News Citation : 2026 LN (CGRERA) 20
February 26, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has directed the promoters of the “Floral City” residential project in Raipur to complete pending development works, rectify alleged structural and safety deficiencies, and execute the formal transfer of common areas to the registered housing society, following a detailed complaint filed by residents.
The order, passed on February 26, 2026, arose from a complaint under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, filed by the Floral City Awasiy Sahkari Samiti Maryadit through its representative. The society represents residents of the Floral City project located at Dunda, Raipur. The complaint named Haripal Singh Arora, Director of Alaska Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and Pritipal Singh Binda, Director of Amrit Homes Pvt. Ltd., as respondents.
Residents alleged that although the project was marketed with extensive facilities and assurances in brochures and promotional material, several key amenities and infrastructure components remain incomplete or deficient even years after possession. According to the complaint, important works such as the boundary wall, rainwater harvesting system, overhead water tank stability, and clubhouse amenities were either partially completed or not functional. The society also claimed that civic dues such as property tax and other municipal payments had not been cleared, affecting compliance and services.
A major point of contention was the alleged failure to formally hand over common areas and execute the registered conveyance deed in favour of the society as mandated under Section 17 of the RERA Act. The residents argued that without the legal transfer of common areas, their collective ownership and control over essential facilities remained uncertain, forcing them to manage maintenance informally and at their own expense.
The promoters denied the allegations in their written replies. They contended that all promised amenities were provided in accordance with the approved layout plans and applicable standards at the time of completion. They further argued that the society had taken over maintenance without waiting for formal handover procedures and was now attributing deterioration caused by long-term use and alleged mismanagement to the developers.
The developers also raised preliminary objections, including limitation. They pointed out that registered sale deeds were executed in 2011 and that residents had been in possession for over a decade before approaching the Authority in 2025. According to them, any grievance relating to construction defects or incomplete amenities should have been raised within the statutory defect liability period.
After examining the pleadings and records, the Authority held that the statutory obligations under the RERA Act, particularly with respect to execution and registration of conveyance deeds and transfer of common areas, are continuing in nature. It directed the promoters to execute and register the conveyance deed of common areas, amenities and related land in favour of the registered society at their own cost, in compliance with Section 17.
The Authority further ordered the promoters to complete any pending development works strictly in accordance with the approved layout plans, brochures and representations made at the time of booking and sale. It directed immediate rectification of safety-related concerns, including the overhead water tank and other structural components, to ensure compliance with applicable building and safety norms.
In addition, the promoters were instructed to clear any outstanding statutory dues payable to the municipal authorities in relation to common areas and facilities, so that residents are not burdened with financial or legal liabilities arising from the developers’ defaults.
The ruling reinforces the principle that promotional representations, approved plans and statutory obligations under the RERA framework are binding on developers, and that the transfer of common areas to a duly registered society cannot be indefinitely delayed.
Case Reference : FLoral City Aawasiya Sahkari Samiti Maryadit through Thameshwar Prasad Sahu vs. Mr. Harpal Singh Arora, Amrit Homes Pvt. Ltd. (Builder & Colonizer) through Shri Pritpal Singh Bindra, and Alaska Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Land Owner) through Harpal Singh Arora.
