Brochure promised five acres, plan showed four: NCDRC finds 4.81, gives Zirakpur RWA Rs 10 lakh not Rs 5 crore

The National Commission had to ask the Punjab government how many square yards make an acre in Zirakpur before it could rule on a one-acre shortfall claim against G.S. Promoters. The answer, two different karams in the same sub-tehsil, left the project at 4.81 acres and the society with notional compensation for the admitted 0.19 acre gap.

The residents of Panchkula Heights in Zirakpur, Punjab, bought into a brochure that said their complex stood on five acres. When their society took over the project, the approved drawing said four. They asked the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for ₹5 crore, the market value they put on the missing acre.

On 27 October 2026 the Commission held that the project actually measures 4.81 acres, found no deficiency in service that would justify ₹5 crore, and instead awarded the Panchkula Heights Resident Welfare Society ₹10 lakh as notional compensation for the 0.19 acre the developer admitted was short, with ₹25,000 in costs.

Presiding Member Dr. Inder Jit Singh, writing for himself and Member Shashi Nandkeolyar, rejected every other grievance: the missing completion certificate for an EWS tower, an administrative block said to be unsanctioned, an electricity load said to be too low, and the demand that title to the common areas be transferred to the society.

A brochure, a plan and one missing acre

G.S. Promoters and Developers, a Panchkula firm acting through its partner Manoj Mittal, built Panchkula Heights at Peer Muchalla in Zirakpur. Sale deeds with flat buyers were executed in 2011 and 2012, and the Municipal Council, Zirakpur issued a completion certificate on 20 September 2012.

The society took possession of the project on 15 April 2015. On the same day it received a lump sum of ₹57 lakh from the developer for pending works and, according to the developer, gave an undertaking that it would itself apply for and pursue all remaining licences, clearances, completion certificates and electricity load sanctions.

The society said the approved drawing it then saw showed the project sanctioned on four acres, not five. Eleven towers, six of three-bedroom and five of two-bedroom flats, had completion certificates. A twelfth tower of about 11,500 square feet for economically weaker sections, shown in the sanctioned plan, did not.

It also complained that the administrative block housing a gym, swimming pool, community hall and eight shops was not in the sanctioned plan. The sanctioned electricity load for common areas was 98.54 KW against a requirement of 170 KW, and title to the land had not been transferred.

After a legal notice of 3 April 2017, the society filed its complaint on 13 April 2017 under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It asked for ₹5 crore for the acre, ₹10 lakh for mental agony, and directions on each of the other grievances.

The developer answered that a society which never bought a flat is not a consumer, relying on the Commission's decision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla v. Ferrous Infrastructure. It said the complaint was time-barred, raised disputed facts fit only for a civil court, and inflated the claim to reach the Commission's pecuniary jurisdiction.

On the acre, it said the site measured 19 bigha, 5 biswa and 11 biswasi, or 19,277 square yards. Under the Punjab registration norm, an acre is 40 karam by 40 karam, or 190 feet by 190 feet, which is 4,011.11 square yards. That made the project 4.81 acres, which it said could fairly be called approximately five.

Limitation decided, class action denied

The Commission settled two preliminary points in an order of 7 November 2025. The developer argued that time ran from the sale deeds of 2010 to 2012. The bench disagreed: the society got possession only on 15 April 2015 and filed within two years, and individual allottees could not have known on their own that the project area fell short.

The second point was the character of the complaint. The society had sought leave to file a class action under Section 12(1)(c), but no such permission was ever granted and no newspaper publication followed. Because the complaint was admitted as one filed by a society, the Commission treated it as a complaint by a voluntary consumer association under Section 12(1)(b).

The same order recorded what was not in dispute. The flats had been handed over and were of the promised size, and amenities such as the swimming pool were in place. The fight was about the land under them, and about who had the paperwork.

Alok Kachru appeared for the society. Ankit Swarup led for the developer and Manoj Mittal.

How long is an acre in Punjab?

The society came armed with documents saying an acre is 4,840 square yards. A 1986 letter from the Chief Town Planner, Punjab, obtained under the Right to Information Act, said so. The Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab (27 April 2012) had recorded that eight kanals make an acre and a kanal is 605 square yards.

A Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment of 17 January 2019 in Kamaljit Kaur v. State of Punjab, and the land pooling policy of 19 June 2013 it construed, used the same standard acre of eight kanals of 605 square yards each.

The developer produced a report of 7 January 2026 from the Naib Tehsildar, Zirakpur, also obtained under the RTI Act. In the revenue record, one killa is 40 karam by 40 karam, with a karam of 4.75 feet, or 4,000 square yards. On that footing the sanctioned plan, giving the site as 19,330.97 square yards, meant 4.81 acres.

Counsel for the developer conceded that the plan itself read differently. The site area was correct, he said, but “by mistake in the plan it is indicated as 4 acres”. He admitted a shortfall of 0.19 acres against the five advertised, and relied on the Commission's decision of 11 October 2024 in Ruchira Residency Apartment Owners Association.

In Ruchira Residency, the Commission had held that 4.78 acres delivered against five acres in a brochure was a minor variation, not misrepresentation or short supply. Counsel fairly told the bench that the Supreme Court had since stayed that judgment in a pending appeal.

Faced with official documents pointing both ways, the Commission did something unusual on 12 June 2026. It directed the Registry to write to the Chief Secretary of Punjab and the secretaries in charge of the Revenue and Housing and Urban Development departments, asking for a categorical report within two weeks on what an acre and a kanal measure in Zirakpur.

The Department of Revenue, Rehabilitation and Disaster Management replied on 29 July 2026, drawing on the Director of Land Records and the Deputy Commissioner of SAS Nagar. Where the measuring karam is 60 inches, a kanal is 500 square yards and an acre 4,000. Where the karam is 66 inches, a kanal is 605 square yards and an acre 4,840.

For Sub-Tehsil Zirakpur, the report said two scales are prevalent: a 66-inch karam of 5.5 feet and a 57.157-inch karam of 4.75 feet. The society argued that even at 4,000 square yards an acre, five acres would be 20,000 square yards, leaving the plan 669.03 square yards short.

It also pointed out that the 4.81-acre admission surfaced only in June 2026. The written statement had never conceded that the plan was wrong.

What the Commission found

The bench read the Punjab report as proof that the state has no uniform acre. Different units prevail in different parts, and both scales are in use in Zirakpur. The Naib Tehsildar's report, now confirmed by the state government, supported the developer. The society had not proved with cogent evidence that it received four acres against a promised five.

The project area was therefore 4.81 acres. Following Ruchira Residency, the Commission held there was no deficiency in service to the extent that would justify the ₹5 crore demanded under the first prayer. The order does not return to the Supreme Court stay that counsel had disclosed in June.

The admitted 0.19 acre still mattered. The developer, said the bench at paragraph 10.1,

ought to have known the exact project land area in question and published the same

For that, it granted ₹10 lakh as notional compensation, to be spent on the general welfare of members or on common facilities, together with ₹25,000 as litigation costs. The developer had pointed to a disclaimer in its brochure, “The brochure is purely conceptual and not a legal offering”. The order records the submission; it did not displace the award.

The EWS tower claim failed on the paperwork. The completion plan approved by the Municipal Council, Zirakpur listed all three categories of building, including Category III for economically weaker sections. The society had argued that the covering letter of 20 September 2012 named only Categories I and II, but the Commission held it had not shown the certificate was missing.

The administrative block survived too. It is marked as commercial area in the sanctioned plan, and the developer had chosen to put the gym, swimming pool and community hall there instead of shops. Since the block houses the promised facilities and no municipal authority had objected, the Commission issued no direction.

On electricity, the society had a bill showing 98.54 KW sanctioned and a consultant's report putting the running load at 168.42 KW. The developer pointed to a Chief Electricity Inspector letter of 30 July 2012 covering five 315 KVA transformers, which it said meant 1,260 KW. The Commission held the required load had been provided.

Who owns the common areas

The demand for a transfer of title was answered by statute. Section 4(3) of the Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995 provides that apartment owners own the common areas and facilities in common, that neither the promoter nor the association has any ownership right in them, and that the association is vested only with their management and maintenance.

Under Section 4(5), each owner's undivided share in the common areas passes with the apartment and is deemed conveyed even if the deed does not mention it. The developer had said it would convey title if directed, though the Act did not require it.

The Commission found no direction necessary, since the statute already settled the position. It added one clarification: the builder will have no right over the project land or any common area or facility once it has been transferred to the society of allottees.

The society had already given up its demand for layout plans of the water, sewerage and electrical lines, telling the bench in June 2026 that it had received them. The developer's objection that the society was not a consumer appears among its recorded contentions; the order decides the complaint on its merits without a separate ruling on it.

Rs 10 lakh, 45 days, 9 per cent

The developer and Manoj Mittal must pay the ₹10 lakh compensation and ₹25,000 costs to the society within 45 days. If they do not, the entire amount outstanding at the end of that period carries simple interest at 9 per cent a year from the expiry of the 45 days until actual payment.

The ₹10 lakh is earmarked. The society must use it for the general welfare of its members, for common purposes beneficial to them, or for improving common facilities and amenities in the project.

Order

The complaint was allowed only to the extent of the directions in paragraph 10.1: ₹10 lakh notional compensation and ₹25,000 litigation costs, payable within 45 days, failing which 9 per cent simple interest runs.

The prayers for ₹5 crore, for a completion certificate for the EWS tower, for regularisation of the administrative block, for enhancement of the electricity load and for transfer of title were disallowed.

The complaint was heard finally on 18 September 2026 and the judgment pronounced on 27 October 2026. Pending applications were disposed of.