News Citation : 2026 LN (CGRERA) 15
February 17, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed a Raipur-based real estate developer to construct a promised swimming pool at its residential project after finding that the facility was clearly advertised in the project brochure but never built.
In an order dated February 16, 2026, the Authority decided a complaint filed by Rajkumar Yadav, a homebuyer in Kadam Capital Town Phase 1 at Anjora, Durg. Yadav had approached the regulator alleging multiple deficiencies in the project, including non-provision of amenities, failure to hand over documents, and wrongful charges. The matter was registered as Case No. PRO-2025-02974 and relates to RERA Registration No. PCGRERA280618000361.
Yadav had purchased a residential unit in the project for ₹38 lakh. He claimed that although the brochure promised amenities such as a swimming pool, clubhouse and gym facilities, several of these were either incomplete or missing. He also sought occupation and completion certificates, transfer of common areas to the residents’ society, refund of alleged excess charges with interest, and compensation for defects.
The developer contested the allegations, arguing that the project had been completed and that a completion certificate had been issued by the competent authority in September 2019. It stated that possession had been handed over to the complainant in January 2020 and that all payments were received strictly in accordance with the agreement. The promoter further claimed that it had never committed to building a swimming pool and disputed the authenticity of the brochure relied upon by the complainant.
After examining the records and hearing both sides, the Authority framed key issues, including jurisdiction, limitation, and entitlement to relief. It rejected the developer’s preliminary objection on limitation and held that the complaint was maintainable.
On most of the reliefs sought, the Authority ruled against the complainant. It held that occupation and completion certificates are to be issued by the competent local authority and that there was no statutory requirement to separately furnish certain documents directly to an individual allottee once they were part of the regulatory process. Claims for refund of service tax, club membership fees and other charges were also rejected, as the total consideration of ₹38 lakh was acknowledged in the agreement and payment records.
However, the Authority took a different view on the issue of the swimming pool. During proceedings, a commissioner was appointed to inspect the project. The inspection report confirmed that no swimming pool had been constructed. The developer’s version of the brochure was not found to have been uploaded on the RERA portal, as required under the regulatory framework. In contrast, the complainant produced a brochure that specifically mentioned a swimming pool as part of the project amenities.
The Authority held that since the promoter had not uploaded its own version of the brochure on the RERA portal, the brochure produced by the complainant would be treated as valid for the purpose of determining promised amenities. It concluded that the promoter had failed to fulfil a commitment made to allottees.
Accordingly, the Authority directed the promoter to construct the swimming pool as advertised. It further clarified that if construction is not technically feasible, the allottees or the residents’ cooperative society would be entitled to seek appropriate compensation under Section 71 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016.
The order reinforces that promotional material and brochures form an enforceable representation under RERA and that developers are bound by the amenities they advertise to homebuyers.
Case Reference : Shri Raj Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Deenanath Yadav vs. Kadam Builders, Partner Mr. Atul Borkar and Mr. Sachin Borkar
