A Zirakpur Flat Allotment Cancelled After The Possession Date Passed: What Punjab RERA Held ज़ीरकपुर के एक फ़्लैट का अलॉटमेंट कब्ज़े की तारीख़ बीतने के बाद रद्द: पंजाब रेरा ने क्या कहा ਜ਼ੀਰਕਪੁਰ ਦੇ ਇੱਕ ਫ਼ਲੈਟ ਦੀ ਅਲਾਟਮੈਂਟ ਕਬਜ਼ੇ ਦੀ ਤਾਰੀਖ਼ ਲੰਘਣ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਅਦ ਰੱਦ: ਪੰਜਾਬ ਰੇਰਾ ਨੇ ਕੀ ਕਿਹਾ

According to the Hindustan Times report of the twenty fifth of October, a Zirakpur developer promised to hand over a flat by the third of August twenty twenty four. That date came and went with no possession. More than a year later, on the fourteenth of October twenty twenty five, the developer cancelled the allotment over what it called unpaid dues. Punjab's real estate regulator has now set that cancellation aside. The report says the authority held that the cancellation had no legal basis once the agreed possession date had been breached. Punjab RERA's website lists the order as decided on the fifteenth of October twenty twenty six. We have not read the order itself, and this account relies on the report.

The order matters for any buyer in the Zirakpur and Mohali belt whose project is running late. It deals with a narrow question. Can a developer that has already missed its own deadline then turn around and cancel a booking for money the buyer has not yet paid? On the facts as reported, Punjab RERA said no.

The order in brief

The complaint was filed against Sushma Buildtech Limited by two buyers from Kaithal in Haryana. They had booked a three bedroom apartment on the ground floor of Tower K in the Sushma Crescent project in Zirakpur. According to the Hindustan Times report of the twenty fifth of October, the authority made four main directions.

First, it set aside the developer's cancellation of the allotment. Second, it directed the developer to offer possession of the flat after obtaining a completion certificate. Third, it ordered interest for the delay at eleven per cent a year. Fourth, it gave the developer ninety days from receipt of the order to pay the interest due up to the date of the order and to file a compliance report.

The report says the developer and its representative did not appear before the authority despite receiving notices. The authority therefore proceeded against them ex parte, which means the case was decided without hearing their side. The authority also warned that failure to comply with its directions could attract a penalty under section sixty three of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act.

How the dates ran

The sequence of dates is the heart of this order.

According to the report, the agreement for sale was executed on the third of August twenty twenty three. It fixed the possession date one year later, on the third of August twenty twenty four. The buyers told the authority they had paid more than ninety per cent of the sale price. Even so, by the time they complained, they had neither received possession nor been paid any interest for the delay.

The report says that on the fourteenth of October twenty twenty five, roughly fourteen months after the possession date had passed, the developer cancelled the allotment. It cited the buyers' alleged failure to pay outstanding dues. It also worked out a refundable amount of twenty four lakh rupees after deductions.

The authority noted, according to the report, that the project's registration with Punjab RERA had been extended until the seventh of January twenty twenty six. Neither side placed a completion certificate on record. The order was passed on the fifteenth of October twenty twenty six.

Why the cancellation could not stand

The developer's case, as reported, was a familiar one. A buyer stopped paying, so the developer cancelled. What changed the result here was the order in which things happened.

As the report describes it, the authority held that once the developer had failed to meet the possession deadline, the buyers were entitled to stop making further payments. A developer in that position, the order reasoned, could not then rely on the unpaid balance to cancel the booking. The cancellation was therefore set aside as having no legal basis.

The report says the authority attached a limit to this. The buyers' right to stop paying was subject to any amount that was already outstanding under the payment schedule up to the possession date, together with any interest for delayed payments that the schedule allowed up to that date. In plain terms, the buyers could hold back later instalments once the deadline was missed. Dues that had fallen due before the deadline remain part of the account.

This is the point that separates the order from other recent Punjab RERA rulings. In the Mohali plot case covered earlier on this site, the allotment was cancelled over dues while the timetable was still running. That dispute then turned on what happened after a resale. Here the developer was already in default on its own promise when it cancelled.

The cash payment claim

According to the report, the buyers said they had paid sixty lakh rupees in total. Of that, they said twenty five lakh rupees had been paid in cash.

The report says the authority did not accept the cash claim. The buyers produced no receipts or acknowledgements for it, and no other documentary evidence. The authority relied instead on the documented payments. It directed interest on thirty six lakh rupees.

This part of the order is a reminder that the regulator decides on the papers in front of it. A payment that cannot be shown on paper is very hard to recover through a complaint, whatever the buyer's account of it may be.

The interest awarded

As reported, the interest runs on thirty six lakh rupees at eleven per cent a year. It is split into two periods.

The first period runs from the third of August twenty twenty four, the agreed possession date, up to the date of the order. That interest has to be paid within ninety days of the developer receiving the order.

The second period runs from the date of the order onwards, at the same rate. It continues until actual possession is handed over, or until two months after the competent authority issues the completion certificate, whichever comes first.

As a general position under the Act, interest for delay is paid under section eighteen to a buyer who chooses to stay in a delayed project. It compensates for the time lost on the buyer's money. The Hindustan Times report does not cite section eighteen, and this paragraph describes the Act in general terms. The report also does not say whether a refund was sought. Our own reading, which the report does not state, is that no refund was awarded because the buyers chose to keep the flat.

What the order does not decide

The order deals with one flat and one agreement. It does not decide the position of any other buyer in Sushma Crescent or in any other project. Each agreement has its own payment schedule and its own possession clause, and each case turns on its own facts.

The order was also passed ex parte. The developer did not put its side before the authority, and it may still have remedies. A party that disagrees with a Punjab RERA order can appeal to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal within the time the Act allows. Nothing in the report says whether an appeal has been filed.

The order also leaves open when the flat will actually be ready. Possession has to follow a completion certificate, and none was on record.

The wider point for delayed projects

Delayed projects are common in the Zirakpur and Kharar belt, and disputes over dues often follow a missed deadline. This order sets out how Punjab RERA approached one such dispute. A developer that had already missed its own date was not allowed to cancel a buyer's booking for the instalments that would have fallen due after that date.

A buyer who keeps clear records of every payment stands on firmer ground in such a case. The cash claim in this order shows the other side of the same rule.

Related reading

- A Mohali plot allotment cancelled over dues: what Punjab RERA ordered after the resale
- A Mohali buyer paid in full without a sale agreement: what Punjab RERA ordered

Sources: Hindustan Times, Mohali builder to hand over Zirakpur flat, pay interest for delay, published on the twenty fifth of October twenty twenty six. Punjab RERA orders and judgements page, complaint listed as decided on the fifteenth of October twenty twenty six. The Real Estate Regulation and Development Act on delay interest in section eighteen and on penalties in section sixty three. The sources we use are listed on our Editorial Sources page.

This piece describes a Punjab RERA order as reported by the Hindustan Times on the twenty fifth of October twenty twenty six. We have not read the order itself. It covers one complaint and one flat. Nothing here is legal advice, and any booking turns on its own papers and facts.