Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 03.11.2026
Punjab and Haryana High Court Rejects Repeated RERA Claims
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Narendra Singh. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his mob no- +91 8800860662 and email id amitnaren@outlook.com .
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a homebuyersβ appeal against Tata Housing Development Company Ltd., holding that repeated complaints arising from the same apartment dispute could not be pursued in successive proceedings.
Case at a glance
In Ashok Kumar Soni and others v. M/s Tata Housing Development Company Limited, decided on 2 September 2026, the High Court upheld the Haryana Real Estate Appellate Tribunalβs decision to reject the appellantsβ challenge. The case concerned an apartment in Tata Housingβs Premanti project in Sector 72, Gurugram.
The apartment had been allotted to the appellants for βΉ2,77,74,702, under an Apartment Buyerβs Agreement dated 16 August 2014. Possession was offered on 28 June 2017.
Homebuyersβ allegations
The buyers had raised several grievances concerning the apartment and the project. They alleged that the developer had overcharged them after learning that 10 apartments of the same size had reportedly been sold to Oriental Bank of Commerce for βΉ2.18 crore each. They initially sought a refund of βΉ66 lakh.
Their complaints also referred to delayed possession, deficiencies in promised facilities, alleged changes to the projectβs site plan, and a claimed change in the main entrance of Tower II. They sought compensation for financial loss, mental agony, and physical loss.
History of repeated proceedings
The dispute had already gone through several rounds before the Haryana RERA Authority, the Adjudicating Officer, and the Appellate Tribunal:
- The first complaint resulted in possession and delayed-possession charges being granted.
- An appeal against that order was withdrawn, while reserving the buyersβ right to seek compensation for alleged non-availability of facilities.
- A later compensation complaint was dismissed by the Adjudicating Officer on 15 September 2021.
- The buyersβ appeal from that decision was also withdrawn on 31 March 2023, without liberty to file another case.
- A second compensation complaint was then filed, alleging material changes in the site plan and deficiencies in facilities. It was dismissed on 13 January 2025.
The Adjudicating Officer found that the buyers had not produced evidence supporting the alleged site-plan changes or road-access issues. Neither the purported original or revised site plan nor other proof of the asserted changes was placed on record.
Why the appeal failed
The High Court concluded that the buyers had been aware of their grievances when they initiated the earlier proceedings but had nonetheless pursued sequential complaints regarding the same apartment and substantially connected claims.
The Court held that such repeated litigation was barred by the principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. These principles prevent parties from re-litigating matters that have already been decided, or from splitting claims arising from the same cause of action across multiple cases.
The Court also examined Sections 88 and 89 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016. While RERA has overriding effect in case of conflict, Section 88 preserves the operation of other laws where they do not conflict with the Act. The Court therefore found that relevant procedural principles of the CPC could apply to RERA proceedings.
Courtβs key observation
The Court stressed that permitting multiple complaints based on known, connected grievances would be contrary to public policy. It found no factual or legal defect in the Appellate Tribunalβs order and dismissed the appeal as lacking merit.
Significance for RERA disputes
The ruling reinforces that homebuyers and developers should present all known claims relating to a transaction in the appropriate proceeding, supported by documentary evidence. A party cannot ordinarily revive or divide claims through successive complaints after earlier proceedings have been decided or withdrawn without permission to refile.
For site-plan or amenity-related claims in particular, the case highlights the importance of filing concrete evidence, such as sanctioned plans, revised plans, contractual representations, correspondence, photographs, and other records demonstrating the alleged deviation.
Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.
Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.
Source: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply