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

The post MahaRERA Rejects Joint Complaints by Homebuyers Seeking Individual Reliefs appeared first on Square Feat India.

Ordinarily, MahaRERA hears complaints in the sequence they are filed. However, the newly released circular lists seven exceptional situations where this chronological order may be set aside to fast-track hearings.

Circumstances Eligible for Priority Hearing:

1. Life-threatening illness: If the complainant is suffering from a life-threatening medical condition. A doctor’s certificate from a relevant specialist is mandatory.
2. Review or rectification requests: Cases seeking a review, rectification, or alleging non-compliance of an existing MahaRERA order.
3. Court directives: When an appellate tribunal or higher court instructs MahaRERA to dispose of a complaint in a time-bound manner or orders a fresh hearing.
4. Mutual settlements: If parties have mutually settled the matter either through MahaRERA’s Conciliation Bench or outside court.
5. Withdrawal of complaint: If the complainant intends to withdraw the complaint.
6. Maintainability challenges: Where the core issue is whether the complaint is legally maintainable.
7. Multiple complaints from the same project: All such complaints may be clubbed, and the seniority of the first petition filed will apply.

To apply for priority hearing, appropriate documentary evidence must accompany the complaint. In absence of such supporting documents, the request will not be considered.

The circular also states that in special situations, the MahaRERA Chairperson retains the discretion to allow or deny out-of-turn hearings, depending on the merits of each case.

The guidelines are effective immediately and aim to provide timely relief to complainants facing extraordinary situations, ensuring that procedural rules do not become a hurdle in delivering justice.

Also Read: MahaRERA to Hold Monthly Open Houses to Assist Developers with Project Registration

The post MahaRERA to Fast-Track Complaint Hearings in Exceptional Cases, Issues Detailed Guidelines appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Dispute

All three complainants had booked flats in Zeal Regency, a project registered under MahaRERA with Registration No. P99000003182. The original completion date was December 31, 2015, later extended to March 31, 2024. However, the project still lacks an Occupation Certificate (OC).

Details of the Complaints and MahaRERA’s Verdict

Observations by MahaRERA

• In Complaints 193927 and 209422, the agreements were executed before RERA came into force, but the Authority ruled that homebuyers are still entitled to a refund and interest based on actual payment records.
• For Complaint 197955, while the flat possession was granted per consent terms, the developer failed to deliver promised amenities, violating the sale agreement. MahaRERA ordered the developer to comply.
• The Authority noted discrepancies between the claimed payments and actual receipts, and made decisions based on verified records.
• Complaints for mental agony and legal costs were not directly addressed; complainants may approach the Adjudicating Officer for such relief.

Impact and Significance

This ruling highlights MahaRERA’s commitment to upholding buyer rights, even in cases where agreements pre-date RERA’s enactment. It also emphasizes the developer’s accountability not just for possession, but for delivering complete and promised amenities.

With ongoing concerns about delayed possession and lack of transparency in the real estate sector, this case reinforces the power of regulatory redressal for homebuyers in Maharashtra.

Also Read: MahaRERA Dismisses Complaint Against Developer Over Redevelopment Dispute

The post MahaRERA Orders Refunds and Reliefs to Homebuyers as Developer Delays OC and Possession appeared first on Square Feat India.

The ruling, delivered by MahaRERA Chairperson Manoj Saunik, examined a total of six complaints filed by homebuyers and an association of allottees. Of these, two complaints were allowed, while four were dismissed as premature or unmaintainable.

Breakdown of Complaints and MahaRERA’s Decision

Key Findings and Rulings by MahaRERA

1. Refunds Allowed for Two Homebuyers with Interest

MahaRERA ruled in favor of Yaqoob Ahmed and the Banerji family, citing that:

• The possession date, as per their allotment letters, had already lapsed.
• The delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning the developer cannot claim a moratorium period under MahaRERA’s 2020-2021 relief orders.
• JVPD Properties is directed to refund the amounts paid by these buyers along with interest at the rate prescribed under Rule 18 of the Maharashtra RERA Rules 2017, from the due date of possession until the actual refund is completed.
• The refund must be completed within 60 days from the date of the order (January 9, 2025).

2. Four Complaints Dismissed as Premature or Unmaintainable

MahaRERA dismissed complaints from three individual homebuyers and the Serenity Welfare Association for the following reasons:

• Three homebuyers (Thakkar, Desai, Mendes family): Their allotment letters did not specify a possession date. Since the revised project completion deadline is July 30, 2025, MahaRERA deemed their complaints premature.
• Serenity Welfare Association: The association sought to compel Xander Finance Pvt. Ltd., a secured creditor, to register as a promoter and complete the project. MahaRERA rejected this claim, ruling that Xander Finance is a financial institution, not a developer, and does not have obligations under RERA to complete the project.

Impact of the Ruling

This decision establishes key legal precedents:

• Homebuyers with lapsed possession dates are entitled to refunds with interest, but only at rates prescribed under RERA rules, not arbitrary high-interest demands.
• Secured creditors (like Xander Finance) cannot be forced to act as developers unless they assume full control of the project.
• Complaints filed before the project’s official deadline are unlikely to succeed unless there is a clear breach of contract.

Conclusion

The MahaRERA ruling delivers partial relief to homebuyers, ensuring those with valid claims receive refunds, while also clarifying the legal responsibilities of developers versus financial institutions. With a 60-day compliance period, homebuyers await whether JVPD Properties will honor the refund orders or face further enforcement action.

Also Read: MahaRERA Appellate Tribunal

The post MahaRERA Orders Refund with Interest in Serenity Project Case, Dismisses Premature Complaints appeared first on Square Feat India.