Decoding the Rajasthan Real Estate Saga: Understanding the Battle Between Pawan Gaur and Shree Vinayak Constructions

The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) case in Jaipur sheds light on a significant dispute in the real estate sector. Understanding this case is crucial due to its implications for the stakeholders involved. Let's delve into the background, arguments presented by the complainant, counterarguments from the respondent, investigation findings by Court Officers, the Authority's decision and directions, dismissal of the complainant's case, and ultimately, the impact of this case on the real estate sector in Rajasthan.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a project located in Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, which has not been registered with RERA. Non-registration with RERA raises concerns about compliance with regulations. The complainant, Pawan Gaur, has lodged allegations against Shree Vinayak Constructions Company, citing various grievances related to the project.

Arguments Presented by the Complainant

Pawan Gaur alleges that he paid a booking amount and subsequent payments totaling Rs. 61,000 for an apartment in the project. He accuses the respondent of non-compliance with guidelines set by the Jaipur Development Authority and the Urban Development and Housing Department. Furthermore, the complainant asserts that the project remains ongoing, yet the respondent failed to register it with RERA. The complainant also claims that the flat allotted to him was sold to a third party, creating complexities in the matter. To safeguard his interests, a temporary injunction was issued by the court, restraining the respondent from selling the complainant's flat to anyone else. Additionally, Pawan Gaur highlights his application for a bank loan from HDFC Bank and subsequent disbursement of Rs. 14.40 lakh to the respondent.

Respondent's Counterarguments

The respondent, represented by Advocate K.N. Sharma, counters the complainant's arguments. They claim that the construction project encompasses only eight flats on a specific plot measuring 163.50 sq. meters. According to the respondent, this does not exceed the threshold for mandatory registration with RERA. The respondent denies any knowledge of other adjacent flats being constructed, suggesting that those flats are not part of their project. Moreover, they state that the flat in question was sold to a third party named Mukesh Kumar Agarwal prior to the temporary injunction granted by the court. The respondent disputes the receipt of any loan disbursement from HDFC Bank and asserts that the flat was canceled due to the complainant's failure to make further payments.

Investigation by Court Officers

To ascertain the facts, a team of Court Officers was appointed to visit the construction site. Their report reveals that cluster group housing units are being constructed on three plots. These units share common features, such as a common lobby, stilt, terrace, and lifts. The Court Officers note that the construction appears to be done by the same builder, given the common elevation, building facade, and integration of services. The number of flats being constructed far exceeds the respondent's claim of only eight flats.

Authority's Decision and Directions

Based on the Court Officers' report and evidence, the Authority finds the respondent's claim of limited construction invalid. The project is deemed liable for registration with RERA. Consequently, the Authority directs the respondent to register the project promptly and imposes a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 for suppressing facts, attempting to circumvent the law, and misleading the Authority. The respondent is given 45 days to deposit the penalty amount and submit a report to the Authority.

The Registrar of the Authority is tasked with ensuring compliance within the specified timeframe. Failure to comply may result in further legal proceedings. Non-compliance could lead to severe consequences under the relevant provisions of the Act.

Dismissal of the Complainant's Case

The complainant, Pawan Gaur, faces dismissal of his case due to concealing material facts and attempting to mislead the court. Pawan Gaur received a refund of the booking amount and EMIs from HDFC Bank, which he failed to disclose. His intention to claim possession of the flat based on deposited amounts that were subsequently refunded raises questions about his credibility. As a result, the complainant's case is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be deposited with the Authority.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority case highlights the importance of adherence to regulations and transparency in the real estate sector. The project's registration with RERA ensures that the interests of homebuyers are protected. The penalties imposed on the respondent emphasize the seriousness of non-compliance and attempts to circumvent the law. This case serves as a reminder for all stakeholders to abide by the regulations to maintain trust and integrity in the real estate industry in Rajasthan.

Note: The information provided in this article about Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RRERA) is for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal or professional advice and readers should consult qualified professionals for advice specific to their circumstances. The information provided in this article is based on the Complaint No. RAJ-RERA-C-2020-3405 before the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority

We hope you found our blog insightful and engaging! We appreciate your time and interest. If you enjoyed reading it, don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our latest content. Visit our website www.reunionhq.in to know more.