IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Yogendra Kumar Gupta and Others - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and Others - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.15343 Of 2022 & CM APPL. No.47635 Of 2022, 534 Of 2023, 19162 Of 2023, 19437 Of 2023
Decided On : 19-04-2023
Real Estate Regulation - Dispute Resolution - MOU - RERA - [The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, Section 18, Section 19, Section 20, Section 71] - The court discussed the settlement between the parties, the compensation amount, and the possession of the flat. It also highlighted the delay in the completion of the project and the decree passed by RERA in favor of the petitioner. The court emphasized that the present writ petition cannot be used for the execution of the decree and dismissed the petition, leaving the petitioner to avail of remedies in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought directions to prevent the sale of additional flats in a project and to withdraw sanctions for another project. A settlement was reached with two of the petitioners, while the third petitioner had a dispute regarding the delay in possession and payment by the respondent. An intervenor alleged concealment of facts by the first petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it cannot be used for the execution of the decree passed by RERA. The petitioner was left to avail of remedies in accordance with the law.
Issues: Dispute over possession and compensation, alleged concealment of facts by the first petitioner, and the execution of the decree passed by RERA.
Ratio Decidendi: The present writ petition cannot be used for execution of the decree passed by RERA. The petitioner is free to avail of remedies in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The present writ petition is dismissed, leaving the petitioner to avail of remedies in accordance with the law.
JUDGMENT :
(Prathiba M. Singh, J.) :—
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is a Petition filed by three Petitioners who are flat buyers in the project of Respondent no. 2 Parsvnath Landmark Developers Pvt. Ltd. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioners seeking directions to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 i.e., the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs and Real Estate Regulatory Authority (‘RERA’) respectively, to not allow Respondent No. 2-Parsvnath Landmark Developers Pvt. Ltd. (‘Parsvnath’) to sell additional flats in project II and III and to withdraw the sanctions for the project ‘La Tropicana’ situated at Khyber Pass, Civil Lines.
3. At the outset, it is submitted by the ld. Counsels for both the parties that insofar as the dispute between Petitioner No. 2-Smt. Sarita Aggarwal and Petitioner No. 3-Mr. Pawan Kumar Jindal with Parsvnath is concerned, the dispute stands resolved vide Memorandum of Understanding (‘MOU’) dated 18th April, 2023. Vide the said MOU, the possession of the flat is to be handed over to the Petitioners on ‘as is where is’ basis. In addition, the compensation amount of Rs. 1.15 crores is to be paid to the Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 by Parsvnath. The amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- already stands deposited in this Court. Accordingly, Rs. 65,00,000/- was agreed to be paid and the same has been received by the Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3. Petitioner No. 3-Mr. Jindal is present in Court and acknowledges the receipt of the said amount. The relevant portions of the settlement are set out below:
2. It is agreed between the parties that the Second Party would pay an amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- (Rupees One Crores and Fifteen Lacs Only) (hereinafter referred to as “Compensation Amount”) as compensation towards the delay in handing over possession in full and final settlement of all the claims of the First Party qua the said Flat or in terms of the Order passed by the RERA Authority or any further orders passed or may be passed by RERA Authority or any other court/foras/tribunal etc.
3. It is agreed between the parties that the Compensation Amount is inclusive of the amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs) already deposited by the Second Party with the Registry of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and as such the Second Party is now only liable to pay an amount of Rs. 65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lacs Only) (which is being paid by the Second Party by way of Demand Draft bearing no. 534828 for Rs. 35,00,000/- and Demand Draft bearing no. 534829 for Rs. 30,00,000/-, both dated 18.04.2023. drawn on Canara Bank, Delhi in favour of Mrs. Sarita Agarwal simultaneously at the time of signing of the present MOU and the said payment is accepted by the First party in full and final settlement of all the dispute pertaining to the said flat and in terms of the order dated 26.09.2018. passed by the Hon'ble RERA Authority. It is agreed that on 19.04.2023., both the parties would request the Hon'ble High Court to release the said deposit amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- in favour of the First Party.”
4. In view of the above settlement with Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, let the possession of the flat be given in terms of clause 1 of the MOU which records that physical possession shall be handed over when the possession of the flats to the other allottees of tower bearing no. 15 is handed over.
5. The parties shall b
Private settlements cannot override statutory obligations established by the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; agreements executed under duress or unfair terms are void.
Without sanction of layout plan - Without sanction of layout plan, the opposite party has realised more than the basic sale price of the flat, which amounts to unfair trade practice.
Contractual clauses that impose unfair obligations are unenforceable, and unreasonable delays in property possession warrant compensation.
The court reaffirmed the binding nature of a valid settlement in property disputes, emphasizing that claims of fraud must be substantiated to alter enforceable agreements.
Breach of contractual obligations in housing redevelopment led to consumer compensation under the Consumer Protection Act.
Developers must adhere to contractual obligations regarding property possession timelines to protect consumer rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.