RERA Case: Non-compliance and Consequences

In the realm of real estate disputes, one case has caught the attention of the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). This case involves Hari Singh as the complainant and RICCO Developers Pvt. Ltd. as the respondent. A complaint was lodged, leading to an order passed by the Authority. However, the respondent has failed to comply with the order, prompting the complainant's advocate to seek further action. This article aims to provide a simplified overview of the case, shedding light on the non-compliance and its potential consequences.

Background of the Case

To understand the gravity of the matter, it is essential to delve into the background of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (the Act). The Act serves as the regulatory framework for real estate transactions and aims to protect the interests of buyers. Within this context, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority plays a vital role in overseeing real estate dealings and resolving disputes. In the case at hand, Hari Singh filed a complaint against RICCO Developers Pvt. Ltd., citing specific grievances related to the promised date of possession and the disputed amount.

Order and Non-Compliance

On 22.06.2022, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority issued an order that holds significant implications for the parties involved. This order specifically addresses the concerns raised by the complainant and outlines certain directives for the respondent. However, the complainant alleges that the respondent has failed to comply within the stipulated timeframe. Consequently, the complainant's advocate has petitioned for proceedings to be initiated against the respondent under Section 40(1) of the Act. The non-compliance of the order holds weighty consequences for the respondent.

Consequences and Actions

Given the respondent's intentional flouting of the order, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority has made the decision to initiate proceedings under Section 40 of the Act. As a result, the Authority has directed the attachment of the unsold portion of the project and the respondent's bank account to recover the ordered amount. An auction process will be set in motion to sell the attached flats/properties and recoup the outstanding sum. However, there are circumstances under which the remaining attached units may be released to the respondent. Notably, if the respondent provides proof of full payment to the complainant before the conclusion of the attachment/auction process, the proceedings can be halted.

Conclusion and Resolution

In conclusion, the Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority case involving Hari Singh and RICCO Developers Pvt. Ltd. sheds light on the ramifications of non-compliance with regulatory orders. The Authority's commitment to upholding the Act and protecting the rights of consumers is evident through their decision to take action against the respondent. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to regulatory directives within the real estate sector. By complying with these orders, both developers and buyers can ensure a fair and transparent environment that fosters trust and accountability.

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-2021-4090 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.