HRERA отклонила жалобу на Eldeco и HSIIDC, указав, что предварительная бронь не дает статуса покупателя

- RERA - 2 min read Provisional booking no basis for allottee status: Haryana RERA junks plea According to the Haryana RERA ruling, merely having a provisional allotment is insufficient to establish a promoter-allottee status. As a result, the complaint against Eldeco and HSIIDC was dismissed. The complainant did not sign or register the sale agreement, despite reminders. Eldeco confirmed its offer was withdrawn with a full refund, while HSIIDC reiterated that the plot allotment was conducted on an 'as is where is' basis. GURUGRAM: Mere payment of a booking amount and issuance of a provisional allotment, without a concluded and registered agreement for sale, doesn’t create the statutory relationship of promoter and allottee, Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRera) has said. Maintaining that the transaction between parties “never progressed beyond a provisional allotment”, HRera dismissed a complaint against Eldeco Infrastructure and Properties and Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC). The plea had been filed by Neet Rash Consultants against Eldeco and HSIIDC over an alleged unit in the Eldeco Fairway Reserve project in Sector 80, Manesar. Authority ruled that the complainant didn’t qualify as an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act, 2016. In an order dated Aug 14, 2026, HRera chairman Arun Kumar held that the complainant failed to sign and register the agreement for sale (ATS) despite the developer having accepted 10% of the total sale consideration and issued an allotment letter for unit no E1-2201. The complainant had alleged multiple violations by Eldeco, including pricing the 1,211 sq ft carpet-area unit on an undisclosed “total area/super built-up area” basis of 2,175 sq ft, concealment of built-up area details in customer ledgers, unilateral alteration of payment timelines and furnishing of a non-standard agreement for sale that deviated from the HRera-approved model agreement. The complaint had sought revocation of the project’s registration certificate, an inquiry into Eldeco’s affairs, and compensation, apart from directions to HSIIDC regarding a 66 KV high-tension line running through the project land. Eldeco, in its reply, contended that the allotment letter dated Aug 29, 2025, was expressly “provisional and conditional” upon timely execution and registration of the ATS, and that the complainant’s continued failure to do so — despite reminders — entitled it to withdraw the offer, which it did via email on Nov 21, 2025. The developer stated it had since offered a full refund without deductions and reallotted the unit to a third party. HSIIDC, in its separate reply, said the plot was allotted to Eldeco on an “as is where is” basis with the 66 KV line disclosed in approved zoning plans, and that shifting work with HVPNL was already under way. It observed that the complainant’s allegations, including those relating to area disclosure and FAR utilisation, remained “unsupported by cogent documentary evidence.” Holding the complaint “not maintainable and devoid of merit,” HRera dismissed it along with all pending applications and ordered the file consigned to the registry. Maintaining that the transaction between parties “never progressed beyond a provisional allotment”, HRera dismissed a complaint against Eldeco Infrastructure and Properties and Haryana State Industrial & Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC). The plea had been filed by Neet Rash Consultants against Eldeco and HSIIDC over an alleged unit in the Eldeco Fairway Reserve project in Sector 80, Manesar. Authority ruled that the complainant didn’t qualify as an “allottee” under Section 2(d) of the RERA Act, 2016. In an order dated Aug 14, 2026, HRera chairman Arun Kumar held that the complainant failed to sign and register the agreement for sale (ATS) despite the developer having accepted 10% of the total sale consideration and issued an allotment letter for unit no E1-2201. The complainant had alleged multiple violations by Eldeco, including pricing the 1,211 sq ft carpet-area unit on an undisclosed “total area/super built-up area” basis of 2,175 sq ft, concealment of built-up area details in customer ledgers, unilateral alteration of payment timelines and furnishing of a non-standard agreement for sale that deviated from the HRera-approved model agreement. The complaint had sought revocation of the project’s registration certificate, an inquiry into Eldeco’s affairs, and compensation, apart from directions to HSIIDC regarding a 66 KV high-tension line running through the project land. Eldeco, in its reply, contended that the allotment letter dated Aug 29, 2025, was expressly “provisional and conditional” upon timely execution and registration of the ATS, and that the complainant’s continued failure to do so — despite reminders — entitled it to withdraw the offer, which it did via email on Nov 21, 2025. The developer stated it had since offered a full refund without deductions and reallotted the unit to a third party. HSIIDC, in its separate reply, said the plot was allotted to Eldeco on an “as is where is” basis with the 66 KV line disclosed in approved zoning plans, and that shifting work with HVPNL was already under way. It observed that the complainant’s allegations, including those relating to area disclosure and FAR utilisation, remained “unsupported by cogent documentary evidence.” Holding the complaint “not maintainable and devoid of merit,” HRera dismissed it along with all pending applications and ordered the file consigned to the registry.