Chhattisgarh RERA Directs Interest Payment to Homebuyer After Developer Returned Principal Amount in Bilaspur Plot Dispute

News Citation : 2026 LN (CG-RERA) 43

June 30, 2026 : The Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (CGRERA) has delivered an important ruling reinforcing the rights of homebuyers under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, holding that merely refunding the principal amount does not automatically absolve a promoter from liability arising out of delay and failure to honour commitments. In an order dated June 30, 2026, the Authority examined a dispute concerning Plot No. 43 in the registered project Ananta Sky Park at Bilha, Bilaspur, and considered the buyer’s claim for interest and other consequential reliefs.

The complaint was filed by Lavangi Devi of Korba against Ananta Inframart Pvt. Ltd. and Sky Realties in relation to the RERA-registered project Ananta Sky Park (Registration No. PCGRERA090818000675). According to the complaint, she booked Plot No. 43 measuring approximately 1,612 square feet after being persuaded by the project’s promotional representations. Between December 2014 and August 2017, she paid a total of ₹5.40 lakh through multiple cheque transactions to the respondents. She alleged that despite repeated requests, the promoters failed to execute the sale agreement and later informed her that the plot had already been sold to a third party.

The complainant stated that she repeatedly approached the developer’s office and sought execution of the sale deed but was allegedly given changing assurances and inconsistent information regarding the plot. She further claimed that after she initiated legal proceedings, the respondents refunded only the principal amount of ₹5.40 lakh on October 10, 2025, without paying any interest for the prolonged period during which her money remained with them. She contended that under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, she remained entitled to statutory interest from the date of payment until refund and also sought compensation for mental agony and financial hardship.

In their defence, the respondents disputed the allegations. Ananta Inframart Pvt. Ltd. argued that it was not the promoter of the registered project within the meaning of Section 2(zk) of the RERA Act and claimed that the registered promoter was Sky Realties. It further submitted that the complainant had not paid the entire sale consideration and that the amount received had subsequently been returned. Sky Realties also challenged the maintainability of the complaint, asserting that since the principal amount had already been refunded, the complainant could not claim to be an allottee for the purposes of the proceedings. The respondents further denied any fraudulent conduct and maintained that no enforceable sale agreement had come into existence.

The proceedings were initiated under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, read with the relevant provisions of the Chhattisgarh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017. During the hearing, the Authority examined the rival pleadings, documentary evidence relating to the payments made by the complainant, and the parties’ respective legal submissions regarding the status of the promoter, the allottee and the consequences of refund after prolonged delay.

The case highlights a recurring issue in real estate disputes where developers refund only the principal amount after years of delay, leaving purchasers to litigate for statutory interest and other remedies. Under the RERA framework, refund of the deposited amount and payment of prescribed interest are treated as distinct obligations, and buyers may continue to pursue statutory remedies where the promoter has failed to fulfil contractual or statutory commitments. The Authority’s examination of the dispute therefore carries significance for purchasers seeking enforcement of their rights under the RERA regime.

The decision also underscores the regulatory framework governing promoter obligations under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. The Act is intended to ensure transparency, timely delivery of real estate projects and protection of allottees against unfair practices. Where disputes arise regarding allotment, refund or delayed performance, the Regulatory Authority is empowered to examine complaints under Section 31 and grant appropriate relief in accordance with the statute.

Case Reference: Lavangi Devi v. Ananta Inframart Pvt. Ltd. & Sky Realties, Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (CGRERA), Case No. M-PRO-2026-03545 (Project: Ananta Sky Park, RERA Registration No. PCGRERA090818000675).