chandigarh the haryana real estate regulatory authority hrera has held that it has the power to adjudicate on projects that were on before the rera act came into force and were therefore not registered under the regulatorthe verdict will have wide ramifications on the real estate sector in haryana as it will bring into reras ambit even those projects where the builder had applied for an occupation certificate before hrera rules were framed the panchkula bench of the authority has ruled that a builder cant escape its jurisdiction even if the completion certificate was issued before the rules were framedthe panchkula bench headed by its chairman rajan gupta passed these orders last week while hearing a bunch of petitions filed by madhu sarin and 23 others against the bptp project in faridabad it held that the flat buyers agreement was onesided and unequal and directed the developer to pay compensation along with bank interest from the date of delay till the possession was offeredallotees wont be liable to pay gstthe panchkula bench of the authority held that the allotees would not be held liable to pay gstthe complainants had purchased apartments in the project between 2009 and 2011the agreements of sale were executed in february 2011 by the company unilaterally they alleged they approached the bench after the builder issued possession notices in march 2018 and sought an additional rs 1305 lakh as escalation costone of the counsels for the complainants sudarshan thakur argued that possession should been given in 2013 but was made five years later in 2018 also against the basic price of a flat of rs 2664 lakh they had already paid rs 3050 lakh which included internal development charge idc and external development charge edc and yet the builder was demanding an additional rs 1305 lakhthakur argued that after prolonged delay the demand of additional amount in the form of escalation cost vat gst electrification sewage treatment plant power backup club membership and under other heads was arbitrary he sought directions to pay them compensation for delayed possessioncontesting the allegations the builder stated that the demand was according to the agreement and that hrera had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the agreements were executed much before the hrera act and rules came into forcehowever the hrera bench held that it had complete jurisdiction to decide the dispute and upheld most of the arguments of the complainants