Chhattisgarh RERA dismisses flat owner’s podium garden complaint but allows compensation claim under RERA Act

News Citation : 2026 LN (CG-RERA) 34

May 13, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority has dismissed a complaint filed by a flat owner of Samriddhi Residency in Raipur seeking demolition of a podium garden and action against the promoter for alleged violation of the approved project layout. However, the Authority simultaneously observed that the construction appeared to violate provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and granted liberty to the complainant to seek compensation before the adjudicating officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act.

The dispute arose after flat owner Lipistha Mohanti approached the Authority alleging that the developer, M/s Aadharshila Developers, had altered the sanctioned layout of the residential project by constructing a podium garden directly in front of her flat instead of maintaining the area as an open space as shown in the approved plan and registered sale documents. The complainant claimed that the raised podium structure caused invasion of privacy, excessive noise, disturbance from social gatherings, and conversion of the lower area into visitor parking, contrary to the approved layout.

According to the complaint, the podium garden was allegedly being commercially used for private parties and functions with loud music systems and public address equipment operating late into the night. The resident alleged that repeated social events caused noise pollution, sleep disturbance, emotional stress to children and elderly residents, and interference with peaceful enjoyment of the flat. The complaint also invoked Article 21 of the Constitution relating to the right to life and peaceful living, along with provisions of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, and Sections 11 and 19 of the RERA Act dealing with promoter obligations and rights of allottees.

The complainant further argued that the project continued to remain under the promoter’s control because the transfer deed in favour of the residents’ association had not yet been executed as required under Section 17 of the RERA Act. On that basis, it was contended that responsibility for maintenance and alleged misuse of common areas continued to remain with the promoter. The resident sought demolition of the podium garden, restoration of the open area, prevention of commercial use, and compensation of Rs. 50,000.

The developer strongly opposed the complaint and argued that the flat owner had taken possession of the apartment in December 2022 after inspecting the premises and signing a possession certificate acknowledging satisfaction with the flat and common facilities. The promoter claimed that the podium garden was a visible amenity existing at the time possession was handed over and that the resident could not challenge it years later after accepting possession without objection.

The developer also contended that the dispute essentially related to internal management of common areas, noise complaints, and social functions within the residential complex, which according to it fell outside the jurisdiction of the RERA Authority. It argued that the Authority was not a civil court, criminal court, or constitutional forum empowered to adjudicate allegations relating to privacy invasion, nuisance, or noise pollution. The promoter further denied any commercial renting of the podium area and asserted that no evidence had been produced to substantiate allegations of commercial activities or excessive noise.

During the proceedings, the Authority framed key questions regarding maintainability, limitation, and entitlement to relief. It held that the dispute was maintainable before the RERA Authority because the allegations involved deviation from the approved sanctioned layout and obligations under the RERA Act. The Authority rejected the promoter’s limitation objection and noted that no specific limitation period had been prescribed under Section 31 of the RERA Act for filing such complaints.

Importantly, the Authority observed that the issue concerning conversion of the ground-level garden into a podium structure and use of the lower area as parking prima facie indicated deviation from the sanctioned plan. Referring to Section 14(1) of the RERA Act, the Authority held that alteration from the approved layout without due compliance could amount to violation of statutory obligations.

At the same time, the Authority clarified that complaints regarding privacy, noise pollution, nuisance, and alleged misuse of common areas involved broader civil and administrative issues which may require adjudication before other competent forums. The order stated that the RERA Authority “is not a civil court or criminal court” for deciding issues relating to nuisance, constitutional violations, or criminal liability arising from noise pollution allegations.

The Authority also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Govindan Raghavan and reproduced the observation that “a term of a contract will not be final and binding if it is shown that the flat purchasers had no option but to sign on the dotted line, on a contract framed by the builder.” The Authority used this precedent to reject the promoter’s argument that signing the possession certificate completely barred the allottee from raising grievances under RERA.

Despite these findings, the Authority ultimately dismissed the complaint while observing that compensation-related claims could still be pursued separately before the adjudicating officer under Section 71 of the RERA Act. The order specifically recorded that the complainant could seek appropriate compensation because the podium garden had allegedly been constructed instead of a ground-level garden and the ground area had allegedly been converted into parking space in violation of Section 14(1) of the Act.

The ruling is significant for homebuyers and developers alike because it clarifies the scope of RERA jurisdiction in disputes involving deviations from sanctioned layouts and use of common areas. The order indicates that while RERA authorities can examine whether a promoter violated approved plans or statutory obligations, complaints involving nuisance, privacy invasion, and noise pollution may still need to be pursued before civil courts, municipal authorities, police authorities, or environmental regulators. It also reinforces that execution of possession documents does not automatically extinguish the rights of homebuyers under the RERA framework.

Case Reference : M-PRO-2026-03517 (PCGRERA280818000727)