Haryana RERA Provides Refund To Homebuyer Who Purchased Flat Under Impression Of Being Developed And Marketed By Godrej Properties

The homebuyer had made the payment under the impression that the project was being developed by Godrej Properties (Respondent No. 2), whereas it was actually being developed by Oasis Landmarks LLP, a joint venture partner of Godrej Properties.

Section 12 of the RERA Act, 2016 states that if a homebuyer invests based on false or misleading information and suffers a loss, the promoter is liable to compensate them. If the homebuyer chooses to withdraw from the project due to such misrepresentation, they are entitled to a full refund along with interest and any compensation as provided under the RERA Act.

Background Facts

Homebuyer (Complainant) booked a unit in the “Godrej Icon” project based on a brochure that clearly showed Godrej Properties as the developer. Believing it to be a Godrej project, he decided to invest. It was only after signing the application form that he found out the actual developer was Oasis Landmark LLP.

On 26.05.2015, after reviewing the brochure, the homebuyer booked flat on the 25th floor. He paid Rs. 5 Lakhs as the booking amount and later deposited 20% of the flat's cost. This was done even before the allotment letter or buyer's agreement was issued.

The allotment letter was issued on 18.11.2015, stating the total sale price as Rs. 1.65 Crores. The buyer's agreement (BBA) was signed on 22.02.2016 and mentioned that the project land covered 9.359 acres. As per Clause 4.2 of the BBA, the construction was to be completed within 48 months from the date of allotment, plus a grace period of six months.

The homebuyer alleges that the respondent raised payment demands prematurely and in violation of the agreed payment plan under the application form and BBA. He also points out that the project was marketed as a low-density development with a promise of less than 40 units per acre.

However, in between May-June 2018, the respondents allegedly changed the sanctioned plan without informing him. While the BBA stated the project land as 9.359 acres, the actual land turned out to be only 6.459 acres. The number of units increased from 662 to 747 and additional towers were added without any prior disclosure.

Therefore, being aggrieved homebuyer filed complaint before the authority seeking full refund of the amount paid along with the interest.

Contentions of Oasis Landmark

Oasis Landmark contended that there was no misrepresentation or violation of any provision under the RERA Act and therefore the complaint should be dismissed. They claimed that the complainant had wrongly alleged misrepresentation only because the project was marketed by Godrej Properties.

They further contended that all contractual documents including the application form, allotment letter and buyer's agreement clearly mentioned that Oasis Landmark was the developer. They also pointed out that Godrej Properties was openly shown as a partner in the LLP through an admission deed dated 22.08.2014. Therefore, they argued that the facts of the case did not amount to misrepresentation under Section 12 of RERA, 2016.

Observation by Authority

Authority noted that the project brochure clearly showed Godrej Properties' name and logo and mentioned Oasis Build Home as a joint venture partner. This gave the impression that the project was by Godrej.

Authority observed that Godrej logo was not only on the brochure but also on the first page of the buyer's agreement. This reinforced the belief that the project was developed and marketed by Godrej Properties. By using Godrej's name and branding, the respondents created a false impression and misled the public. This influenced the homebuyer's decision to invest in the project.

Authority observed that respondents misrepresented the project by using the name and logo of Godrej in the brochure and buyer's agreement. It held that such false representation influenced the complainant's decision to invest. Since the complainant seeks refund due to this misrepresentation, he is entitled to full refund with interest under the proviso to Section 12 of the RERA Act, 2016.

Authority further noted that the respondents got the building plans revised on 03.10.2018, after the RERA Act had come into force. It held that this revision was done without obtaining prior written consent from two-thirds of the homebuyers, as required under Section 14(2)(ii) of the RERA, Act.

Authority held that the respondents had violated Sections 12 and 14(2)(ii) of the RERA Act. Therefore, it directed the respondents to refund the entire amount received from the homebuyer along with interest at the rate of 11.10%.

Case - Pankaj Arora Through SPA Holder Kashti Arora Versus M/s Oasis Landmarks LLP & others

Citation – Complaint no - 2397 of 2024

Date – 2^nd July, 2025