1. Heard the learned counsels for both the parties in detail on 02.06.2026, and the matter was reserved for orders.

2. The present EAs are filed by the complainants in CC/75/2018. The complaint was disposed of on 02.05.2023 with directions to OP to hand over possession, subject to payment of the original consideration by the complainants and payment of delay compensation as specified therein by the OP. Relevant part of the said order is produced below:

                          "17. In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party Developer is directed to handover the possession of the units, complete in all respect and pay the delayed compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainants/ Allottees, from 01.01.2016 till the date, the offer of possession was made to the Complainants/ Allottees. However, the Complainants/ Allottees shall pay the balance consideration, if any, at the time of possession. No Order as to costs.

                          18. Time for compliance of the Order is two months from today, failing which the compensation amount calculated in terms of the Paragraph 17 will attract simple interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of Order till its realization."

3. The DHs contended that the JDs claim of obtaining the Occupancy Certificate was false, as the conditional Occupancy Certificate (OC) allegedly obtained by the OPs was cancelled by the competent authority in the year 2022 itself. It was argued that, with a view to creating a false compliance with the Judgment, the JDs issued a final demand letters to the allottees containing arbitrary and illegal charges. According to the DH, such charges were neither contemplated under the Agreement between the parties nor supported by any statutory provision. Consequently, the offers of possession issued by the JDs were invalid, particularly in the absence of a valid and subsisting Occupancy Certificate. The DH further alleged that the JDs had deliberately raised fictitious demands with the intention of nullifying the compensation payable under the decree and thereby avoiding their legal obligations. The DH contended that despite the lapse of considerable time, the JDs had neither paid the compensation awarded under the Judgment nor handed over possession of the units complete in all respects. The DHs therefore prayed for directions to JDs to comply with the Judgment dated 02.05.2023 by withdrawing the illegal demands, obtaining a valid Occupancy Certificate, handing over possession of the units complete in all respects, executing the necessary conveyance documents, and paying the compensation awarded under the decree.

4. The JD raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Execution Application against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, contending that they were neither impleaded as parties in the original Consumer Complaint nor subjected to any liability under the order dated 02.05.2023. It was contended that the directions contained in the said Judgment were exclusively against the JD Company, and no relief had been granted against Respondent Nos.2-5. Consequently, the Execution Application, insofar as it sought enforcement against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, was stated to be not maintainable. The JDs further contended that, after the pronouncement of the Judgment, the OPs/JDs initiated steps for compliance and, through its Advocate, issued communications dated 24.06.2023 along with statements of account, calling upon DHs to deposit the outstanding amounts after adjustment of the compensation awarded under the Judgment and to take possession of their respective units. However, despite receipt of the said communications, they neither responded nor paid the outstanding amounts payable by them. The JDs contended that in an involved effort to facilitate implementation of the Judgment the JDs conducted individual meetings with the allottees and thereafter issued revised demand letters and amended Final Statements of Accounts (FSA) reflecting adjustments sought by the allottees and recalculated dues in accordance with the allotment terms. However, the DHs refused to discharge their contractual obligations and declined to pay their legitimate dues reflected in the revised FSAs. The JDs contended that the revised FSAa were after adjusting the delay compensation payable under the Judgment and also reflected delay fit- out charges, farmer compensation and related dues recoverable from the allottees under the allotment letter. The possession of units was initially offered to the allottees in July 2019. It was in compliance with the then prevailing regulatory framework under the Uttar Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016. Since the allottees chose not to take possession despite due offer with the OC, they were liable to pay delay fit-out charges and their proportionate share of farmer compensation and other statutory levies under Clauses 14 and 31 of the Allotment Letter. According to the JD, Clause 31 specifically obligated the allottees to bear their proportionate share of any additional levies, taxes, compensation to farmers, cess, fees or other charges imposed by Government authorities or statutory bodies and attributable to the project. With regard to the issue of Occupancy/Completion Certificates, the JD contended that under UPRERA Office Order dated 16.09.2019, a promoter was entitled to rely upon a deemed grant of CC where all requisite infrastructure and safety requirements had been fulfilled and the competent authority failed to communicate rejection or deficiencies within the prescribed period. The JDs had completed all requisite infrastructure works, obtained the necessary electrical, fire, structural and lift safety certificates and had applied for OC/CC. Since the competent authority had neither approved nor rejected its application within the stipulated period, the CC and OC was deemed to have been granted under the said Office Order and as per law. Therefore, the offer of possession made by it to the DHs was lawful and valid and that it had substantially complied with the directions in the Judgment dated 02.05.2023. The JDs contended further that subsequently UPRERA, vide Office Order dated 29.05.2024, altered the regulatory position and prohibited promoters from issuing offers of possession without first obtaining CC and/or OC.

The said Office Order also superseded the earlier framework permitting deemed approval. According to the JDs, this change in law created a legal impediment preventing it from issuing any further offer of possession in the absence of formal CC/OC. Despite its bona fide efforts, compliance with the direction to hand over possession had become impossible owing to circumstances beyond its control, especially because the competent authority had neither granted nor rejected its application for CC/OC. The JD also referred to substantial demands raised by GNIDA towards additional farmers compensation running into several crores of rupees, which were attributable to the DHs in terms of Clause 31 of the allotment letter. Several Writ Petitions challenging such demands, including proceedings instituted by it, were pending before the High Court of Allahabad and interim protection against coercive recovery was granted in connected matters. The issue of liability towards farmer compensation remained sub judice and the final quantum payable by the allottees can be determined only after adjudication by the Hon'ble High Court. JDs contended that the grant of CC/ OC was linked with clearance of GNIDA dues, including farmer compensation. Since this compensation issue was pending in the High Court and the corresponding amounts had not been received from the allottees, the JD was unable to clear GNIDA dues and consequently could not secure the requisite approvals. Thus, a situation had arisen wherein the possession could not legally be offered without CC/OC, while such certificates could not be obtained until the disputed GNIDA dues were resolved. The JDs, therefore, contended that their inability to hand over possession was not attributable to any wilful default on its part but was the result of legal and regulatory impediments beyond its control. The JD contended that, in view of the circumstances and the practical impossibility in handing over possession, without prejudice to its rights and contentions, the JDs sought to refund the amounts deposited by the DHs with simple interest @ 6% p.a.

5. It is to be noted that the JD also filed RA/204/2025 in EA/670/2023 in CC/75/2018 praying as follows:

                          "i. Modify/clarify the Order dated 02.05.2023 passed in Consumer Complaint No. 85 of 2018, to the effect that the Respondent / Opposite Party be directed to refund the amount paid by the allottee in terms of their respective allotment letter in palace of directions for handing over the possession of their respective unit(s);

                          ii. No punitive or coercive measures shall be taken against the Respondent/Judgment Debtor in execution, in view of the current impossibility of handing over possession due to absence of a valid Occupancy Certificate;

                          iii. Pass such other or further orders as this Commission may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

6. The learned counsel for the DHs painstakingly argued that the JDs failed to hand over the possession at each stage and made illegal demands in the Final Statement of Accounts (FSA) along with the so called offer of possession that was made in July 2019 as well as after the order of this Commission dated 02.05.2023. He asserted that the offer of possession made by the JDs with illegal FSA is illegal and does not constitute a valid possession. In any case the so called presumed OC was cancelled by the competent authority in the year 2022 itself. The possession is not being handed over by the JDs only due to personal issues between the parties rather than legal or procedural aspects. The learned counsel for the DHs, on instructions, states that the DHs are willing to pay their share of balance consideration as well as the increased farmers' compensation with respect to the land. He asserts that the JDs are liable to handover possession of the respective units to all the DHs along with delay compensation till date and that the DHs are willing to pay the balance consideration due as per the terms of agreement between the parties.

7. The principal defence of the learned counsel for JDs is that the order of this Commission under execution was passed on 02.05.2023. the operative portion of the order at Para-17 directed that "the Opposite Party Developer is directed to handover the possession of the units, complete in all respect and pay the delayed compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainants/ Allottees, from 01.01.2016 till the date, the offer of possession was made to the Complainants/ Allottees. It is his specific assertion that the offer of possession with OC was already made to all DHs in July 2019. Thereafter, in compliance of this Commission order dated 02.05.2023, the OP had offered offsetting of the compensation for delay from 01.01.2016 to 31.07.2019 and FSA in terms of the Agreements between the parties was notified to each of the DHs. The DHs, however, objected to the same did not pay the balance and failed to take possession of the units. He further argued that thereafter the statutory mandates with respect the obtaining the CC and OC stood significantly amended. Under the prevailing regulatory regime, they are unable to hand over possession in the absence of OC/CC. This inability to obtain OC/CC is attributable to pending disputes regarding GNIDA dues and farmer compensation. When the valid OC was available and the offer of possession was made, the DHs failed to take possession despite repeated efforts by JDs in July 2019 as well las immediately after this Commission order dated 02.05.2023. Now, the OC granted stood cancelled as the legal mandate for fresh CC/OC stood changed. Due to above multiple complexities, to obtain OC is now entirely beyond their scope. While the DHs are now seeking to take possession without OC and with delay compensation, the same is not tenable in law. He, on instructions, states that JDs are ready to refund the amounts deposited by the DHs along with interest as may be decided by this Commission, to bring an end to this protracted litigation.

8. We have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record, including the order of this commission dated 02.05.2023 and rendered thoughtful consideration to the detailed arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties.

9. The principal question arising for consideration in the present execution proceedings is whether the Judgment Debtor complied with the directions contained in the Judgment dated 02.05.2023? If not, whether the objections/justifications raised by the JDs constitute a valid defence?

10. At the outset, as regards the objection regarding maintainability of execution proceedings against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5, perusal of the Judgment dated 02.05.2023 shows that the operative directions were issued against the developer company (JD-1). Execution proceedings cannot ordinarily travel beyond the decree nor can the liability be imposed upon persons against whom no adjudication has been made in the original proceedings. It is a settled principle that an executing forum cannot go behind the decree. Consequently, pending the determination of failure on the part of JD-1 Company to comply with this Commission order dated 02.05.2023, the proceedings for enforcement of the decree or punitive action against JD Nos. 2 to 5 at this stage is premature.

11. The next issue concerns the contention of the JD that possession had been offered and that it was the DHs who failed to pay the balance outstanding and take possession. The Judgment dated 02.05.2023 directed the JD to hand over possession of the units complete in all respects and to pay delay compensation by way of simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the deposited amounts from 01.01.2016 till the date of offer of possession. The order further provided that the allottees would pay only the balance consideration, if any, at the time of possession.

12. The scope of execution is confined to enforcement of the decree as passed. The JD cannot, at the execution stage, seek to alter the manner of compliance by imposing conditions not contemplated by the decree. Equally, the DHs also cannot seek enlargement of the reliefs granted in the original complaint. Therefore, the obligation of the DHs is limited to payment of the balance sale consideration lawfully payable under the allotment documents after due adjustment of the compensation awarded under the Judgment. Therefore, it is the obligation of JDs to deliver possession complete in all respects in accordance with law and to pay the determined delay compensation to the DHs.

13. At this stage, it deserves to be noted that the present proceedings pertain to Execution of the order of this Commission in CC No. 75 of 2018 dated 02.05.2023. The operative portion of the same is as follows:

                          "17. In the result, the Complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party Developer is directed to handover the possession of the units, complete in all respect and pay the delayed compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainants/ Allottees, from 01.01.2016 till the date, the offer of possession was made to the Complainants/ Allottees. However, the Complainants/ Allottees shall pay the balance consideration, if any, at the time of possession. No Order as to costs.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brakewel Automotive Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. P.R. Selvam Alagappan, (2017) 5 SCC 371 has held as under:

                          "19. It is no longer res integra that an Executing Court can neither travel behind the decree nor sit in appeal over the same or pass any order jeopardizing the rights of the parties thereunder. It is only in the limited cases where the decree is by a court lacking inherent jurisdiction or is a nullity that the same is rendered non est and is thus inexecutable. An erroneous decree cannot be equaled with one which is a nullity. There are no intervening developments as well as to render the decree inexecutable."

15. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maurice W. Innis vs. Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 395 has held as under:

                          "28. In so far as the case relied upon by the defendant-respondent i.e. Jai Narain Ram Lundia (supra), it cuts no ice in her favour. The aforesaid decision simply states that if there are reciprocal obligations under the decree which are interlinked, the court must ensure compliance of reciprocal obligations. It further states that the Executing Court has power to determine that one party gives the very thing to the other party which the decree directs and in case any dispute in this regard arises it can be decided by the Executing Court, otherwise the Executing Court must execute the decree as it stands and cannot go beyond the decree and vary its term."

16. Careful reading of the order of this Commission dated 02.05.2023 states the OP/"Developer was directed to handover the possession of the units, complete in all respect and pay the delayed compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the amount deposited by the Complainants/Allottees, from 01.01.2016 till the date, the offer of possession was made to the Complainants/ Allottees. However, the Complainants/ Allottees shall pay the balance consideration, if any, at the time of possession. The order recognised that the offer of possession was made to the DHs. Further, it determined the liability of OP/JD to pay delay compensation from 01.01.2016 to the date of offer of possession. It is a matter of record that the OP had made the offer of possession along with OC and FSA in July 2019. The Complainants disputed the FSA, did not pay the balance due to the OP and take possession of the units. It is the contention of the DHs that the JDs failed to hand over the possession at each stage and made illegal demands in the FSAs along with so called offers of possession in July 2019 as well as in 2023 and the possession offers made with illegal FSA are illegal and do not constitute valid possessions. In any case the OC issued was cancelled by the competent authority in the year 2022 itself. He sought handing over possession of the respective units to all the DHs along with delay compensation till date and that the DHs are willing to pay the balance consideration due as per the terms of agreement between the parties. Whereas, it is the specific assertion of the learned counsel for JD that the offer of possession with OC was already made to all the DHs in July 2019 and the liability for delay compensation was only from 01.01.2016 to 31.07.2019 as determined by this Commission vide order dated 02.05.2023. Further, in compliance of the order dated 02.05.2023, the OP had offered offsetting of the compensation for delay from 01.01.2016 to 31.07.2019 and FSA in terms of the Agreements was notified to each of the Complainants. The DHs objected to the same did not pay the balance due and failed to take possession. Thereafter the statutory mandates with respect the obtaining the CC/OC stood significantly altered and the OC granted was cancelled. The JDs expressed inability to handover possession, in the absence of OC. This inability to obtain OC is claimed to be attributable to pending disputes regarding GNIDA dues and farmer compensation before the Allahabad High Court. To obtain OC is now entirely beyond the scope of the JDs, with due regard to the conditions involved.

17. In the given circumstances, while the Commission cannot go behind the decree, a situation has emerged wherein while the order of this Commission dated 02.05.2023 points that the offer of possession was made to the DHs and determined the liability of OP/JD to pay delay compensation from 01.01.2016 to the date of offer of possession, it is a matter of record that the OP had made the offer of possession along with OC and FSA in July 2019. The Complainants disputed the FSA, did not pay the balance due to the OP and take possession of the units. It has now emerged that the OC in question was subsequently cancelled for reasons of change in the law. Therefore, in the given circumstances, while the period for which the delay compensation stood determined as from 01.01.2016 to 31.07.2019 (from the date the offer was due to the date of offer of possession with OC), the possession was not taken due to dispute with respect to FSA and subsequently the OC itself was cancelled by the competent authority due to change in law. It is, therefore, clear that this Commission considered that the OC based on which the offer was made in July 2019 remained valid and thus determined the liabilities of the parties. However, while the OC had already lapsed as on 02.05.2023, neither of the parties notified this fact to this Commission. Further, even the RA No.204 of 2025 filed by the OPs/JDs was in EA 670 of 2923, seeking modification of the original order dated 02.05.2023. Clearly, in the Execution proceedings, no RA seeking modification of the original order itself is maintainable.

18. It is also a matter of record that while the DHs asserted that the OC was cancelled in the year 2022 itself, both the parties failed to bring this aspect to the notice of this Commission, which resulted in this commission remaining unaware of the changed situation, cancellation of the OC and the resultant inexpediency in offer of possession with a valid OC. While the DHs are now seeking to take possession along with delay compensation, even without OC, the same is not tenable in law since the liabilities of the parties will remain open ended and unresolved. The learned counsel, on instructions, stated that the JDs are willing to refund the amounts deposited to the DHs along with compensation in the form of interest from the respective dates of deposits, as may be determined by this Commission, to bring an end to this protracted litigation. On the other hand, the learned counsel for DHs, on instructions, stated that the DHs are not willing to take refund with compensation and they seek only possession of the unit with delay compensation and are willing to wait for issue of OC. It is undisputed that offer of possession in law cannot be made without a valid OC. Therefore, the DHs plea to take possession without OC is of limited consequence. It also deserves to be mentioned that the complainants failed to bring the above known developments with respect to the OC and the legal hurdles involved in compliance with the order of this Commission dated 02.05.2023 to the notice of this Commission and seek clarification or review till date.

19. In view of the foregoing, in the absence of scope to go beyond the decree in the Execution proceedings, the developments that ensued post the offer of possession with OC in July 2019, failure of both the parties to bring these developments to the notice of this Commission prior to order dated 02.05.2023 and further no Application seeking clarification was filed by the complainants, modification/review of the order dated 02.03.2023 till date, the EAs are disposed of with the following directions:

                          A. The OP Developer is directed to pay delay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 9% per annum on the respective amounts deposited by the Complainants/ DHs from 01.01.2016 till 31.07.2019. This payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of delay, the OP is liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum for the delayed period.

                          B. The OP shall notify the Final Statement of Accounts strictly as per the terms of Agreements and no additional charges such as retention, maintenance etc charges are leviable.

                          C. The OP shall not create any third party interest with respect to the Flats in question allotted to the DHs.

                          D. The OP is directed to obtain all necessary clearances and OC with respect to the units allotted to the DHs as per law within 180 days from the date of this order and notify the DHs the balance consideration due, as clarified above. The DHs shall pay this balance consideration within 30 days thereafter. And, on receipt of payment due, the JDs shall handover possession to DHs within further 30 days. The OP is also liable to ensure due maintenance of the flats in a manner that each flat is ready for occupation. E. Both the parties are also granted liberty to move appropriate Applications along with clear details, documents and justifications seeking clarification or review of the order of this Commission dated 02.05.2023 for consideration.

20. With the above directions EA No. 670 of 2023 along with EA Nos. 671-681 of 2023 and EA Nos. 683-701 of 2023 and RA No.204 of 2025 are disposed of.

21. The DHs are also granted liberty to seek revival of these Execution proceedings, if the situation so warrants, in accordance with law.

22. All pending interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of.