News Citation : 2026 LN (CGRERA) 26
March 25, 2026 : A dispute between residents of Lal Ganga Regalia and the project developer has come under scrutiny after the Chhattisgarh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), Raipur, heard a detailed complaint alleging serious deficiencies in construction quality and promised amenities.
According to the complaint filed by the Lal Ganga Regalia Residential Cooperative Society through its president, residents who purchased flats and bungalows in the project between 2019 and 2024 claimed they paid substantial amounts ranging from ₹35 lakh to over ₹85 lakh. They alleged that despite these payments, the developer failed to deliver several key facilities advertised in brochures and on official platforms.
Residents reported persistent structural issues, including water seepage from roofs and walls, leading to falling plaster and damage to personal property. They also claimed that multiple promised amenities such as a party hall, LPG pipeline, functional swimming pool, adequate gym facilities, and proper fire safety systems were either incomplete, non-functional, or missing entirely.
The complaint further highlighted gaps in basic infrastructure, including insufficient CCTV coverage, poor lighting in common areas, lack of sanitation facilities for staff, and non-operational systems like garbage chutes and sewage treatment plants. Residents also alleged that maintenance charges were collected without proper receipts and that the developer later withdrew from maintenance responsibilities, forcing residents to bear recurring costs.
In response, the developer denied all allegations, arguing that the project had already received a completion certificate in July 2021 and that all facilities were constructed and operational at the time. The developer contended that maintenance responsibilities were transferred to the residents’ association after completion and that any current deficiencies were due to poor upkeep by the association rather than construction defects.
The developer also argued that the complaint was filed after an unreasonable delay and that buyers had inspected the property and executed sale deeds without raising objections. It maintained that claims based on brochure representations cannot override the terms of registered agreements.
The matter highlights a recurring issue in real estate disputes where buyers allege a mismatch between marketed promises and delivered infrastructure, while developers rely on completion certificates and contractual terms to limit liability.
The authority’s final determination will be crucial in clarifying the extent of a developer’s obligations post-completion and the enforceability of promises made in marketing materials.
