Two homebuyers had booked a flat through Super Construction in a Thane project then called Sun Gates, later rebranded Sethia Imperial Avenue. In 2018, Super Construction told them that development rights for the project had passed to another entity, Sai Enterprises, and pointed them there instead of handing over what they had paid for. The buyers refused the refund both developers appear to have offered at various points and insisted on the flat itself, a stand that eventually took them before MahaRERA's Member II bench, which on 31 October 2025 directed both developers to allot a specific 795 square foot flat, identified as Flat B07 in Wing B, and to execute a registered agreement for sale within 45 days against payment of any balance consideration still due.
That order also fixed what the developers owed on the delay itself. Both were made jointly and severally liable to pay simple interest on Rs 17.49 lakh running from 24 June 2012, the date tied to the buyers' original payments, through to the date possession is actually handed over, and Sai Enterprises was separately directed to pay Rs 20,000 in costs. None of that, the buyers found, translated into compliance. No flat was allotted, no agreement was executed, and the 45 day window closed with nothing done.
The buyers returned to MahaRERA with a non-compliance application, which Adjudicating Officer R.K. Malabade decided on 8 October 2026. The developers' response to the non-compliance proceeding reportedly noted that all flats in the project had by then already been sold to third parties, a fact MahaRERA took into account rather than treated as an excuse. Having sold away the very flat it had been ordered to hand over, and the other flats that might have substituted for it, left the developers with nothing to offer in compliance, a position entirely of their own making.
MahaRERA's response was to penalise the non-compliance itself, separately from the underlying dues already fixed in the 2025 order. It imposed a Rs 10 lakh penalty under Section 63 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, the provision aimed specifically at a promoter who fails to comply with an order, direction or decision issued under the Act. On top of the penalty, the order directed that recovery warrants be issued against the developers for the interest and costs that remained unpaid from the original order, converting the underlying liability into a formal recovery process rather than leaving it to further voluntary compliance.
The sequencing here illustrates something homebuyers in long-running possession disputes run into often. Winning an order for allotment or possession does not end the dispute if the developer simply does nothing, and selling away the disputed unit to a third party while an order to hand it over is pending does not excuse the developer from the order, it only forecloses the developer's own ability to comply with it in the originally ordered form. MahaRERA's answer in that situation is not to rewrite the relief into something the developer can still perform but to penalise the refusal to perform and push the unpaid monetary components into recovery.
For promoters, the lesson is that disposing of inventory while a MahaRERA order directing allotment of that same inventory remains outstanding does not make the problem disappear; it adds a Section 63 penalty on top of whatever liability the original order already fixed. For homebuyers facing a developer who ignores an allotment or possession order, this order confirms that a non-compliance application, rather than a fresh substantive complaint, is the route to both a separate penalty against the promoter and formal recovery warrants for the money already due.
The decade-long gap between the buyers' original 2012 payments and this October 2026 penalty order also says something about how long an allottee can be left waiting even after winning. The buyers secured a favourable order in 2025 only to find it ignored, and had to return to the regulator a second time before any real consequence attached to that non-compliance. The two-step structure, a substantive order followed, if needed, by a separate non-compliance proceeding carrying its own penalty, gives MahaRERA a tool to escalate pressure on a defaulting promoter, but it also means an allottee's practical relief can depend on pursuing that second round rather than assuming the first order will simply be honoured.