Supreme Court Orders Vatika Group to Pay Over ₹1 Crore to Homebuyers After Years of Possession Delay

• Four Vatika homebuyers to receive over ₹1 crore in compensation.
• Buyers had approached HRERA after years of waiting for possession.
• Supreme Court hearing highlights gaps in enforcing RERA orders.

Gurugram: The Supreme Court has stepped in to provide relief to four homebuyers who have been waiting for possession of their properties in Vatika projects in Gurugram for years. A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant directed the real estate 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.

The case is significant because the buyers had obtained favourable orders from HRERA, but those directions were not effectively implemented. In some cases, the authority had also issued bailable warrants against Vatika’s directors, but the enforcement process remained unsuccessful.

The four cases involve buyers who had waited for more than a decade for their properties. Three of the four petitioners are senior citizens, making the prolonged delay particularly significant.

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 another two cases, HRERA had ordered the developer to pay 10.75% annual interest on the amounts deposited by the buyers. The interest was to run 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. HRERA’s January 2024 order covered the period beginning September 2012 and continuing until possession was delivered.

The Supreme Court’s intervention has also brought attention to a larger issue facing homebuyers: obtaining a favourable RERA order does not always guarantee that the order will be implemented.

The four buyers had spent years pursuing the developer before approaching HRERA in 2021 and 2022. Although they eventually secured orders in their favour, they had to file separate execution proceedings because the original directions were not acted upon.

The situation became more complicated after insolvency proceedings were initiated against Vatika before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in March this year. Proceedings relating to the homebuyers’ cases before HRERA were subsequently affected, adding another layer of uncertainty.

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.

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.

The case could have wider implications for homebuyers dealing with delayed possession and non-compliance with regulatory orders. RERA was introduced to provide stronger protection to property buyers, but execution remains a major challenge when developers do not voluntarily comply with regulatory directions.

For affected buyers, a favourable RERA ruling can therefore be only one stage of a much longer legal process. Insolvency proceedings can further complicate recovery, possession and compensation claims.

The Supreme Court’s intervention puts renewed focus on whether existing enforcement mechanisms are strong enough to make RERA orders effective in practice.

The immediate issue is compliance with the Supreme Court’s direction requiring Vatika to deposit the compensation amount. The four homebuyers will continue to pursue relief relating to their properties and the implementation of earlier HRERA orders.

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.

Also Read: Supreme Court Says Noida Homebuyers Cannot Be Fined for Builder’s Delays

Also Read: SC Says Developers Must Deliver as Promised in Brochures