kurla Homebuyers Lose Flats Despite Paying Crores appeared first on Square Feat India.

The final order, pronounced today by Member Mahesh Pathak in Complaint No. CC12501541, comes as a partial victory for over 28 homebuyers (supported by resolutions from all three housing societies of Wings A, B, and C) who have been living in the project since early 2025 but struggling with incomplete facilities.

Chronological Sequence of Events: How the Dispute Unfolded

• 2015–2019: Bhagwati Developers won the CIDCO tender for Plot No. 5, Sector-23, Kharghar (behind Iskon Temple). Commencement Certificate issued in April 2017; amended in May 2019 for three towers (A, B & C) with 200+ residential and commercial units. Brochures promised premium amenities including swimming pool, gym, children’s play area, badminton & basketball courts, indoor games, squash court, jogging track, yoga/meditation zone, landscaped garden, party lawn, and more.
• 2023: Part Occupation Certificate (OC) granted on 19 October 2023 for initial wings.
• January 2025: Full OC issued on 9 January 2025. Most buyers took possession; three cooperative housing societies (Wings A, B & C) were formed in February–April 2025.
• 13 January 2025: An earlier complaint filed by the Bhagwati Greens Phase 2 Allottees AOP (CC00600000034422) was dismissed by MahaRERA. That case was based on pre-OC apprehensions about layout changes. The order is currently under appeal before the MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal.
• 21 April 2025: CIDCO issued a specific order directing the developer to correct parking layout and earmarking issues.
• 9 May 2025: Present complaint (CC12501541) filed by Kshitiz Kulshrestha & others, seeking completion of amenities, permanent parking allotment, compliance with CIDCO’s parking order, and restraint on further bookings/changes.
• 14 October 2025 & 9 December 2025: MahaRERA hearings (hybrid mode). Societies passed resolutions supporting the complainants. Developer filed replies claiming compliance with CIDCO order, ad-hoc parking, and planned further expansion (additional Wing D and floors using extra FSI).
• December 2025: Written submissions exchanged. Developer applied for RERA registration extension till June 2030 on 17 January 2026 (still under consideration).
• 27 March 2026: Final order pronounced after reserving the matter.

Core Issues Raised in the Complaint

Buyers alleged that even after full OC and possession:

• Multiple promised amenities (swimming pool, landscaped garden, children’s play area, badminton court, gym, indoor game zone, basketball court, outdoor lounges, yoga area, squash court, jogging track, etc.) remained incomplete or non-operational.
• Parking was only temporary/ad-hoc; permanent covered spaces were never fairly allotted despite assurances in Agreements for Sale.
• Developer was pushing revised approvals for additional FSI and higher floors (up to G+32) even after OC, allegedly violating RERA Section 14(2) consent norms.
• Exclusive resident areas were allegedly opened to outsiders.

The developer countered that an earlier similar complaint was dismissed, the current one lacked proper authorisation (later cured by society resolutions), parking would be permanent only after full project completion (including proposed extra construction), and they had complied with CIDCO’s April 2025 order. They also claimed allottee consent for extra FSI and argued societies had not officially complained.

What MahaRERA Ruled Today

MahaRERA partly allowed the complaint and made these key observations and directions:

• The present complaint is not barred by res judicata — it is based on a fresh cause of action arising after full OC was granted.
• Complaint is maintainable as all three societies have passed supporting resolutions.
• Once OC is issued and possession handed over, the promoter has a statutory duty under RERA to complete and operationalise all promised common amenities within a reasonable time. The developer cannot indefinitely delay them citing proposed future construction.
• Amenities deadline: Complete and make operational all promised amenities (swimming pool, landscaped garden, play area, sports & recreational facilities, etc.) within 6 months (by 27 September 2026). Developer must submit a detailed timeline and status report to complainants/societies within 30 days.
• Parking deadline: Allot, demarcate, and hand over permanent parking spaces to all eligible allottees in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner within 1 month (by 27 April 2026), strictly as per sanctioned plans.
• No blanket restraint on further bookings or new allotments.
• Issues of additional FSI, proposed extra floors/Wing D, and society validity fall under CIDCO or the Cooperative Societies Registrar — not fully within MahaRERA’s scope here.
• The long extension sought by the developer (till June 2030) appears unreasonable given existing buyers’ wait for basic facilities.

The complaint stands disposed of with these directions.

What This Means for Homebuyers

This order sends a strong message: Post-OC delays in amenities and parking will not be tolerated. For buyers in Bhagwati Greens 2 and similar ready-to-move projects across Navi Mumbai, it reinforces that developers cannot keep promising “world-class amenities” in brochures and Agreements for Sale, then defer delivery indefinitely.

Flat owners now have clear, enforceable deadlines. Non-compliance can lead to further execution proceedings, penalties, or interest payments under RERA.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Refunds and Reliefs to Homebuyers as Developer Delays OC and Possession

The post MahaRERA Cracks the Whip on Bhagwati Developers: Kharghar Homebuyers Get 6-Month Amenities Deadline & 1-Month Permanent Parking Relief at Bhagwati Greens 2 appeared first on Square Feat India.

The complaint was filed by Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani against developers Ankur Mayflower Associates and Sahaj Ankur Realtors regarding Flat No. 601 in the project Evergreen Woods, located at Andheri–Kurla Road, Mumbai.

Background of the Dispute

According to the complaint, the buyer received an allotment letter dated 18 February 2016 from the earlier developer for a 476 sq. ft. 1BHK flat with parking priced at ₹75 lakh, with possession promised by June 2018. She paid ₹31 lakh toward the flat — ₹1 lakh by cheque and ₹30 lakh in cash, acknowledged by receipt.

Construction allegedly stalled indefinitely. Despite repeated follow-ups with the earlier developer’s partner Sunil Chandulal Shah, no progress occurred. The buyer issued a legal notice in November 2020 seeking execution of the agreement for sale.

In February 2021, she discovered via a public notice published in Hindustan Times that the land had been conveyed and the project taken over by another entity connected with Vinca Realtors Private Limited. She objected through her lawyer, asserting her prior allotment rights.

New Developer’s Defence

The new promoter argued:

• It never received any money from the complainant.
• It was not a party to the allotment letter.
• The buyer’s name did not appear in the list of advances attached to the 2020 dissolution-cum-conveyance deed.
• Therefore, it had no liability.

The developer’s counsel Viraj Bansod also contended the complaint was time-barred and legally unsustainable.

Buyer’s Argument

The complainant, represented by Mahesh Kukreja, relied on rulings of the Supreme Court of India and Bombay High Court, arguing:

• She qualifies as an allottee under RERA.
• Possession delay gives her an unconditional statutory right to relief.
• Once a project is registered, the promoter must honor existing allotments.

What MahaRERA Held

The Authority rejected the new developer’s core defence and laid down key findings:

1. Registered promoter = full liability
Obligations arise from promoter status, not from whether the promoter personally received money.

2. Buyer rights survive project transfer
Inter-se disputes between developers cannot override statutory rights of allottees.

3. Non-disclosure cannot defeat buyer claims
Failure to list an allottee in takeover documents cannot prejudice that buyer.

4. Delay clearly attributable to developers
Possession promised in 2018 has still not been delivered.

Crucial Finding

The Authority ruled that both developers are jointly and severally liable, meaning the buyer can enforce relief against either of them.

It also noted that the earlier developer, through counsel, had admitted liability and promised settlement within 60 days — which never happened. Another partner named in records was Nimish Dalal.

Final Order

MahaRERA directed:

• Interest on ₹31 lakh at SBI MCLR + 2% from 1 July 2018 till possession.
• Execution and registration of the sale agreement within 30 days.
• Possession with Occupation Certificate after balance payment.
• ₹5,000 cost for late reply filing by new promoter.
• ₹20,000 litigation costs to buyer.

Why This Order Matters

The ruling reinforces a major legal principle increasingly applied in stalled or transferred projects:

A developer who takes over a project also takes over its liabilities.

The Authority warned that allowing promoters to deny responsibility based on internal agreements would defeat the very purpose of the RERA law, which is meant to protect homebuyers.

Also Read: MahaRERA Orders Full Refund with Interest to Homebuyer for Possession Delay

The post New Builder Said “We Didn’t Take Your Money.” Buyer Still Won: MahaRERA Orders Possession, Interest in Mumbai Project Dispute appeared first on Square Feat India.

In a significant ruling reinforcing homebuyer protections under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, the Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has categorically held that uploading Form 4 (Architect’s Certificate) does not amount to legal project completion in the absence of an Occupation Certificate (OC).

The Authority passed the order while deciding a batch of complaints filed by homebuyers in the “Kuber Ganraj” project (MahaRERA Registration No. P51700008998), developed by promoter Ashvinkumar Dahyabhai Patel. The ruling resulted in refunds with interest being granted to three allottees after years of delay.

Form 4 Uploaded, But Project Still Without OC

As recorded by MahaRERA, the project was originally scheduled for completion in 2018, with a revised completion date of 2019. However, the project never obtained an Occupation Certificate from the competent planning authority.

Instead, the promoter uploaded Form 4 (Architect’s Certificate) dated 2 December 2020 on the MahaRERA portal, declaring that construction was complete. MahaRERA made it clear that such a certificate cannot substitute the statutory requirement of an Occupation Certificate, which alone validates legal possession under RERA.

Contractual Possession Due in 2016, Regulatory Direction in 2018 Ignored

The homebuyers had booked their flats between 2014 and 2015, and their registered Agreements for Sale recorded the contractual possession date as on or before 31 May 2016. Despite substantial payments having been made, possession was not handed over within the agreed timeline.

MahaRERA further noted that the Authority had passed a common order in October 2018, directing the promoter to hand over possession by 31 December 2018. This regulatory direction was also not complied with, and the delay continued unabated.

Promoter Remains Absent, Matters Proceed Ex-Parte

During the proceedings, the promoter remained absent for four consecutive hearings and failed to file any written submissions or documents to justify the delay or counter the homebuyers’ claims.

In view of repeated non-appearance, MahaRERA proceeded ex-parte, observing that the allegations and documents placed on record by the complainants remained uncontroverted.

MahaRERA: No OC Means Delay Continues

In its findings, MahaRERA reiterated that:

• Architect’s Certificates only attest to construction completion
• Occupation Certificates are mandatory statutory approvals
• Possession without OC is impermissible under Sections 17 and 19(10) of the RERA Act

The Authority held that the delay in the project continued until the date of the order, entitling the homebuyers to exit the project and seek refund with interest.

Refund With Interest Ordered From Contractual Due Date

Allowing three of the four complaints, MahaRERA directed the promoter to:

• Refund the entire amount paid by the allottees (excluding statutory charges such as stamp duty and registration fees)
• Pay interest from 1 June 2016 until realization, at the rate prescribed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules, 2017
• Complete the refund within 60 days of the order
• Execute and register cancellation deeds after payment

One complaint was dismissed solely due to the absence of a registered Agreement for Sale, which the Authority held to be a foundational document for adjudication.

COVID Moratorium Relief Denied

MahaRERA also ruled that the promoter cannot claim the benefit of COVID-19 moratorium notifications, noting that the delay arose much before the pandemic and was attributable entirely to the promoter’s failure to perform contractual and statutory obligations.

Why the Ruling Matters

The order sends a clear message to developers across Maharashtra that project completion cannot be declared through professional certificates alone. Without an Occupation Certificate issued by the competent authority, buyer rights under RERA remain fully enforceable, including the right to refund with interest.

For homebuyers stuck in delayed projects, the ruling reaffirms that Form 4 cannot be used as a shield against accountability.

Also Read: Homebuyers Can’t Double-Dip: MahaREAT Says Civil Suit Blocks Later RERA Complaints

The post Architect’s Certificate Cannot Replace Occupation Certificate, Rules Authority appeared first on Square Feat India.