Booked Flat Sold to Someone Else: MahaRERA’s Big Relief for Pune Homebuyers
Pune, 17th August 2026: The Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) has partly allowed a complaint filed by a Pune couple against real estate developer Om Sai Homes over the sale of a flat in the Aura County Signature project at Wagholi.
In its final order dated August 7, 2026, MahaRERA Member II Ravindra Deshpande directed the developer to revive the project, complete all statutory compliances and, thereafter, execute and register an Agreement for Sale for an equivalent flat of the same carpet area in the project. The complainants will receive credit for Rs 25 lakh acknowledged as having been paid to the developer.
The complaint, filed by Siddharth Satish Gandhi and Rita Siddharth Gandhi under Complaint No. CC12400327, concerned Flat No. 803 in Building B-1 of the project, registered with MahaRERA under Registration No. P52100012950.
According to the order, the complainants had booked the flat through an allotment letter dated January 18, 2020, for a total consideration of Rs 38 lakh. They claimed to have paid Rs 35 lakh, including a cash payment of Rs 10 lakh, and agreed to pay the remaining Rs 3 lakh at the time of possession.
However, MahaRERA found that documentary evidence established payment of only Rs 25 lakh. The authority observed that “only the admitted and duly proved payment of Rs.25,00,000/- can be taken into consideration.” The developer’s ledger also acknowledged receipt of Rs 25 lakh, while the alleged cash payment was not supported by sufficient documentary evidence.
The complainants alleged that Om Sai Homes failed to register the Agreement for Sale and did not hand over possession by the promised date of December 30, 2021. They further claimed that construction had stopped and that the same flat was subsequently sold to Prakash Pravin Mehta through a registered Agreement for Sale dated January 3, 2022.
Rejecting the plea for allotment of Flat No. 803, MahaRERA said it could not disturb the rights created in favour of a third-party purchaser who was not a party to the proceedings. The authority observed that it “cannot direct the Respondent to divest the rights created in favour of such third party or compel delivery of the same flat to the Complainants.”
MahaRERA, however, accepted the complainants’ alternate request for an equivalent flat. The order states: “The Respondent shall revive the project and complete all statutory compliances” under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, and thereafter allot the complainants another residential unit of the same carpet area in the same project.
The complainants had also sought Rs 25 lakh as compensation for alleged harassment and mental agony. MahaRERA did not award the compensation in this order but granted them liberty to approach the Adjudicating Officer under the RERA Act. The complaint was partly allowed, with no order as to costs.
