Haryana RERA Orders Chintels to Reinstate Cancelled Plot, Pay 10.8% Interest

The Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (HRERA) has directed Chintels India to reinstate a cancelled plot in its International City-Plots project in Sector 106, Gurugram, after rejecting the developer’s force majeure defence.

The authority has also ordered the developer to pay 10.8% annual interest for the delay. The order gives the affected buyers a choice that has become central to the dispute: continue with the project and claim delayed interest, or exit under the applicable RERA provisions.

The order was passed by HRERA member Phool Singh Saini on July 23, 2026, on a complaint filed by Sangeeta Aggarwal, Kamla Devi and Varsha Aggarwal.

Plot was cancelled after land attachment dispute

The case concerns Plot L-001 in Block L, measuring 577 sq yards, in Chintels International City-Plots, Sector 106.

The plot had originally been allotted in May 2016 for a total consideration of more than ₹2.7 crore. A plot buyer's agreement was executed in August 2019.

The three complainants subsequently purchased the plot from the original allottees through an agreement to sell dated April 8, 2022. Chintels recorded the transfer that same month.

By then, however, the project was facing a legal complication. The Enforcement Directorate had provisionally attached part of the licensed land in 2021, while a court order had also imposed a status quo on possession over parts of the project.

Chintels relied on these developments to argue that the circumstances amounted to force majeure and prevented the buyers' complaint from proceeding. The developer also argued that the purchasers had bought the plot with knowledge of the encumbrances.

Buyers had already paid around ₹1.3 crore

The complainants had paid approximately ₹1.3 crore towards the plot but had not received possession.

Chintels said it had returned the amount. According to the order, the developer first issued a cheque and later transferred the money through RTGS after the cheque remained uncashed.

The buyers, however, returned the money to Chintels because they wanted to continue with the project rather than exit.

That became an important part of the case.

HRERA held that a promoter cannot simply impose a refund on an allottee who chooses to remain invested and seek the remedy available under Section 18 of the RERA Act.

HRERA rejects Chintels' force majeure argument

The authority did not accept the developer's defence based on the ED attachment and court-ordered status quo.

HRERA also noted that the project remained an ongoing project, with no record showing that an occupation certificate had even been applied for.

The authority referred to an earlier Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ruling in Vatika Ltd vs Raj Kumar Maggon. Based on that interpretation of Section 18(1), the choice between withdrawing from a project for a refund or continuing with it while seeking delay interest rests with the allottee.

This distinction is important. A developer facing a regulatory or legal obstacle does not automatically get to decide whether a buyer must accept a refund and leave the project.

Plot cancellation set aside

HRERA has now set aside the cancellation of the plot.

Chintels has been directed to reinstate the original plot or provide an alternative plot of the same size, location and price within 30 days.

The authority has also ordered the developer to pay 10.8% annual interest from February 17, 2024, which was the due date considered for the delayed possession.

Possession is to be handed over and the conveyance deed executed within three months after the project obtains its occupation certificate. The developer has also been told not to levy holding charges or other amounts that are not provided for under the buyer agreement.

What does the 10.8% interest mean?

The 10.8% figure is likely to attract the most attention, but it should not be interpreted as a flat compensation formula for every delayed property transaction in Haryana.

In this case, HRERA applied the relevant RERA provisions to the specific facts before it, including the contractual possession obligation and the buyer's decision to continue with the project.

The order therefore reinforces a more basic point: the buyer agreement matters.

The possession date, payment history, cancellation clauses and other contractual terms can become central when a dispute reaches the regulator.

For buyers, keeping these records is particularly important when a project has faced litigation, land disputes or regulatory restrictions.

A project can have legal complications without ending the buyer's rights

The Chintels case is also interesting because the buyers were not asking simply for their money back.

They had already rejected the refund and wanted to remain invested in the project. HRERA's order recognises that position and directs the developer to restore the plot instead of treating the earlier refund attempt as the end of the matter.

That approach may be relevant in other delayed projects where buyers still want possession but have been affected by prolonged disputes or regulatory problems.

It also shows why buyers should examine the project's RERA registration, land status, approvals and litigation history before purchasing a plot or apartment.

Buyers can use this guide on how to find project details using a RERA number to check a project's registration and available disclosures.

What buyers should check before buying a plot

The dispute offers a fairly practical checklist for prospective buyers.

Before purchasing a plot in a large development, buyers should look beyond the brochure and check the title, development licence, RERA registration, approved plans and any litigation or attachment affecting the land.

The transaction history also matters. In this case, the complainants were subsequent purchasers, meaning they acquired the plot from the original allottees rather than receiving the original allotment directly from the developer.

That makes verification of the transfer documents particularly important.

A buyer should also retain copies of the buyer agreement, payment receipts, correspondence with the developer and any letters relating to cancellation or possession.

A detailed property title verification checklist can help buyers work through ownership records, encumbrances and other documents before completing a transaction.

Chintels says it will review the order

Chintels has said it will review the order after receiving it and then decide its next course of action.

For now, the HRERA order gives the affected buyers a clear direction: the cancelled plot has to be restored, or an equivalent alternative has to be offered, while the developer must account for delay interest at 10.8% per annum.

The case also underlines a broader point for Gurugram property buyers. A dispute over land or project approvals can stretch the delivery timeline, but that does not necessarily remove the remedies available to an allottee under RERA.

In this case, the buyers chose to stay with the project. HRERA has now ordered the developer to honour that choice.