Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal in GLM Buyers Welfare Association vs. Sonia Chandel Case

The Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal recently issued a decision on Appeal No.224 of 2023 (O & M) in the case of GLM Buyers Welfare Association vs. Sonia Chandel. The appellant, Sonia Chandel, a resident of Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, filed an appeal against the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority's (the Authority) order in Complaint No. 559 of 2018. The case involved issues related to the completion of a real estate project, non-member allottees, and the authority of the respondent association. In this article, we will delve into the details of the case and the tribunal's decision.

Case Background:

Sonia Chandel, the appellant, resides in Samlehra Bagwara, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, and currently lives in Flat No.5702, GH-4A, Sector 20, Panchkula, Haryana. The respondents in this case are GLM Buyers Welfare Association, located at House No.882, Sector-25, Panchkula, Haryana, and GLM Infratech Pvt. Ltd., located at 'Amazon- The Defence County,' Sector-30, District Panchkula, Haryana. The case was heard by Justice Rajan Gupta (Chairman), Shri Inderjeet Mehta (Member - Judicial), and Shri Anil Kumar Gupta (Member - Technical) of the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal.

Appellant's Arguments:

Represented by Mr. Vipul Joshi, Advocate, Sonia Chandel raised several concerns. Firstly, she stated that the complaint had been pending before the Authority since 2018, and various directions were issued during this period. She argued that she became aware of a notice published by the respondent association on 10.04.2023, which indicated that the project had been handed over to the association for completion. The notice also mentioned that non-member allottees should contact the association within 30 days if they were interested in their respective units. Sonia Chandel expressed concern that her flat might be canceled and put up for sale, asserting her right to sell the flat at her discretion. She further claimed that she was never made a party to the proceedings before the Authority and that the impugned order directly affected her ownership rights.

Tribunal's Decision:

Upon examining the case record and considering the arguments presented, the tribunal found it perplexing that Sonia Chandel was unaware of the complaint filed by the respondent association, which had been pending before the Authority since 2018. The tribunal emphasized that Sonia Chandel could have applied to be impleaded as a party to the proceedings but chose not to do so. Consequently, the impugned order was passed on 09.02.2023.

The tribunal acknowledged that the respondent-developer failed to complete the project, leading the Authority to hand over the project to the respondent association on 18.05.2022. The association took on the responsibility of completing the project and bore additional expenses incurred by the allottees. The tribunal noted that some allottees, including Sonia Chandel, chose not to be part of the association. However, in the case of multi-storey structures, it was impractical to complete one part while leaving another part unfinished. Therefore, the association issued a notice on 10.04.2023, giving non-member allottees the option to participate or receive a refund as per the Authority's order. Since Sonia Chandel had not paid any amount to the association, she had no claim against it.

The tribunal concluded that Sonia Chandel still had the choice to participate in the project's completion but could not obstruct the process for personal gain. It viewed her actions as unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the project, which had already suffered due to the default of the respondent-developer. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, refraining from imposing heavy costs due to Sonia Chandel's private individual status and unknown financial position.

Conclusion:

In the GLM Buyers Welfare Association vs. Sonia Chandel case, the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by Sonia Chandel against the Authority's order. The tribunal found Sonia Chandel's lack of awareness regarding the ongoing complaint surprising and highlighted her opportunity to participate in the proceedings. It acknowledged the respondent association's efforts to complete the project and deemed Sonia Chandel's attempts to obstruct the construction unnecessary. The dismissal of the appeal allowed the project to progress towards completion, benefiting the larger section of allottees.

Note: The information provided in this article about Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) 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 Appeal No.224 of 2023 (O & M) before the Haryana 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.