Supreme Court Orders Vatika Group to Pay Over ₹1 Crore to Homebuyers After Years of Possession Delay
Supreme Court Intervention
The Supreme Court has stepped in to provide relief to four homebuyers waiting for possession of their properties in Vatika projects in Gurugram for years, with a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directing the developer to deposit more than ₹1 crore as compensation for delayed possession.
The buyers had invested in different Vatika projects between 2009 and 2011. Despite waiting for years, they did not receive possession of their homes. The matter reached the Supreme Court after the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) had already passed orders directing the developer to provide relief to the buyers.
HRERA Orders and Compensation Structure
In one case involving a 75-year-old homebuyer, HRERA had directed Vatika to offer an alternative villa and pay interest at 10.75% from the original possession deadline of August 2014 until the property was handed over. In two other cases, HRERA had ordered the developer to pay 10.75% annual interest on the amounts deposited by the buyers from the respective possession deadline, including November 2014, until actual possession. The fourth petitioner, aged 55, was awarded interest at an annual rate of 10.85% for the delay.
Enforcement Challenges
The Supreme Court's intervention has highlighted a larger issue facing homebuyers: obtaining a favourable RERA order does not always guarantee that the order will be implemented. During the Supreme Court hearing, senior advocate Priya Hingorani, representing the petitioners, highlighted the failure to execute HRERA's directions, including bailable warrants issued against Vatika's directors.
Advocate Chandra Bhushan, who filed the petitions for the four buyers, said the homebuyers had repeatedly followed up with the developer for years before seeking regulatory intervention.
Broader Implications
The proceedings may also contribute to a broader judicial examination of how RERA authorities' orders can be enforced, particularly in cases where developers fail to comply or subsequently enter insolvency proceedings. The Supreme Court's order comes against the backdrop of another matter involving Parsvnath Developers, where the CJI-led bench had also examined difficulties in implementing HRERA orders and the enforcement of warrants against company directors.