UP-RERA Cracks Down on Illegal Possession Offers: Victory for Allottees in Mahagun Meadows Dispute

Devesh Saxena
May 26
3 min read

A Major Win for Accountability in Real Estate

In a significant triumph for aggrieved homebuyers, S&D Legal Associates successfully represented the complainants in a recent case before the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate Regulatory Authority (UPRERA). The Authority, in its detailed judgment in Dipak Raj & Sandhya Raj vs. M/s Logix Heights Pvt. Ltd. (Mahagun Group), NCR144/06/109613/2023, delivered a resounding verdict upholding the rights of buyers and quashing the builder’s illegal possession offer.

This decision is not just a win for our clients—it is a critical step forward in holding errant developers accountable under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The Background: A Delayed Dream

The case revolved around a residential project named “Mahagun Meadows” in Noida. The homebuyers had booked their units with the promise of possession by September 2018, as per the agreement for sale. However, that commitment remained unfulfilled even years later.

To the buyers’ shock, on 02.01.2024, the Promoter issued an offer of possession—without securing a valid Occupancy Certificate (OC). Worse, they tried to mask this failure by submitting misleading NOCs to create the illusion of compliance under the guise of a “Deemed OC”.

Our Legal Strategy: Challenging the Deception

The team at S&D Legal Associates immediately swung into action by filing a complaint under Section 31 of the RERA Act. Our legal challenge focused on exposing the Promoter’s unlawful conduct, particularly:

Failure to obtain a valid Occupancy Certificate from NOIDA.
Absence of all four crucial NOCs—fire, life safety, structural, and electrical.
Attempting to pass off drawing approvals as actual compliance documents.
Issuing possession letters without legal sanctity.

The builder, in defense, blamed the delay on COVID-19 and “market conditions”, and claimed that possession was offered under a “deemed OC” with completed construction.

What the Authority Asked: Key Legal Questions

The UPRERA bench framed three essential issues:

Was the delay justifiable under force majeure provisions?
Can possession be offered without a valid OC/CC?
Are the complainants entitled to delay compensation? If so, at what rate?

UPRERA's Observations: Illegal Possession Offer

After examining key provisions of the RERA Act—Sections 11(4), 17, 18(1), 19(10)—and landmark rulings such as Supertech v. Rajni Goyal, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, and others, UPRERA made the following findings:

The builder did not have a valid OC at the time of offering possession.
The alleged “Electrical NOC” was merely a drawing approval—not a safety clearance.
The attempt to pass off incomplete paperwork as NOCs was a deliberate attempt to mislead the Authority.
The delay from 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020 due to COVID-19 was accepted as a force majeure period, but the rest of the delay was unjustified.

The Final Verdict: A Win for Buyer Rights

UPRERA passed a powerful and precedent-setting order:

Possession offer dated 02.01.2024 is invalid.
Promoter must obtain a valid OC/CC, complete all facilities, and hand over possession.
Promoter to pay delay interest from 26.11.2018 (after adding 68 days of court-acknowledged construction ban) till date of valid OC/CC or fresh possession offer—at SBI MCLR + 1%.
No interest applicable for the COVID-19 force majeure window of 6 months between 25.03.2020 to 25.09.2020.
The Promoter is barred from levying any additional or unauthorized charges beyond the agreement.
Penalty under Section 63 imposed for submitting misleading documents to claim the benefit of deemed OC.
If the Promoter had charged higher interest rates to homebuyers for late payments, the same higher rate now applies to them for delays.

A Message from S&D Legal Associates

This judgment underscores our firm’s unwavering commitment to justice, transparency, and buyer protection. At S&D Legal Associates, we believe that real estate regulation must work for the people—not just developers.

Our legal team worked tirelessly to gather evidence, challenge misrepresentations, and ensure that the rights of our clients were upheld in full letter and spirit of the law. This victory reflects the power of strong legal representation and buyer-centric advocacy.

Conclusion: Setting a Strong Legal Precedent

The Dipak Raj case sets a vital precedent for all homebuyers who have been taken for granted by non-compliant builders. It reinforces that developers cannot bypass statutory safeguards or manipulate documentation to their convenience.

If you or someone you know is facing similar delays or has concerns about real estate compliance in Uttar Pradesh or anywhere in India, don’t hesitate to reach out to our team.

Read Order: