January 12, 2026 : The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has dismissed an appeal filed by a homebuyer seeking possession of a residential plot booked under a pre-launch scheme and has affirmed the direction for refund of the deposited amount with interest. The Commission held that booking under an advance registration or pre-launch scheme does not create any vested or enforceable right to claim allotment or possession of a specific plot in the absence of a formal allotment letter or a builder-buyer agreement.
The appeal was decided by a Bench comprising Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, President, and Bimla Kumari, Member. The Bench found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which had directed Parsvnath Developers Ltd. to refund the amount received from the complainant along with interest, while declining the relief of possession.
The appellant, Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta, had booked a 300 square metre residential plot under a pre-launch scheme floated by Parsvnath Developers Ltd. for its “Parsvnath City” project at Sonipat, Haryana. The booking was initially made by one Rekha Gupta on payment of ₹1,57,500. With the consent of the developer, the booking was later transferred in favour of the appellant, who paid an additional ₹3,36,000.
At the time of booking, only a priority number was issued to the buyer. This priority number was initially 797 and was later stated to have improved to 53. However, no specific plot number was ever allotted, nor was any builder-buyer agreement executed. Despite repeated visits, written representations and legal notices over several years, the developer neither allotted a plot nor handed over possession.
Aggrieved by the prolonged inaction, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission (East), Delhi, seeking possession of the plot along with compensation and interest. The District Commission held that the developer had indulged in deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by collecting substantial sums without executing a formal agreement or identifying a specific plot. However, it noted that directing possession of an unidentified plot was not legally executable. It therefore ordered refund of ₹4,93,500 with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit, along with ₹40,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses.
Challenging this order, the complainant filed an appeal before the State Commission, contending that he had never sought refund and that the District Commission ought to have directed allotment and possession of the plot.
Opposing the appeal, Parsvnath Developers Ltd. relied on the Advance Registration Form signed at the time of booking, which provided that in the event allotment did not materialise, the buyer would be entitled only to refund of the deposited amount with interest. It was argued that the pre-launch booking did not confer any enforceable right to claim possession of a specific plot.
After examining the record, the State Commission observed that a pre-launch or advance registration scheme, by itself, does not create a vested right to allotment. While acknowledging that the developer’s prolonged failure to either allot a plot or refund the amount amounted to deficiency in service, the Commission held that in the absence of identification and allotment of a specific plot, a direction for possession could not be issued. Upholding the reasoning and relief granted by the District Commission, the State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refund with interest and compensation.
The case was titled Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta v. Parsvnath Developers Limited (FA/336/2024) and was decided on January 12, 2026.
