News Citation : 2026 LN (CGRERA) 13

February 09, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has dismissed a complaint seeking refund of a plot booking amount in a dispute related to the “Swarn Nagri” real estate project near the State Assembly in Raipur. The order was passed on February 9, 2026, in connection with Project Registration No. PCGRERA030421001217.

The complaint was filed by Gajendra Singh Raghuvanshi against promoter M/s Daau Builders, represented by its proprietor Akash Agrawal. The dispute arose from the booking of Plot No. 148 in the Swarn Nagri project, located at Boriyakhurd near the Vidhan Sabha in Raipur.

According to the complaint, the buyer had booked the plot on January 15, 2025, for a total sale consideration of Rs 16,45,000 and paid a token amount of Rs 51,000. The complainant stated that he later faced financial difficulties and, in February 2025, requested cancellation of the booking along with a refund of the token amount. He alleged that despite repeated follow-ups, including emails and a legal notice dated August 11, 2025, the promoter did not refund the amount and instead claimed a deduction of 10 percent of the sale value.

The promoter, in response, denied any violation of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. It argued that the cancellation was initiated by the buyer due to personal financial constraints and not because of any default or delay on the part of the developer. The promoter maintained that under the applicable rules, it was entitled to forfeit up to 10 percent of the total sale consideration in case of cancellation by the allottee.

After examining the submissions and documents, the Authority framed key issues including whether it had jurisdiction to hear the matter and whether the complainant was entitled to any relief.

In its order, the Authority observed that the complainant had voluntarily cancelled the booking due to financial reasons and had not demonstrated any specific violation of provisions of the Act or Rules by the promoter. It further noted that no formal agreement for sale had been executed between the parties. Since the complainant himself sought cancellation and did not fall within the category of an allottee claiming relief for delay in possession or breach of statutory obligations, the Authority held that the matter did not attract its adjudicatory jurisdiction under Section 31 of the Act.

The Authority also remarked that in cases where a booking is cancelled after several months, forfeiture of the booking amount by the promoter cannot automatically be termed arbitrary, especially in the absence of proof of statutory violation. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, and no relief was granted to the complainant.