AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A complaint was received from Sh. Ankur Gupta (hereinafter referred to as 'Complainant') against the Promoter of the project "The Amaryllis", New Rohtak Road, New Delhi alleging various issues and seeking imposition of maximum penalty on the Promoter and constitution of an investigation committee.
A Notice of the complaint was issued to the Promoter, in response to which a reply dated 16.09.2025 was filed by the Promoter Noticee
For the sake of convenience, the submissions made on behalf of the Complainant are as follows:
The Promoter, in collusion with MCD officials, has defrauded flat owners of the Amaryllis project. As of the date of the complaint, all buildings constructed in the project are stated to be illegal.
Before the order of this Authority dated 07.03.2022, MCD had already approved a revised sanctioned plan dated 14.02.2022. However, approval before this Authority on 07.03.2022 was sought on the basis of an earlier revised sanctioned plan dated 12.06.2020. It has been alleged that the Promoter concealed the existence of the later revised sanctioned plan from this Authority.
As per paragraphs 7 and 10 of the order of this Authority dated 07.03.2022, the FAR of Phase 1 has not been utilised, and each Phase is to be treated as an independent project.
The Complainant has tabulated the ground coverage, typical floor area and total covered area of the towers in Phase 1, 2 and 3 as recorded in the sanctioned building plans and of 2017, 2019, 2020 and 2022, and contended that these figures have varied for the same buildings across successive revisions without explanation, notwithstanding that the land area and permissible FAR of each phase remained constant.
Photographs uploaded on the website of this Authority in 2018–19 and MCD's site inspection report of 2019 are stated to show Phase 1 as complete and Phases 2 and 3 as completed up to G+26 floors. It has been stated that the subsequent change in ground coverage, typical floor area and total covered area figures in later sanctioned plans is possible only through collusion between the Promoter and MCD officials.
The order of MCD dated 06.06.2024 is stated to be in consonance with a revised sanctioned building plan dated 14.06.2024. The Promoter is stated to have sought a six-month extension on 06.06.2024, during which period a further revised sanctioned plan was to be submitted and approved by MCD without the concurrence of two-third of the allottees.
The layout / sanctioned building plans of Phases 2, 3 and 4 have not been uploaded on the website of this Authority till date.
It has been prayed that this Authority may impose maximum fine on the Promoter and constitute an Investigation Committee to inspect all buildings in the project.
For the sake of convenience, the submissions made on behalf of the Promoter / Noticee are as follows:
The project "The Amaryllis" is being developed in multiple phases, of which four phases stand registered with this Authority under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (herein after referred as 'the Act').
Construction has been carried out strictly in conformity with the latest approved sanctioned plans dated 2017, 2020 and 2024 and applicable Master Plan for Delhi 2021 and Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016
The project has been undertaken strictly within the permissible FAR sanctioned by the competent authority.
Approvals have been obtained from the Delhi Urban Art Commission, Delhi Fire Service, the Office of the Electrical Inspector (GNCTD), Labour Cess Authorities and the Delhi Jal Board. MCD has granted Occupancy-cum-Completion certificates for three phases.
Revisions to the sanctioned plans were made by MCD in accordance with the then prevailing rules and,
1,335 homebuyers have booked apartments in Phases 1, 2 and 3, of whom 1,022 have taken possession. The built-up area of no apartment has changed and no allottee has raised any complaint of dissatisfaction over the area booked and delivered.
A similar challenge to the project has been considered and rejected by the Hon’ble Appellate Tribunal for MCD (hereinafter referred as ‘ATMCD’) by dismissing Appeal No. 994/ATMCD/2024 as per judgment dated 01.04.2025. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dismissed a connected writ petition with costs of Rs. 20,000/-.
The Complainant is not an 'aggrieved person' within the meaning of Section 31 of the Act, having no privity of contract, transactional relationship or nexus, direct or indirect, with the Promoter, and not being an allottee, resident, investor or shareholder in the project.
The repeated filing of complaints by the Complainant before this Authority and other public bodies, including MCD, amounts to a pattern of vexatious litigation intended to harass the Promoter.
The complaint deserves to be dismissed, with appropriate costs imposed on the Complainant.
We have heard the submissions and perused the documents on record, including the judgment dated 01.04.2025 passed by the Hon’ble ATMCD in Appeal No. 994/ATMCD/2024, Pardarshita Public Welfare Foundation (NGO) v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., and order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 4521/2025, Vinish Mittal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.
Analysis and Findings
A. Maintainability / Locus Standi
The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ('the Act') establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for the real estate sector. The jurisdiction and powers of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred as RERAs) are specifically defined under various provisions of the Act.
Section 31 of the Act deals with filing of complaints with the Authority or the Adjudicating Officer and provides that any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority for any violation or contravention of the provisions of the Act or the Rules and Regulations made thereunder against any promoter, allottee or real estate agent.
For ready reference, the text of Section 31 is reproduced below:
Filing of complaints with the Authority or the adjudicating officer.
31.(1) Any aggrieved person may file a complaint with the Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the case may be, for any violation or contravention of the provisions of this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder against any promoter allottee or real estate agent, as the case may be.
Explanation.—For the purpose of this sub-section “person” shall include the association of allottees or any voluntary consumer association registered under any law for the time being in force.
The form, manner and fees for filing complaint under sub-section (1) shall be such as may be prescribed.
A simple reading of the provision empowers any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Authority, which includes the associations of allottees or any other voluntary consumer association. However, the Act does not prohibit any person from bringing facts of violation of the Act before the Authority. The Authority, after examination of such facts, can also take “suo-moto” cognizance of the violation and take suitable action against the erring promoter, real estate agent or allottee.
Even if the Complainant in this case is not directly aggrieved by the registration and implementation of the subject project, he is at liberty to place facts about violation of the Act before the Authority for further necessary action.
This Authority, accordingly, took notice of the facts placed on record by the Complainant and examined the alleged violations “suo motu”.
The main grievance raised in the complaint is variation, across successive sanctioned plans, of the ground coverage / typical floor area / total covered area of buildings in Phases 1, 2 and 3, said to be as a result of collusion between the Promoter and MCD.
It is pertinent to note that the project "The Amaryllis" has already been the subject matter of Appeal No. 994/ATMCD/2024, in which Hon’ble ATMCD, by judgment dated 01.04.2025, examined a challenge to the layout plan of the DCM Group Housing Residential Complex approved vide Resolution No. 266, and rejected challenges relating to measurement of the residential area, inclusion of leasehold land, inclusion of non-contiguous land, encroachment of the 18-metre-wide public road, and the address of the project, holding that the comprehensive scheme for the group housing project had been approved by MCD as per extant law, in consultation with and in light of clarifications provided by the Delhi Development Authority, and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.
We further note that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in W.P.(C) 4521/2025 (Vinish Mittal v. MCD & Ors.), by order dated 08.04.2025, dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- a writ petition seeking demolition of Phases 2, 3 and 4 of the same project on the ground of violation of MCD norms, the sanctioned plan, the National Building Code and applicable bye-laws, after noting that the issues raised therein stood dealt with in Hon’ble ATMCD’s judgment dated 01.04.2025, and that MCD had issued completion certificates for seven towers of the project.
This Authority, being a creature of the Act, does not exercise appellate jurisdiction over decisions of MCD regarding sanction of building or layout plans, utilisation of FAR, or the correctness of covered area figures recorded therein, the appropriate forum for such grievances is the Hon’ble ATMCD, constituted under Section 347B of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
In view of the foregoing, and having regard to the fact that the substantive challenge to the layout plan / comprehensive scheme of the project has already been examined and rejected by the Hon’ble ATMCD vide judgment dated 01.04.2025, which has been relied upon by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in dismissing a connected writ petition vide order dated 08.04.2025, this Authority does not consider it necessary to reopen those specific issues.
The Authority, in view, orders as under:
Since, grievances relating to the layout plans and comprehensive scheme of the project "The Amaryllis", have already been examined and rejected in Appeal No. 994 / ATMCD / 2024 through judgment dated 01.04.2025 and in W.P.(C) 4521 / 2025 as per order dated 08.04.2025, they do not require re-adjudication by this Authority.
For any grievance relating to sanctioned building-plans, the appropriate forum is Hon’ble ATMCD and not this Authority.
The promoter shall complete the project in all its phases, strictly as per the scheme of the project approved as per the directions of the Hon,ble High Court and in keeping with the Building Plans sanctioned by MCD.
The complaint is disposed of as above.
File be consigned to record room.