HARERA Gurugram: Allottee Continuing in Project Cannot Claim Additional Compensation Beyond Delay Interest

March 17, 2026 : The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HARERA), Gurugram, has held that an allottee who chooses to continue in a project and has already been granted delayed possession interest cannot claim additional compensation for the same period of delay. The ruling came in Jagdish Chauhan v. Ansal Housing Limited (Complaint No. 6044-2024), decided on March 17, 2026.

The complaint was filed under Section 31 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 by Jagdish Chauhan against Ansal Housing Limited, alleging delay in handing over possession of a commercial unit in the project “Ansals Hub 83” located in Sector-83, Gurugram. The matter was adjudicated by Rajender Kumar, Adjudicating Officer.

As per the record, the unit was initially booked by an earlier allottee and subsequently transferred through two successive buyers to the complainant with the developer’s approval. A Builder Buyer Agreement dated December 27, 2012 stipulated that possession would be offered within 36 months. The complainant and previous allottees together paid approximately ₹36.88 lakh towards the unit.

Despite payment of over 95% of the consideration, possession was not delivered within the agreed timeline. Aggrieved, the complainant had earlier approached HARERA in 2021. By an order dated July 6, 2022, the Authority directed the developer to pay delayed possession charges in the form of interest at 9.5% per annum for the period of delay until handing over possession.

In the present proceedings, the complainant sought additional compensation of ₹84.37 lakh towards loss of rental income for over eight years and ₹1.10 lakh towards litigation expenses. He argued that the delay caused financial loss, mental agony, and harassment.

The Adjudicating Officer, however, noted that the complainant had chosen to continue in the project and had already been granted delayed possession compensation by the Authority. Referring to the proviso to Section 18(1) of the Act, the Authority emphasized that where an allottee does not withdraw from a project, the statutory remedy is limited to interest for the period of delay and not additional compensation.

The Authority also relied on the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Appellate Tribunal in Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ranjan Misra (2023), which clarified that compensation in addition to interest is available only to allottees who exit a project, whereas those who continue are entitled solely to interest for delayed possession.

Rejecting the claim, the Adjudicating Officer held that once delayed possession compensation has already been granted, a separate claim for compensation for the same cause of action cannot be sustained. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.