The Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority has issued a major order directing M/s Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Pvt Ltd to pay Rs 44,63,919 as delay interest to senior bureaucrats Anil Kumar Sanghi and Sunita Sanghi. The case pertains to delayed possession in the developer’s premium project “The Lake” at New Chandigarh. The order was passed by RERA chairman Rakesh Kumar Goyal under Sections 31 and 40(1) of the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.
The complainants, represented by Advocate Shahnawaz Khan, had paid Rs 76,47,972 out of the total sale value of Rs 82,11,488. As per the agreement, possession was to be handed over by September 7, 2019, including the permissible grace period. However, the deadline was not met by the promoter.
RERA found that the “valid offer of possession” was issued only on June 27, 2025, which created a significant delay. Although the building received its occupancy certificate (OC) on November 26, 2024, the authority clarified that simply obtaining an OC does not wipe out the promoter’s liability for delay.
Delay Interest Calculation and Compensation
RERA computed the delay period from October 1, 2019 to June 27, 2025, resulting in a total delay interest of Rs 44,63,919 payable to the complainants.
The authority also relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark Newtech Promoters judgment, confirming that such recoveries are to be enforced as arrears of land revenue.
Unilateral Area Increase Declared Illegal
One of the major findings in the order was the developer’s unilateral enhancement of the flat’s super area from 1885 sq ft to 1975 sq ft. The demand based on this increased area, calculated at Rs 3,690 per sq ft, was declared illegal. RERA held that such arbitrary changes violate statutory provisions and earlier regulatory decisions.
The complaint also highlighted excess charging of Rs 30,41,532, inflated area calculations, and a previously issued possession offer without a valid occupancy certificate.
RERA Rejects Maintainability Objection
Omaxe argued that the allotment pre-dated the RERA Act and that the complaint was not maintainable. The authority rejected this contention, noting that the agreement had post-RERA implications and that homebuyers remain protected under the Act even in legacy projects with post-RERA developments.
This ruling strengthens the position of majority allotment holders and buyers’ agreements executed after the RERA Act, setting a vital precedent for similar disputes across Punjab.
Recovery Proceedings Initiated
RERA instructed issuance of a debt recovery certificate (DRC) after 90 days, directing it to the competent authority under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887. The complainants have been classified as “decree holders” and the developer as “judgment debtor”, paving the way for strong recovery enforcement.
Significance of the Order
This case is being widely viewed as a landmark decision that empowers homebuyers, particularly those challenging:
• Unilateral area hikes
• Non-transparent pricing
• Delayed possession despite project completion
• Invalid possession offers issued before obtaining a proper OC
For thousands of buyers in large housing projects across Punjab, the ruling reinforces that developers cannot bypass statutory obligations.
